The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Senate take note of the statement.
The targeted nature of the Chinese Government measures on Australian goods raises concerns about China's adherence to the letter and spirit of its ChAFTA and WTO obligations.
After a reasonable start in bilateral engagement, in recent years the Chinese government's lack of engagement has prevented use of these structures.
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
… there is "little consensus" the cashless debit card is fulfilling its intended aims of reducing drug and alcohol abuse in—
"only a minority" of those interviewed in the … back the card … in its current form
… the CDC policy … had no substantive effect on the available measures for the targeted behaviours of gambling or intoxicant abuse.
… we are concerned at the continued pursuit of this policy against the advice of addiction specialists.
… … …
More than 50 years of psychological research shows that positive reinforcement strategies are more effective than punitive strategies in bringing about behavioural change.
We found no substantive impact on measures of gambling, drug and alcohol abuse, crime or emergency department presentations.
There is just not enough evidence … to justify the associated harm that it causes.
I have been a recipient of government assistance at different times in my life and I can understand the distress that so many forced on to this card would feel … The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays in to the very worst of human nature; we're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something 'other' or 'less than'.
Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help.
Attempting to address complex social issues with a blunt instrument like the Cashless Debit Card is simply misguided and fails to meaningfully target the causes of the issues being experienced in the regions the card has been introduced.
Instead of a policy like the Cashless Debit Card, the investment and focus for these regions should be on job creation and providing appropriate, culturally-accessible services that support people to maintain a basic standard of living and care for their families, address alcohol and other drug misuse and problem gambling when those problems are present, and maintain affordable and secure housing.
They're trying to stop people from drinking. When they made this stuff.
This person reflected with poignancy on the introduction of alcohol as part of the colonisation process. 'They made the alcohol. And it never stops. You can't stop people from drinking.' … 'We've lost our vision. A card cannot give vision to the community.'
I know from my ex-partner: he was went away for rehab. He was missing his family, got out, and went back on heavy drugs. If there was a rehab center here … he could have probably … put his mind to it.
We believe addressing complex health and social issues, such as alcohol, drug and gambling problems, through the welfare system is fundamentally flawed. Evidence indicates that the CDCT is ineffective, expensive, harmful, unsupported, discriminatory and paternalistic.
… the card offers very little, if no return on investment … the cost of implementing and administering the card isn't producing substantial community benefits …
… they would be visibly upset, recalling incidents where they've been called out for being on the cards and the way in which they hide the cards when they're making transactions in shops.
If we … are serious about evidence based policymaking, we must stop the ongoing operations of the cashless debit card … or … make them entirely voluntary.
I guess hopelessness is the best way to describe it.
… being forced onto the Cashless Debit Card will … further disempower me.
I resent the fact the Government believes that responsible people like myself are unable to manage our own finances. [This card] … takes away our rights, our independence and more.
Giving [people] more money would do absolutely nothing … probably all it would do is give drug dealers more money and give pubs more money.
Whenever you approach a human program by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help.
Over the last 5 yrs I have watched as people have become homeless, become hopeless, been medicated, tried to kill themselves, have opportunities ripped away for self employment as Indue refused to allow access to their cash to be able to buy stock etc.
I have seen people bullied, reduced to tears, I have seen Indue staff try to trick young people into giving out bank and credit card information for their parents without consent.
The women and their children are copping the brunt of the stigma, exclusion and financial destruction caused by being forced onto the card.
… makes life as a single mother more difficult than usual. You just lose any control in your life. You can't even properly manage your budget and go shopping with confidence.
I feel like in the Government's eyes I'm a lesser person. In the public's eyes it's much, much worse … What have I ever done for the government to treat me this way? To treat thousands of other people this way? We've been branded as drug addicts and alcoholics and gamblers and dole bludgers. Most of us are just doing the best we can to get by.
It is hard to put into words, I guess hopelessness is the best word to describe it … I was putting everything into them ending the trial in December. I’m really frightened for what it means for the future.
… a very large amount of evidence shows … 13 years of new income management in the Northern Territory … has had almost no positive impact—
… the evidence supporting the impact of both the cashless debit card and the BasicsCard is flimsy and largely anecdotal, not rigorous and reliable. The evidence does not stack up. It does not show that the cashless debit card has had a positive impact, and a very large amount of evidence shows that, after 13 years of new income management in the Northern Territory, it has had almost no positive impact.
… we are concerned at the continued pursuit of this policy against the advice of addiction specialists… More than 50 years of psychological research shows that positive reinforcement strategies are more effective than punitive strategies in bringing about behavioural change.
We have shown the CDC policy to have had no substantive effect on the available measures for the targeted behaviours of gambling or intoxicant abuse.
From the more quantitative, economic, whole of community perspective, it suggests the card offers very little, if no return on investment.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed … with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We are no longer trapped in the ignorance of our own assumptions and prejudice, premised on the underlying supremacism of the narrative that white people know best.
As the birthplace of writing, irrigation, astronomy, algebra and our major religions, the Middle East is the cradle of our civilisation.
The undeniable truth I learnt from my travels is that we're all the same. We all want a roof over our head, food in our stomach and a better life for our children. What binds us together is much more than what drives us apart. We must promote a unified Australia, rather than ideologies that seek to divide us.
For those who harbour internal guilt due to past injustices, or those who think they are doing good, let me say this: you are creating division and resentment … We want education, opportunity and employment, not songs.
Songs—
will not change a single thing. Will playing that song at a Doomadgee state school or in the Doomadgee area change the alcohol problem they struggle with? Will playing that song at Woodridge raise the employment opportunities? Will it help the Quandamooka people of Stradbroke Island have employment when the sand mining is brought to an end?
… … …
What hope is generated from this? … as an Aboriginal person, I want to see my culture and language preserved and represented, and not used as a political football.
More than 23,000 Aboriginal people have been subjected to income management or income quarantining since 2007—
The original objectives of income management were supposedly to improve the health, wellbeing and education outcomes of Aboriginal children and to protect women and older people from humbugging and violence. During the period 2007 to the present time—
there is an absolutely astonishing lack of credible evidence that income management has made any significant improvement to any of the key indicators of wellbeing: child health, birth weights, failure to thrive, and child protection notifications and substantiations. There are no improvements in school attendance, and certainly nothing we can see would suggest that there has been a reduction in family or community violence.
Our concerns with the proposal to transfer current recipients of the BasicsCard to a new cashless debit card is that what we're going to get is more of the same, and it fails to fundamentally address the significant structural flaws of the scheme—namely disempowerment, failure to address underlying structural issues, and the cost of implementation and ongoing management of the scheme.
… … …
This is a failed experiment and should, I believe, be abandoned. The numerous so-called trials are expensive. They're an ineffective phoney that have caused untold misery and hardship. It's an outrageous waste of millions of dollars of public money that could have been better used to provide targeted and tailored supports—for example, things like parenting programs, treatment and support services for people with addiction and gambling problems, improvements in health and environmental health programs, and more funding for health, education and employment. There are a multitude of real, evidence based initiatives that could have been supported to improve the lives of Aboriginal children and families.
I was only made aware 10 minutes before they walked into my office.
I refused to sit down with them during that conversation. After the fact of that conversation that was held—I think Mike was in the meeting alongside my chief operations officer—about three weeks later they requested rounds of consultation with town campers. They wanted to do a cluster approach of providing a level of community engagement and awareness that the cashless debit card is going to roll out and it's going to affect the affected people that are currently on any welfare or Centrelink income.
The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands … Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the center of the universe.
A person must not send another person … a credit card or a debit card.
I think it's now time we take the evidence on board and roll it out across the country.
The reason we haven't done it in the major cities is because we need to deal with the technology issue, which we are now close to resolving—
However, section 12DL does not prohibit the unsolicited issue of the debit card, or a deposit account to which the debit card is linked …
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to a question without notice asked by Senator McCarthy today relating to the cashless debit card.
… it's clear that directing someone's social security payment to the cashless debit card does not fall under the provision which Senator McCarthy referred to.
If the eligible recipient has not given a written request for the card to be sent to them, there may potentially be a contravention of section 12DL.
In 2016, an application was made to ASIC for a no-action letter in relation to the initial trial of the CDC program.
A no-action letter granted by ASIC is a statement by ASIC that it does not propose to take action in relation to the contravention or possible contravention identified in the letter in the circumstances set out in the letter. It does not affect the operation of the law itself, and does not affect the rights of other persons to take legal action in relation to a contravention of the law.
ASIC does not have the power to grant an exemption from s12DL of the ASIC Act.
The 2016 no-action letter granted by ASIC was specified to apply to the trial of the program. Accordingly, it does not cover the proposed ongoing and broader program to be enabled by the Bill.
I've spoken to women and family members in the Kimberley. They are pleased with the card. They can feed their families. Kids aren't going to school hungry and, according to those working in the refuge, serious assaults and domestic and family violence reports have declined. Kids who were caught trying to steal food have also declined …
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Sterle today relating to workplace relations.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to the Christchurch Mosque murders.
That today:
(a) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 not be proceeded with;
(b) after formal motions or at 4.30 pm, whichever is earlier, the message from the House of Representatives relating to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020 be reported and consideration of the bill have precedence over all other business for one hour, at which time the questions on all remaining stages be put;
(c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and
(d) after conclusion of consideration of the bill, the Senate return to the routine of business at the point of being interrupted, including any formal motions not reached.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [15:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [15:42]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2022:
The planning, construction and management of the Western Sydney Airport project, with particular reference to:
(a) probity planning and management, risk assessment frameworks and management;
(b) land acquisition and related leases, including transactions related to the Leppington Triangle;
(c) the role and performance of WSA Co Limited;
(d) site preparation, including the realignment of the Northern Road;
(e) environment and heritage management;
(f) community engagement;
(g) transport links and supporting infrastructure;
(h) training and employment; and
(i) any related matters.
That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 3 February 2021 be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Small to make his first speech without any question before the chair.
Fair Work Amendment (Ten Days Paid Domestic and Family Violence Leave) Bill 2020
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. Fair Work Amendment (Ten Days Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2020 .
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fair Work Amendment (Ten Days Paid Domestic and Family Violence Leave) Bill 2020 will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to improve the existing entitlement in the National Employment Standards from five days unpaid domestic and family violence leave to ten days paid domestic and family violence leave.
It's a needed much reform. Every week in Australia, one woman is killed by her current or former partner. One in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of fifteen. The majority of women who have experienced intimate partner violence are employed, with 1 in 10 taking time off work to due to violence from a current partner, and 1 in 5 from a former partner.
Businesses have reported on the impact of family and domestic violence on their employees. In 2016, the National Retail Association estimated that for the period 2014/15, almost 45,000 women working in the retail industry experienced some form of family or domestic violence, costing the industry approximately $62.5 million per annum in lost productivity, absenteeism, and staff turnover, with a direct cost to employers of $1,404 for each instance.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions estimated that it costs $18,000 and 141 hours to leave a violent relationship. Many working women resign or are terminated from their employment because they need to take the time to deal with issues that arise as a consequence of domestic abuse: finding housing, attending court and doctor's appointments, and ensuring their children have the support they need.
This situation puts women fleeing violence in a precarious position: many face the unacceptable choice between fleeing to safety or staying in a job. No woman should be forced to make this decision.
Given the prevalence of family and domestic violence in Australia – and its impact on employment and the economy – there is an urgent need to support working women to flee violence and keep themselves and their children safe.
On 13 September 2018, the Government introduced Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to include an entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards.
Five days unpaid leave is simply not adequate in supporting women to flee violence. For women employed full-time, leave entitlements are used quickly, and for the 2 million Australian workers who are employed casually, over half of whom are women, there are no paid leave entitlements to rely on at all.
This bill allows victim-survivors of family and domestic violence to access ten days of paid leave so that they do not have to stop working, thereby ensuring their economic independence and job security which will support them to leave violence.
The existing domestic and family violence leave entitlement will be improved by providing paid leave and doubling the period that can be taken in a 12-month period of employment. This will strengthen the existing entitlement and align the NES with the practices of many Australian employers, that already provide paid leave to employees who are experiencing domestic and family violence and need to respond within the ordinary hours of work.
Paid domestic violence leave has the support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Law Reform Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission and frontline family and domestic violence services.
Paid domestic violence leave will contribute to a cultural and attitudinal change to family and domestic violence that is urgently needed to eliminate it from our community.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 10 December 2020 is the last day of the United Nations' 16 Days of Activism, recognising violence against women as one of the world's most persistent violations of human rights,
(ii) the 2020 theme, 'Fund, Respond, Prevent, Collect', calls for funding for frontline family and domestic violence (FDV) services, investment in prevention programs, and data collection regarding the scale of the crisis, and
(iii) in Australia:
(A) 50 women have been killed by violence in 2020,
(B) no national government toll reports women killed by violence in real time,
(C) 1 in 3 women have experienced physical violence and, on average, one woman is murdered every week by her current or former partner,
(D) women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence and 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised from FDV,
(E) young women, women with disabilities, and First Nations women are more likely to experience violence, and
(F) demand for FDV services has risen significantly during COVID-19; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) recognise violence against women as a national security crisis, and
(ii) fully fund FDV and prevention services so all those seeking safety can get the help they need.
The Senate divided. [15:51]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the negative impact necessary COVID-19 restrictions have had on small businesses across the country,
(ii) that many small businesses in regional Australia had already been impacted by droughts, floods and bushfires, and
(iii) the impact border restrictions had on small businesses in border communities;
(b) commends:
(i) small business owners for establishing COVID-safe practices in their workplaces, and
(ii) Australians who have chosen to buy local products throughout the year; and
(c) calls on Australians who can to:
(i) buy local and if possible Australian made this Christmas, and
(ii) visit regional Australia, especially border communities and areas impacted by bushfires, droughts and floods this summer.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 , and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 will support Australian forest harvesters who operate under Regional Forest Agreements by clarifying the exemption of these agreements from Part 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ('the EPBC Act').
This Bill will affirm and clarify the Commonwealth's intent regarding Regional Forest Agreements to make it explicitly clear that forestry operations in a Regional Forest Agreement region are exempt from Part 3 of the EPBC Act, and compliance matters are to be dealt with through the state regulatory framework.
The amendment proposed by the Bill is a simple one that removes only eight words from the EPBC Act, and from a similar provision in the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 , and by doing so it removes much greater ambiguity.
I introduce this Bill to make changes to the EPBC Act following the recent finding of Justice Mortimer's Federal Court decision in Friends of Leadbeater ' s Possum Inc v VicForests (No 4) [2020] FCA 704 that logging operations in certain areas of forest in Victoria's Central Highlands failed to comply with the Victorian Code of Practice for Timber Production, a requirement under the Regional Forest Agreement, and therefore that the exemption under the EPBC Act no longer applies.
The decision of Justice Mortimer has created ambiguity with respect to the provision of the EPBC Act that this Bill seeks to amend. This must be addressed expeditiously or else we will see continued uncertainty for forestry operations and the thousands of people employed by the industry. We could also see some people use this finding to disrupt legal, sustainable forestry operations not only in Victoria but other states and therefore require forestry operations to seek EPBC Act approval. This would create further congestion in the application pipeline.
While rare, minor breaches of timber harvesting regulations occur on occasion, but it would be completely impractical to have those forestry operations cease to be covered by the exemption from Part 3 of the EPBC Act and require they seek approval under the EPBC Act – where approvals can take years – because of minor breaches. The Regional Forest Agreement framework never intended this to be the case.
I grew up in a logging town and I can tell you: the Australian forestry industry is a brilliant one. They produce the raw materials that are turned into the products we use in all aspects of our daily lives. Timber is a truly clean, green, sustainable and well-managed resource.
Around 70 million trees are planted every year by the forestry industry, which is the equivalent of two seedlings for every Australian. All of Australia's commercial forest operations covered by RFAs are certified compliant with world's best sustainable forest management practices, and for comparison, the global average is 8 per cent. Only 8 per cent.
The industry is one of Australia's largest manufacturing industries; it is economically strong, employing around 80,000 hardworking people across the value chain and contributing more than $24 billion of economic turnover to our economy each year. A further 100,000 people are employed in jobs supported through flow-on economic activity.
However, the industry is continually targeted by environmental demonstrators and Justice Mortimer's ruling will expose many more operations to be attacked by these radicals.
This is why this Bill is so important to protect our forestry operations. It will give job security to the almost 200,000 people who are employed directly and indirectly by the industry and it will ensure forestry operations conducted under Regional Forest Agreements are given the certainty they need: that they are exempt from Part 3 of the EPBC Act and compliance matters will be dealt with through the state regulatory frameworks.
As we focus on securing our nation's sovereignty in this post-COVID world, we as a government must do all that we can to support already strong industries, like forestry, to contribute to our nation's recovery from the pandemic. The economic success of this sustainable industry makes it an obvious industry to back, and that is what this Bill does.
Economic growth, increased jobs, and production of sustainable fibre products in regional Australia is a triple-whammy win for our nation's recovery. It is the number of jobs that will indicate how we succeed.
By supporting this Bill, we are saying to industry "We back you!". This Bill is for the harvest and haulage workers, sawmill and paper mill workers, and thousands of workers in regional towns anxious about whether they will have employment next year. That's not a way to spend Christmas, especially after the year we have had.
This Bill is also for the environmental dissidents who swing at this green industry any chance they can. It beggars belief how anyone can attack such a sustainable industry that contributes the benefits I outlined earlier in this speech.
This is brutal for those employed in the industry who are doing the right thing, day in day out, conserving our environment and harvesting raw material for our fibre products - using world's best, sustainable practices.
By not making this simple amendment to the EPBC Act, there will be unnecessary and avoidable delays in planned harvesting operations that are already subjected to significant environmental planning, and arduous approvals processes that will become further clogged should there be increased applications.
The Independent Review of the EPBC Act Interim Report by Professor Graeme Samuel recommended addressing this uncertainty. The report also made it clear that under a regional model of empowering the states, the oversight functions would be the responsibility of the states through accredited frameworks, stating "as occurs with Regional Forest Agreements".
Unless this uncertainty is removed as soon as possible, there will be more legal challenges, and more uncertainty.
My Bill to amend the EPBC Act does nothing more than seek to remove uncertainty from the intersection of the EPBC Act and the Regional Forest Agreements, and reinstate the original drafters' understanding of how that works.
It is our duty as federal lawmakers to help by removing the ambiguity. It is also our role to give people confidence, and this amendment will do that for the hundreds of thousands of Aussies who make their livelihoods in our amazing forestry industry.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Tasmanian smooth handfish (Sympterichthys unipennis) is the world's first marine bony fish to be declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature,
(ii) the remaining Tasmanian handfish are the most threatened marine fish in the world,
(iii) the 42 juvenile red handfish hatched and raised from eggs at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Seahorse World and released into the wild likely doubles the number of red handfish in remaining populations near Hobart,
(iv) the invasive long-spined sea urchin (Centrostephanus rogersii) is a key factor in the decline of handfish populations,
(v) the spread of the invasive long-spined sea urchin is threatening the biodiversity of Tasmanian reefs, and
(vi) urchin barrens are directly linked to warming waters along the east coast of Tasmania; and
(b) acknowledges and thanks:
(i) researchers at the IMAS,
(ii) researchers at the CSIRO, and
(iii) all scientists and researchers at the Handfish Conservation Project for their work on this critical conservation project.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Senator Watt's comments on 24 November 2020 that the Labor Party supports 'free' energy,
(ii) the importance of cheap electricity to a successful economy and society, and
(iii) that Queensland's Kogan Creek power station is owned by the people of Queensland; and
(b) calls on the Queensland Government to:
(i) add a new turbine to their coal powered station at Kogan Creek, and
(ii) use the revenue generated by this new investment to restore maternity services in the nearby town of Chinchilla and other regional maternity wards shut down by previous Labor state governments.
The Senate divided. [16:03]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, by no later than midday on 10 December 2020, the report by Kerry Blackburn, commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), in relation to the ABC's coverage of the 2019 election.
The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Senator McKenzie made a written submission to the Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants on 29 April 2020,
(ii) since that submission was received by the committee, further evidence and public statements have raised serious questions regarding matters central to the inquiry, including the involvement of the Prime Minister and his office,
(iii) Senator McKenzie has been invited to appear before the committee several times but has declined to do so, and
(iv) as the former Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie has evidence essential to the committee’s inquiry into the administration and award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program; and
(b) directs Senator McKenzie to appear in person before the committee, by no later than 12 February 2021, to answer questions.
The Senate divided. [16:21]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Government has failed to provide certainty to millions of Australians without work about the future rate of the JobSeeker Payment and Youth Allowance,
(ii) treating income support payments like a political football by making ad hoc and last minute announcements to changes in payment rates is unfair, impacting people's mental health and ability to plan for their futures, and
(iii) with the Government's reduction to the Coronavirus Supplement to $150 a fortnight between January and March, those on the Jobseeker Payment and Youth Allowance, including the children who are living with parents who receive the Coronavirus Supplement will be living below the poverty line during the holiday period; and
(b) calls on the Government to permanently increase the rate of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to ensure that people on these payments are not living in poverty.
The Senate divided. [16:27]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the Prime Minister told Parliament on 3 December 2020 that Australia would be participating at the Climate Ambition Summit on 12 December 2020 and that 'it will be a great opportunity to correct the mistruths...that are often presented',
(ii) that Climate Ambition Summit co-host and COP26 President Alok Sharma has stated that 'announcements must show genuine progress from existing policies and Paris targets' and that 'there will be no space for general statements', and
(iii) media reports that Australia does not have a confirmed speaking role at the summit; and
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to make clear whether Australia is speaking at the Climate Ambition Summit and table any correspondence with the summit organisers relating to whether Australia is speaking at the summit.
The Senate divided. [16:36]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Government is committed to ensuring that the industrial relations framework continues to adapt and change to meet the needs of businesses and workers alike.
This year—more than ever—has highlighted the need for flexibility for workers and employers—and the organisations that represent them.
This Bill will give greater flexibility to constituent parts, such as branches and divisions, of amalgamated registered organisations, by providing them with an opportunity to withdraw from an amalgamation if that will better serve them and their members.
This Bill will amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act) to address a current restriction in the Act—which only provides a constituent part of an amalgamated organisation with a three year window to withdraw from the amalgamated organisation—more than two years, but no later than five years, after amalgamation.
That outer time limit of five years restricts the ability of registered organisations to adapt to, and align their governance structure with, the changing needs of members.
There are various circumstances that might give rise to a constituent part of an amalgamated organisation forming the view that the amalgamation is no longer serving the best interests of its members.
For example, where one part of the organisation has a record of not complying with the law and this causes reputational damage for the amalgamated organisation, another part may seek to dissociate itself from those activities.
In other circumstances, parts of an amalgamated organisation may have outgrown the need for amalgamation, having developed sufficiently to operate independently, efficiently and effectively. In these cases, withdrawal from amalgamation may be highly desirable.
Under the current law, beyond the five year time limit for withdrawal, an organisation must take the extreme step of seeking deregistration of the entire amalgamated organisation, which may not even be achievable. This process would be costly and time consuming, and could leave members without representation while the organisation is deregistered and new organisations registered.
Even where deregistration is possible, the new organisation must seek registration in its own right and is not able to transfer members or assets from the previous amalgamated organisation, adding to the cost and delay.
The Bill remedies the shortcomings of the existing framework by improving the existing process under the Act to allow constituent parts of amalgamated organisations to apply to withdraw from amalgamation beyond the five year time limit. The amendments will allow the constituent part—which could be a branch, division or part—to apply to the Fair Work Commission to hold a ballot of its members on whether to withdraw from the amalgamation in certain specified circumstances.
The Commission must have regard to specified factors before approving an application for a ballot of members to vote on withdrawal from amalgamation outside the existing three year period. These are:
Where the Commission determines that the organisation has a record of non-compliance with workplace or safety laws but the constituent part has not contributed to that record, the Commission must accept the application.
A clear short-coming of the current law means that even if the performance or actions of one part of an amalgamated organisation fall beneath proper, lawful standards, and even if other members of the organisation who do the right thing do not believe it is in their best interests to remain part of the organisation, they are not able to leave, even where the majority of its members wish to.
Within the union movement, there are clear examples where the poor conduct of one part of a union is impeding the ability of other law-abiding divisions of the union to work effectively in the interests of their members. Now constituent parts who have been amalgamated beyond the current 5 year limit will have the freedom to break away and better serve the interests of their members.
The Bill also provides that, where a part successfully withdraws from the amalgamation, the membership of that part will become members of the newly registered organisation. This ensures the new registered organisation can maintain its membership and assets and its members can continue to be represented by their newly registered organisation. The Bill also sets out a process for how the rules of the amalgamated organisation and newly registered organisation are to be accommodated under the new arrangement.
The Bill makes no changes to the requirements for the members of registered organisations and their constituent parts to vote and agree to amalgamation or withdrawal from amalgamation.
To ensure that the legislation is working effectively, the Bill requires a review of the operation of the amendments within two years of their commencement.
These are sensible changes that support registered organisations to function effectively and in the best interests of their members.
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020 was introduced, debated and passed through the House of Representatives on the same day, Wednesday 9 December;
(b) further notes there is no urgent reason for the Bill to be rushed through Parliament;
(c) recognises the Bill may have implications for all unions and Australian workers and should not be rushed through without proper scrutiny; and
(d) refers the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020 to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 February 2021".
The Senate divided. [17:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [17:08]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [17:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [17:20]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [17:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [17:32]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [17:36]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That today:
(a) the hours of meeting be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) if, by 7.20 pm, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 has not been finally considered, the routine of business from that time be consideration of the bill only;
(c) if, by midnight, consideration of the bill has not been completed, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(e) divisions may take place after 7.20 pm for the purposes of the bill only; and
(f) the Senate adjourn without debate after the consideration of the bill, or when the adjournment is proposed by a minister, whichever is earlier.
The Senate divided. [17:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate take note of the report.
PKKP do not accept Rio Tinto's position that, before May 2020, it was unaware of the ethnographic and archaeological significance of the Juukan Gorge. Neither does PKKP accept that if Rio Tinto had known the 'new information' contained in … [the] further report dated 18 May 2020 it would not have proceeded with the blast.
The loss of Juukan Gorge rock shelters is also a loss to all First Nations people and the community within Australia and internationally …
It's been a source of some puzzlement to me – and I still don't understand it …
If these forms could be filled out in a central office, by people with little field knowledge, why maintain social science specialists in the communities?
We have an obligation to look after country in accordance with traditional law and customs. It is our obligation to the old people, who also looked after it. It was on loan to us to pass on to our future generations, our Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura children, and the future generations yet to come. The disaster has now left a gaping hole in our ability to pass on our heritage to our children and grandchildren.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Climate change is a reality that now affects every region of the world … Storms are rising and tides could submerge entire island nations and coastal cities. Fires rage through our forests, and the ice is melting. We are burning up our future—literally.
My fear is that her skull has been squashed, smashed by the driftwood.
Our way of living, our culture, our tradition has been violated.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report:
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020 [Provisions]
DECEMBER 2020
Introduction
On 12 June 2020, the Selection of Bills Committee referred the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020 to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (the committee). The reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration were:
On 17 June 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment was invited to make a submission to the inquiry. A departmental submission was lodged on 30 June 2020. Key points made by the Department included:
On 30 July 2020, the committee released its final report. The committee noted the need for the dairy cattle export charge, as the previous voluntary levy scheme faced problems with under‑collection, leaving the dairy cattle export industry without sufficient funds for research and development and marketing activities. The committee noted the wide consultation undertaken by the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council (ALEC) on the imposition of the charge and the industry support for the charge.
The committee noted that ALEC needs to ensure that the major dairy farming industry bodies, including the Victorian body, have an ongoing say in how the levy funds are spent. The department notes that primary industries drive all aspects of their levy. As such, a request for a levy (or a proposal for levy changes), must be supported by industry bodies representing, wherever possible, all existing and/or potential levy payers, the relevant levy beneficiaries and other interested parties.
The department acknowledges the levy review timeframe of seven years proposed by ALEC in its levy submission (2) , and the committee's comment that the department consider the merits of this proposal. As agricultural levies and their review are industry driven, the department will work with ALEC at the time industry considers a review of the dairy cattle export charge is warranted. The publicationLevy Guidelines: how to establish or amend agricultural levies (3), provides guidance to industries on how to review a levy and key points to consider when thinking about a levy review. The department has drawn this publication to ALEC's attention.
The Australian Government thanks the committee for the time and effort put into considering the impact of the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020 .
Response
Response
The Government notes the committee's recommendation.
The bill was passed by both houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent on 17 September 2020.
Additional comments from the Greens
1.1 The Greens have significant and ongoing concerns about the cruelty inherent to the live export trade, including the well-documented impacts of heat stress on sheep and cattle during voyages from Australia, and experiences in destination countries. Australians have been shocked by revelations of thousands of animals dying from heat stress and overcrowding on ships and overwhelmingly want this cruelty to end. Animals continue to die on live export ships. The live export industry should be shut down.
1.2 For any charge on the export of dairy cattle, all funds raised, including co‑contributions from the government should be allocated directly to animal health and welfare initiatives, and not for marketing and profitability. All animal health and welfare initiatives, including research, should be undertaken transparently, with regular public reporting and appropriate oversight.
Recommendation 1
1.3 Recommendation: That all funds raised by the dairy cattle export charge, including co contributions from the government, be allocated directly to animal health and welfare initiatives, to be undertaken transparently, with regular public reporting and appropriate oversight.
Response
The Australian Government notes the preference of the Greens for the entirety of the export charge to be directed to animal health and welfare initiatives. The export charge is a request by industry, supported by industry, to fund the program of works under the Dairy Cattle Export program for its benefit. At industry's request, the Dairy Cattle Export Program focusses on a number of key priorities including animal health and welfare, supply chain efficiency, regulatory performance, and market access for the dairy cattle export sector.
(1) Selection of Bills Committee, Report No. 5 of 2020, Appendix 2. (12 June 2020)
(2) Dairy Cattle Export Charge Industry Proposal, May 2018
(3) Levy guidelines: how to establish or amend agricultural levies; Department of Agriculture 2020. agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/levies/publications
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Bilyk to replace Senator Gallacher for the committee's inquiry into the impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment
Participating member: Senator Gallacher
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Sheldon to replace Senator Green for the committee's inquiry into Australia's general aviation industry
Participating member: Senator Green
Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020
Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020
Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020
Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
This Bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to enable a new procedure to classify recipients of residential aged care and some kinds of flexible care from 1 March 2021.
The Bill introduces the option to independently assess the relative care needs of individuals in residential aged care by empowering the Secretary of the Department of Health to assess care recipients using a new assessment tool and assign new classification levels. The Bill also includes consequential amendments to other parts of the Act to enable exercise of the new powers, including that any assessors acting as delegates of the Secretary must hold professional qualifications and complete role-specific training detailed in a legislative instrument under the Act.
A sustainable aged care system needs a reformed funding model. There is broad support – including through the Royal Commission – for a modern case-mix based funding model for residential aged care to replace the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument.
Currently clinical workers in residential aged care are required to spend their time using the Aged Care Funding Instrument to assess residents, reducing their availability to deliver care.
Reports produced by both independent researchers and the statutory Aged Care Financing Authority have found the Aged Care Funding Instrument provides strong incentives for providers to deliver outdated methods of care – whether or not care recipients may benefit – to produce higher subsidy payments.
The Aged Care Funding Instrument has been found to no longer be fit for purpose and its use has been found to lead to perverse actions by aged care providers, causing perverse outcomes for aged care recipients.
Since the 2016 Budget, the Government has committed to developing and testing a lasting alternative to the Aged Care Funding Instrument.
Between 2017 and 2019 the Government funded the University of Wollongong to perform a research project, the Resource Utilisation and Classification Study . With the involvement of almost 200 residential aged care services, the study empirically measured drivers of the costs of delivering care, and recommended a new resident classification model called the Australian National Aged Care Classification.
Under this new model, it is proposed that assessors acting as delegates of the Secretary perform resident assessments using a new assessment tool, leading to the Secretary assigning new, simpler classification levels that consistently group care recipients with like care needs and like care costs.
All assessors acting as delegates of the Secretary must meet strict professional qualification and additional training criteria, to be detailed in subordinate legislation.
This Bill builds on the successful Australian National Aged Care Classification trial – conducted in 2019 and early 2020 – and will allow a new classification using the Australian National Aged Care Classification tool to be determined for the entire residential aged care population without affecting how subsidy for providers is calculated. This is an essential step in preparing to respond to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in a timely manner.
Classification data obtained from these assessments will ensure that individuals, care workers, providers and the government all have the information they need to fully understand the new funding model.
During the information-gathering period the Bill allows, providers will continue to use the existing Aged Care Funding Instrument to assess their residents in parallel with the new procedure established by the Bill.
This Bill enables the next phase of residential aged care funding reform. A phase of preparation that will enable the Government, in the context of a response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, to quickly and seamlessly transition funding from the outdated ACFI. It sets the stage for a more contemporary, efficient, effective and stable funding approach, one that will promote investment in residential aged care refurbishment and expansion, and that will support providers to better deliver the individualised care that each resident needs.
This bill implements the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency framework in almost 30 years and is part of the government's economic recovery plan to keep businesses in business and Australians in jobs.
The changes will help more Australian small businesses to restructure and increase their chance to survive the economic impact of the coronavirus.
These reforms form part of the government's JobMaker plan to ensure Australia emerges from the pandemic with a stronger, more resilient and more competitive economy. As the economy continues to recover, it will be critical that distressed businesses have the necessary flexibility to either restructure or to wind down their operations in an orderly manner.
The package of reforms features three key elements.
Firstly, a new formal debt restructuring process for small businesses to provide a faster and less complex mechanism for financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debts, increasing the chance of them surviving and contributing to economic and jobs growth. Unlike the current voluntary administration regime the new process adopts a 'debtor in possession' model where the small business owner will remain in control of their business, while a debt restructuring plan is developed and voted on by creditors. The plan will be developed by the business owner in conjunction with an independent small business restructuring practitioner.
Safeguards are included to prevent the process from being used to facilitate corporate misconduct such as illegal phoenix activity. They include a bar on the same company or directors using the process more than once within a prescribed period and the provision of a broad power for the insolvency practitioner to stop the process. Additional mechanisms are also included as part of the restructuring process to ensure that creditor interests are represented and protected.
The second part of the package is a new, simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses to allow faster and lower-cost liquidation, increasing returns for creditors and employees. Unfortunately, due to the impact of the coronavirus not every business will survive. Often in liquidation the costs of the liquidation can consume all or almost all of the remaining value of a company, leaving little return for creditors. The simplified liquidation process will retain the general framework of the existing liquidation process, with modifications to reduce time and cost.
Thirdly, the bill introduces complementary measures to ensure the insolvency sector can respond effectively both in the short and long term to increased demand and to the needs of small business.
The new insolvency processes will come into effect from 1 January 2021. This coincides with the ending of the government's temporary measures to support businesses to get through the coronavirus outbreak. The temporary measures had a positive impact on allowing businesses to survive, with around a 50 per cent decrease in the number of companies that have gone into external administration over the period from April to August 2020 (inclusive) compared to the same period the previous year.
For businesses wanting to access the new restructuring process, a temporary mechanism will be put in place allowing a company to announce its intention to access the restructuring process. Upon this announcement the company will have access to the existing temporary insolvency relief for up to three months while it arranges to access the new process.
Together, these measures will reform our insolvency system to reduce access costs for small business, reduce the time they spend during insolvency processes, ensure greater economic dynamism, and ultimately help more small businesses to survive.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and has approved it, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Every Australian has been affected by COVID-19 – some tragically more so than others. The OECD tells us that we are in the midst of the biggest global downturn since the Great Depression. We have weathered the storm better than most countries, and that has not been an accident. Economically, we have shown great resilience, aided by our quick introduction of programs like JobKeeper and our record levels of economic support. During this period, our export sector has been a source of strength, consistent with our long history of being an open, trading nation.
Exports makes an important contribution to the Australian economy. Thirty years ago, Australian exporters represented 12 per cent of Australia's GDP. By 2018-19, that share had nearly doubled to over 22 per cent, contributing $419 billion of Australia's $1.9 trillion economy. The Liberal National Government has implemented an ambitious trade agenda, resulting in more than 53,000 (including 46,000 SMEs) goods exporting businesses in 2017-18, up 18.5 per cent since 2013-14 and more jobs, with one in five Australians employed in trade-related employment. Australian household incomes are estimated to be an average of around $8,500 higher as a result of opening up new markets through trade.
However, the number of Australian businesses that export – either goods or services – is relatively small. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, around 2 per cent of the 2.2 million businesses in Australia are goods exporters. Australian Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) only comprise 14 per cent of exporters in contrast to the G7 average of 25 per cent. However, exporters contribute more than non-exporters to jobs and productivity, on average employing more staff, paying higher wages and achieving higher labour productivity compared to non-exporters. This is because Australian exporters compete with companies around the world and are driven to be innovative, use the most modern technology and management practices.
Cutting red tape and growing jobs through increasing exports is more important now than ever. The Morrison Government wants to assist SME exporters to recover from the effects of COVID-19 – and grow the number of SME exporters – by providing better targeted, direct financial assistance in a more simplified and streamlined way. This will help grow and diversify Australia's export markets, while also improving Government service delivery and reducing regulatory imposts on businesses. We want to ensure taxpayer funding is used in the most effective and efficient way possible with the greatest impact.
The Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme is the key Government financial assistance program to help aspiring and current exporters increase their marketing and promotional activities in international markets. Since it started in 1975, the EMDG scheme has supported over 50,000 SME exporters to enter and grow export markets for their goods, services, intellectual property and know-how. Last year alone, over 4,000 SMEs accessed the scheme, employing almost 69,000 Australians and generating exports worth $3.7 billion.
On 10 September 2020, the Government released the independent Review of Financial Assistance to SME exporters . The Review was undertaken by Anna Fisher, a wine exporter and past EMDG recipient. Ms Fisher was asked to examine the most effective and efficient way to deliver financial assistance to Australian SME exporters to encourage additional export development and promotion activities. Specifically, the Review considered whether EMDG in its current form was the most effective and efficient way to generate additional export activity among the SME cohort. The Review undertook broad consultations to seek the views of exporters – aspiring, new and established – individuals, industry associations, EMDG consultants, and other interested parties.
The Review found that the financial assistance provided by the EMDG scheme is valued by SME exporters. The scheme helps offset the high cost of export promotion, accelerates internationalisation and encourages exporters to diversify. However, the Review also found that EMDG's administration needed to be streamlined, simplified and better targeted.
The Review made ten recommendations, all accepted in-principle by the Government, including:
o SMEs that are export-ready and will be doing business overseas for the first time; and
o Exporters who are either expanding in their current markets or entering new markets.
This Bill, the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, implements the Review's recommendations.
The Review noted simplification could be achieved by amending the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 to provide a legislative framework that incorporates the key EMDG principles, with operational detail provided under the Rules – a disallowable instrument – and with administrative details in the guidelines.
The Review found the principles of the EMDG scheme remained relevant and valued by exporters. Those core EMDG principles are retained in this Bill which:
The Review found the current EMDG scheme, which reimburses exporters, provides no certainty about the level of Government support prior to exporters' expenditure on promotional activities. Currently, some exporters wait up to two years to receive reimbursements, with the level of funding unknown until after completion of their promotional activities. This is unacceptable.
This Bill will create upfront certainty for exporters about the level of Government support. The Bill changes EMDG from a reimbursement scheme to one which will see eligible SMEs entering upfront grant agreements that provide them with funding certainty over multiple years.
The Review also recommended that EMDG recipients be export-ready to ensure the greatest impact and obtain the most value from the Government's support. The Bill removes the export performance test and the requirement that recipients have a prospect of success. This is replaced with the requirement that recipients be either ready to export or have already exported their products. It is not the business of the Australian government to be picking winners.
The Review found the Government should continue to fund export-focused industry bodies or alliances formed on behalf of members, and that support should be expanded to include facilitating education and training of members to help them become export-ready. The Bill expands eligible activities to include training, to implement this recommendation.
The Review also found the EMDG scheme administration was too complex. We need to cut red tape and make it easier for SME exporters to apply. Accordingly, this Bill modernizes and streamlines the administration of EMDG. Currently, the bulk of EMDG's administrative requirements are contained within the Act. While the Bill contains EMDG's core principles, it removes the detailed requirements on administrative matters, such as how to apply for grants and what information will need to be provided to support the application. These matters will be managed through administrative guidelines. The Bill also removes the separate approval process for industry bodies and requirements about when expenses are incurred. Like any grant program, funding will now be agreed for activities prior to expenditure.
Like the previous Act, the Bill also contains rule-making powers for the Minister, to establish the operational details for the program through the Rules, a disallowable instrument. The Rules will set the under $20 million turnover threshold for eligible SMEs and the tiers of EMDG support – for SMEs new-to-export and expanding exporters, as recommended by the Review. While the Bill establishes EMDG as being for Australian exporters and for products that are substantially Australian, it is the Rules that will elaborate on matters like the definition of eligible products and eligible expenses, and deal with technical details such as the effect of foreign investment in an SME, and disqualifying convictions for eligible persons.
The world moves at a faster pace than when the EMDG scheme started in 1975, and the new legislative structure will also allow the Government to respond more quickly to rapidly changing markets and business practices, and to unforeseen disruptions like COVID-19.
In streamlining EMDG administration, the Bill focuses on the relationship, created through a grant agreement, between the Commonwealth and the EMDG recipient. The Bill therefore removes the ability to compel third parties to provide information in support of the applicant. It also removes provisions related to other third parties, such as associates and consultants.
Mirroring Commonwealth grant agreements, the Bill allows adjustments to be made to grant agreements should the amount appropriated for the EMDG program be reduced.
Reforming EMDG will result in systems and administrative changes. To meet the cost of these reforms, the Bill temporarily lifts the cap on EMDG administration expenses from 5 percent to 7.5 percent for financial year 2020-21 and to 7 percent for financial year 2021-22, before returning to its previous cap of 5 percent for administration costs.
In implementing the Review's recommendations, the Government is confident this Bill will create a framework for a reoriented EMDG program that is simplified and streamlined to deliver financial assistance to SME exporters in the most effective and efficient way, and in a way which will have the greatest impact. These reforms will both assist current SME exporters to recover from the effects of COVID-19 and grow the number of SME exporters, contributing to Australia's economic recovery and future economic growth and prosperity.
The Bill makes minor but necessary changes to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to make clearer current arrangements for recovery of Medicare payments owed to the Commonwealth.
The Bill corrects a possible misunderstanding about the operation of the Act. Medicare benefits are recoverable if incorrect information provided in connection with a claim leads to an overpayment, even if the information was not intentionally incorrect.
The Bill will also provide Government the flexibility to adapt to changes in the way Medicare claims might be made in the future. It is worth recalling that the provisions for recovery of amounts overpaid were first enacted more than three decades ago, that is—in digital technology timeframes, at least—eons ago.
Technological advances in Medicare claiming may be easily accommodated because of the stipulation that it is the giving of information, regardless of its form, rather than the making of a statement that will be the basis for a claim for Medicare payment.
Critically, these amendments will help protect the integrity and financial viability of the Medicare program that each year provides for hundreds of millions of services through billions of dollars in benefits. In 2018–19, for example, there were 424 million Medicare services with benefits totalling 24 billion dollars.
The vast majority of practitioners do the right thing—only a small proportion of Medicare services are claimed incorrectly, but given the quantum of money involved, they comprise significant recoverable amounts nonetheless. These amendments will ensure that the Commonwealth may continue to recover overpayments and continue to protect Australia's universal health care system.
The Medicare program gives Australians access to world-class and affordable health care by providing benefits or rebates for around 6,000 services, each with its own item number, listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The Schedule's services are specified in regulations, which require that practitioners fulfil the criteria described in items before Medicare benefits are payable.
Subsection 129AC(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 enables the Commonwealth to recover amounts overpaid for incorrectly claimed Medicare benefits or payments where a false or misleading statement has led to a payment that should not have been made.
The amendments to subsection 129AC(1) will clarify for practitioners its intended operation. That is, that the Commonwealth can seek to recover Medicare benefits and payments because of false or misleading information provided in relation to a claim, whether or not the information was intentionally incorrect.
Under the amendments, it is immaterial whether the false or misleading information is given:
This will ensure recoveries are possible where claims have been made through digital claiming channels. Currently, no amounts can be recovered from a person under subsection 129AC(1) unless the Commonwealth has given the person a clear, written explanation of its decision to recover the amount. This Bill retains these protections, ensuring that anyone who may be found to have received recoverable amounts has the opportunity to understand the reason for the decision and to submit evidence, and the right to a formal review under legislation.
These changes do not impose additional requirements upon practitioners. Practitioners are currently responsible for ensuring that all claims they make are accurate and correct. This will not alter, and, critically, no patients will be affected by these amendments. The Bill retains the provision that overpayments are recovered from the person who was responsible for the false or misleading information, even if the Medicare benefit was paid to the patient, or another third party.
The amendments will apply retrospectively, to ensure that any incorrect claims or payments made prior to the passage of this Bill may be recovered.
The amendments do not change the lawful basis for which Medicare benefits or payments are payable, and as such do not affect a person's existing rights.
The Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 will amend the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, to provide greater access to free English language tuition for migrants to Australia.
Without English, it is harder to get a job, harder to integrate into a person's local community, and harder to participate in Australia's democracy.
Only 13 per cent of those with no English skills are in work compared to 62 per cent of those who speak English well.
Migrants with no English skills are also more vulnerable to fall victim to foreign interference and misinformation, and will likely find it harder to seek help if they are a victim of family violence or exploitation.
English language is also vital to our social cohesion – if we can't communicate at school, or work, or in social settings, how can we fully connect as a nation?
Census data shows that the number of people in Australia who do not speak English well or at all has risen.
In 2006, about 560,000 residents did not speak English well or at all. By 2016, at the last Census, it was 820,000.
Following that trend, there is now likely now close to a million people living in Australia who do not speak English well or at all – about half of those are working age.
It is in their interest and in the interest of all Australians that we reverse this trend. We must do better.
This bill is designed to support migrants to increase their English language proficiency. It contains four key measures, which I will discuss in greater detail.
The first measure is to remove the current 510 hour limit on free English tuition that a migrant is entitled to under the Adult Migrant English Program (the AMEP).
Learning a new language is complex and takes time. The number of hours of tuition required by each individual varies based on many factors, including age, prior education and the linguistic distance of their first language from English. Research shows that 510 hours is not a realistic timeframe for most migrants to reach even a functional level of English. This amendment will ensure that migrants participating in the AMEP have the opportunity to continue to undertake free English tuition until they reach a vocational level of proficiency in English.
The second measure is to extend the upper limit for eligibility to access the AMEP from functional English to vocational English.
The AMEP currently provides free English tuition for migrants up to the level of functional English. This is lower than the level of English required by most employers, and for entry to most TAFE courses. By raising the upper limit to vocational English, the Government will be ensuring that migrants have the opportunity to study English for longer and reach a higher level of proficiency. This will enhance migrants' prospects for further education and future employment, as well as support their full participation in the Australian community.
The third measure is to remove the time limits on enrolment, commencement and completion of English tuition for certain visa holders.
This amendment will remove disincentives to participation in English language studies, by allowing certain visa holders with low levels of English proficiency who are in, or have already entered Australia, the opportunity to re-engage in language learning. This recognises that migrants often have a number of competing settlement priorities when they first arrive in Australia, including work, accommodation and family commitments. This amendment will provide a strong message regarding the importance of learning the national language, and the level of support that the Government is committed to provide to do this.
Finally, the fourth measure is to provide the discretion for English courses to be delivered to people who are outside Australia and who have applied for or been granted a permanent visa, or a specified temporary visa.
Currently, this discretion only applies to people outside Australia who have applied for a permanent visa. It does not include people who have been granted a permanent visa, or persons who have applied for or been granted a temporary visa.
This amendment will ensure that tuition options can be developed in the future for the delivery of English courses to people who are overseas, including after their visas have been granted, in preparation for their migration to Australia.
In conclusion, this bill makes a number of important amendments that will better support migrants in their efforts to learn English, and contribute to enhanced social cohesion within the Australian community.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2020 MEASURES NO. 5) BILL 2020
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill builds on the Government's broader support to Australian businesses and taxpayers and also implements an important diplomatic commitment to New Zealand.
Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a new legislative instrument making power into the income tax laws to make eligible State and Territory Coronavirus business grants free from income tax. As announced by the Prime Minister on 18 September 2020, this tax treatment will be extended to the Victorian Government's Coronavirus business grants announced on 13 September 2020.
Other States and Territories will be able to apply for the same tax treatment where they have grant programs focussed on supporting small and medium businesses facing similarly exceptional circumstances.
Schedule 2 to the Bill will improve the operation of the Trans‑Tasman Retirement Savings Portability arrangement established between Australia and New Zealand by allowing the ATO to transfer the unclaimed super of New Zealand residents directly to KiwiSaver funds.
This is a significant improvement to how the scheme operates for New Zealanders that have superannuation in Australia. Prior to this amendment, New Zealanders with unclaimed super were unable to receive their superannuation directly from the ATO. Instead, they were required to open an Australian superannuation account before requesting their super be transferred to their KiwiSaver account in New Zealand. Now, New Zealanders will be able to apply directly to the ATO and have their fund transferred to their retirement savings account without further administrative burden.
This change also removes a source of unnecessary cost from the Australian superannuation system by taking the burden off Australian superfunds to play the intermediary role in transferring these funds to New Zealand.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Neighbourhood Watch Australasia Limited on the list of deductible gift recipients. Deductible Gift Recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to this organisation
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2020 MEASURES NO. 6) BILL 2020
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill makes a number of technical amendments to clarify the operation of a number of laws and provide greater flexibility for Australians accessing the existing full expensing, backing business investment and consumer data right regimes. It also removes support for charitable institutions who fail to take reasonable steps to participate in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse.
Schedule 1 to the Bill introduces an alternative test for accessing the temporary full expensing measure. This alternative test will allow eligible businesses who have less than $5 billion in statutory and ordinary income (excluding non‑assessable non-exempt income) in the 2018-19 or 2019-20 income year to access temporary full expensing. This alternative test targets Australian businesses that have a track record of investing in Australia but could not qualify under the existing test as their turnover was aggregated with an overseas parent or affiliate.
To ensure that the integrity rules associated with this extension operate as intended, Schedule 1 includes a number of clarifications to the tax law. For firms that qualify for full expensing under the alternative test, certain classes of assets are excluded, and this exclusion will apply to assets made available to a related party or a foreign entity.
These amendments provide businesses with more flexibility by allowing businesses to opt out of full expensing and the backing business investment incentive on an asset-by-asset basis.
Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 to better enable the Consumer Data Right to grow in a way that is coordinated, accessible and secure.
These amendments will consolidate key Consumer Data Right policy functions to improve coordination of the ongoing expansion and operation of the regime. They will also clarify the ways in which digital businesses accredited to use the Consumer Data Right are able to employ agents to assist in providing services to their consumers.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Act 2012 to encourage charities that may have been responsible for past institutional child sexual abuse to participate in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse.
This measure will amend the definition of basic religious charity (BRC) to remove a religious institution's eligibility to be classified as a BRC if it has a claim against it under the Redress Scheme, and does not join the Redress Scheme.
A BRC that fails to take reasonable steps to participate in the Redress Scheme would be subject to existing compliance powers, including deregistration. Deregistration would result in the entity losing access to a suite of Commonwealth benefits and concessions, including tax concessions.
This amendment is consistent with the public's expectation that generous support from the Commonwealth by way of charitable tax concessions should not be provided to institutions who fail to fulfil their moral obligation to survivors of child sexual abuse.
Schedule 4 to the Bill makes a number of amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation to:
These amendments further the Government's commitment to the care and maintenance of Treasury laws and will make it easier for Australians to comply with current laws.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
Today I introduce into the Parliament, legislation which further improves and strengthens the governance of Australia's territories.
The Territories Legislation Amendment Bill will amend a range of Commonwealth legislation to improve the legal frameworks applying in the territories of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Jervis Bay Territory.
This is another key step in the Australian Government's ongoing work to foster strong and sustainable communities in our territories, with rights and responsibilities comparable to other Australian communities.
These territories are an important part of our nation, home to some of Australia's most diverse communities and featuring spectacular natural environments.
Their governance arrangements are also unique, with the Australian Government responsible for state and Commonwealth-level functions provided for under an umbrella of Commonwealth law.
Strengthened applied laws arrangements
To enable the delivery of state-type functions, Commonwealth legislation allows for the laws of other Australian jurisdictions to be applied in these territories.
For instance, in Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands the laws of Western Australia have been applied. This supports the delivery of services such as health and education in these territories by the Government of Western Australia.
The Bill will amend Commonwealth legislation to ensure these applied laws operate effectively, and support service delivery in these territories.
This includes arrangements for delegating certain powers under applied laws to government officials working in the territories.
On Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, local governments provide a range of services to their communities under applied laws.
Currently, local government officials' powers must be delegated to them by the responsible minister.
These delegations need to be regularly updated to make sure they are current. If laws change, there is a risk officials will not have the powers they need to do their jobs.
The amendments in the Bill will address this by automatically delegating relevant powers under applied laws to local government officials. This common-sense approach will allow officials to do their work, without having to worry about whether or not their delegation is current.
The Bill will make other amendments to account for the operation of applied laws in these territories. Where Commonwealth officials in the territories make decisions under applied laws, these will now be open to judicial review in the federal courts.
This improves the rights of people living in the territories and will ensure decisions being made by Commonwealth officials are fair and correct.
Personal information collected from people living in the territories under applied laws will now be clearly protected by the Australian Privacy Principles.
Other changes will ensure personal information collected by local governments and other local public bodies is managed in a way that is consistent with the Privacy Act.
These amendments will improve the efficiency of the applied laws frameworks and increase the rights and protections available to those living in Australia's territories.
Norfolk Island
For Norfolk Island, the Bill will also make further significant improvements to its legal framework.
In March 2015, the Australian Government announced comprehensive changes in Norfolk Island.
This was to address issues of sustainability which arose from the former governance arrangements which required the Norfolk Island government to deliver all local, state and Commonwealth government services.
As a result, the standard of services and infrastructure on Norfolk Island was well below the standard other Australians would typically expect. The roads and ports were deteriorating, the health and aged-care facility was outdated and accessing social security and other support services was difficult.
In 2016, most Commonwealth legislation was extended to Norfolk Island. This gave people living on the Island access to the age pension, Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits and the same social security payments as everybody else in Australia.
Residents of Norfolk Island were also brought under the Australian taxation system, replacing a range of inefficient taxes and charges being levied by the former Norfolk Island government.
Given the significant impact and scope of these changes, some requirements are being phased-in gradually to allow the community time to adjust. A good example of this is the superannuation guarantee paid by employers which is being phased in over a 12‑year period, starting at 1% and increasing by 1% each year.
The extension of some legislation was also deferred as part of a staged transition. The introduction of more laws with this Bill will further support Norfolk Island's growth and development.
The Bill will allow the Australian Government to enter into an agreement with any state or territory government for the delivery of state-type services. This amendment provides flexibility, in case it is needed in the future.
To support economic growth, the Bill will transition companies currently registered under local Norfolk Island law to the Commonwealth corporations framework.
This will reduce red‑tape for Norfolk Island businesses and make it easier for them to access mainland suppliers, financial and other support.
In addition, the Bill will extend the Commonwealth bankruptcy system to Norfolk Island, improving provisions for people experiencing bankruptcy and increasing protections for creditors.
In Australia, bankruptcy normally lasts for 3 years. For people declared bankrupt on Norfolk Island, if certain conditions cannot be met, they could remain bankrupt indefinitely.
The Bill will make sure people declared bankrupt on Norfolk Island are treated the same as if they were living elsewhere in Australia.
As we all deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing people and businesses on Norfolk Island in under the Commonwealth umbrella means they will have access to the wide range of support and stimulus packages the Government is providing.
Another important change will be to broadcasting. The Bill will bring Norfolk Island radio and television stations under Commonwealth broadcasting law. This will allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to issue broadcasting licences and plan for more broadcasting services in the future.
Through this, Norfolk Island's local media will be better connected to Australia's network of community broadcasters and receive better support for their services.
These changes are a continuation of the good work already undertaken to improve the standard of services being delivered in Norfolk Island, and will help support its future growth.
In the last few years the Government has improved access to childcare and other family and social support services. The Island's health, education, transport and other community infrastructure has also been upgraded to make it safer and more accessible.
An example of this is the improvements to Cascade Pier completed in 2018 which now provides safer and more reliable access to Norfolk Island for cargo transfers and cruise ship passengers, both of vital importance to Norfolk Island's economy.
The Bill, if passed, represents the Government's ongoing commitment to improving services and supporting economic development and sustainability, not only in Norfolk Island, but in all of Australia's territories.
The Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill will extend the application of the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 to Norfolk Island.
The Bill is consequential to amendments in the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill which extends the Commonwealth bankruptcy system to Norfolk Island.
The Bill will ensure that any insolvencies on Norfolk Island are treated consistently and attract the same estate charges as all other insolvencies administered under the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act.
Together, the bills will improve provisions for people experiencing bankruptcy and increase protections for creditors. This will ensure people declared bankrupt on Norfolk Island are treated the same as they would be in the rest of Australia.
Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020
Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
On 4 February 2019, the Government released its response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
The Royal Commission made 76 recommendations, 54 of which were directed to the Government. The Government also made 18 additional commitments in its response to the Royal Commission.
The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 continues to fulfil the Government's commitment to implement the recommendations, with this Bill implementing 21 of the commitments made by the Government.
Schedule 1 to the Bill provides that certain provisions of financial services industry codes be made 'enforceable code provisions' where provisions within industry codes relate to specific commitments made by a code subscriber to the consumer. Provisions within industry codes that are broader in their nature and seek to make general, in-principle, commitments regarding industry practices will not form enforceable code provisions. The schedule also provides for the establishment of mandatory financial services industry codes.
Schedule 2 to the Bill will improve the protections for consumers with life insurance contracts by preventing insurers from inappropriately cancelling life insurance contracts on the basis of non-disclosure or misrepresentation unless the insurer can show it would not have entered into the contract.
This schedule also replaces the existing duty of disclosure with a duty for consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to an insurer. The new duty appropriately aligns with a layperson's knowledge of insurance. It removes the need for consumers to guess what the insurer may require to be disclosed.
Schedule 3 to the Bill implements the Government's commitment to an industry-wide deferred sales model for add-on insurance products. The Royal Commission highlighted that some of these products often represent poor value for consumers and are sold using pressure-selling tactics. The schedule ensures consumers are given four days to consider their purchase of insurance policies with these characteristics.
Recognising that immediate access to add-on insurance products may be required in some limited instances, this Bill provides for regulations to exempt products from the deferred sales model. One such exemption will be provided to add-on travel insurance products. A commencement date of the later of 5 October 2021 or the day after Royal Assent has been provided to facilitate this process and to allow affected stakeholders to make the necessary system changes.
Schedule 4 to the Bill provides ASIC with the power to impose a cap on the commissions that can be paid for add-on insurance products sold by vehicle dealers to prevent inappropriate sales of add-on insurance.
Schedule 5 to the Bill prohibits the hawking of superannuation and insurance products. Consistent with the Final Report of the Royal Commission that 'no financial product should be hawked to retail clients', the new hawking rules apply to all financial products, including managed investment schemes and securities. A number of exceptions will be allowed where the risk to consumers is low.
Schedule 6 to the Bill will protect consumers by preventing organisations from calling themselves an "insurer" unless they are a regulated insurer, and preventing anyone from selling a product as "insurance" unless it is an insurance product.
Schedule 7 to the Bill will enhance consumer protections by making insurance claims handling a financial service. This will apply Australian Financial Services licensing requirements, such as general conduct obligations, to entities that handle and settle insurance claims, enabling ASIC to take regulatory action to prevent and address poor conduct and consumer outcomes.
Schedule 8 to the Bill will prohibit superannuation trustees from having a duty to act in the interests of another except those arising from its role as trustee. This will address the Royal Commission's concern that such duties could conflict with its duty to act in the best interests of their superannuation fund members.
Schedule 9 to the Bill amends the roles and responsibilities of the superannuation regulators, including by expanding ASIC's role as a consumer protection regulator. This schedule will also expand the Australian Financial Services Licensing regime to cover all activities undertaken by superannuation trustees. This will ensure ASIC has access to its full suite of enforcement tools, and strengthen ASIC's ability to take enforcement action and ensure fair remediation of members.
Importantly, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) will remain the regulator responsible for prudential regulation and member outcomes in superannuation, including licensing and supervision of trustees.
Schedules 10 and 11 to the Bill strengthen the existing breach reporting regime for Australian Financial Services Licensees, and establish an equivalent breach reporting regime for Australian Credit Licensees. Strengthened breach reporting requirements will ensure more misconduct is reported, reports are provided in a timely manner, and strengthen ASIC's ability to take any necessary enforcement action.
The schedules also amend the law to require both Australian Financial Services and Credit Licensees to investigate misconduct by financial advisers and mortgage brokers, and remediate clients who have suffered loss or damage as a result of that misconduct. This ensures that consumers are being promptly and effectively remediated where necessary.
Further, the schedules amend the law to establish a protocol for reference-checking and information sharing about financial advisers and mortgage brokers to ensure they past misconduct is not hidden from their new employer.
Schedule 12 to the Bill puts in place a statutory obligation for ASIC and APRA to cooperate with each other, share information on request, and notify the other whenever either forms the belief that a breach in respect of which the other has enforcement responsibility has occurred. These changes will improve collaboration between ASIC and APRA and ensure enforcement and supervisory decisions are based on all available information. This schedule also further formalises ASIC's meeting procedures and aligns them with those in the APRA Act to reinforce the centrality of decision-making in ASIC, and improve governance.
Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to a number of the amendments and has provided approval as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002 .
Implementation of these reforms, as recommended by the Royal Commission, is a critical component of restoring trust and confidence in Australia's financial system.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
This Bill forms part of the implementation of the Government's commitment to an industry-wide deferred sales model for all add-on insurance products. Under this legislation, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will have the ability to charge a fee for applications made to exempt the four day consumer consideration period, for the purchase of insurance sold in addition to a related product.
Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002 .
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020
Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021
That the Industry Research and Development (Forestry Recovery Development Fund Program) Instrument 2020, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2020L01081].
… to develop new wood products, or secure your capacity to deliver existing products, that you intend to sell solely or mainly into interstate and/or international markets …
An initial letter in January suggested that logging should be modified "in response to the changed conditions for vulnerable and threatened species across the state". A follow-up in February said the scale of the damage meant it was justified to stop commercial logging until there was more information that reduced scientific uncertainty about the risk of permanent damage.
… … …
But the—
conservation regulator report released under FOI laws said the fires had created uncertainty over whether the existing code requirements and management were enough to maintain biological diversity within the state’s forests.
… can have pronounced effects on the condition of aquatic ecosystems … and promote short-term fire risks.
Intelligence and Security Legislation Amendment (Implementing Independent Intelligence Review) Bill 2020
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
The ALPA Board of Directors is disappointed that the Government is moving forward and expanding this oppressive policy when there is no evidence demonstrating that it creates positive change for the people who will be subjected to it. This erosion of people's choice and control over their own lives destroys any sense of self-determination, it is an attack on their basic rights …
Imagine going out for a coffee with friends and having to use the card. Imagine buying the local paper … and having to use the card. Imagine not having cash for something you really love on the local buy/sell/exchange. Imagine trying to sell some items to get cash to survive. Imagine every time you pull the card out that you are labelled as a loser. Imagine pulling out a card that doesn’t always work! Even if you have a dollar balance on the card, it refuses you at the checkout, with people waiting behind you in the queue at the local supermarket. Imagine going to the chemist and the card will not work for your prescriptions. All of this has happened to me, and others, many times.
… there are more positive results associated with people who volunteer, as they have made a choice to change their behaviour and receive assistance, positive findings have been found for people who have been referred for Income Management by a social worker or a child protection officer.
Income management cannot provide a transition to employment in locations where few employment opportunities exist and those that exist are largely undertaken by outsiders. Instead, for many Aboriginal residents of the NT, particularly those living remotely, compulsory income management is long term and, regardless of a person's lifestyle and financial management capacity, it is almost impossible to exit the program.
90.2 per cent of those on income management in the Northern Territory were Indigenous and 76.8 per cent of those were on compulsory income management. More than 60% of this group were on income management for more than 6 years. Of those Indigenous people on compulsory income management, a mere 4.9% gained an exemption compared to 36.3% of non-indigenous people.
We talk in this chamber about the sexual abuse of children. That comes from people who are inebriated—it may be alcohol; it may be drugs.
The cashless debit card program is a punitive measure enacted on the presumption all welfare recipients within the trial areas are incapable of managing their finances and require the government's assistance.
It's somewhat ironic to me that you can essentially have an income management assessment trial for half a decade that can't show conclusive results and yet there are a number of evidence based programs that cost far less and that have demonstrably worked …
… had no substantive effect on the available measures for the targeted behaviours of gambling or intoxicant abuse. There is evidence for an increase in total store spending.
… increased spending on healthy foods, but there is an overall shift toward a higher proportion of spending on less healthy foods.
The essential quality of leadership is about faith and belief, and the vision of something better. This is the glue which holds all great nations, communities and families together. We believe our people have the potential to achieve a better quality of life than they currently have, but someone needs to believe in them. This is something university studies do not or cannot measure, but without it nothing can be achieved. This is what drives the Aboriginal people of Kununurra and Wyndham who support the CDC. We have never said the CDC is a silver bullet and that it will solve all our problems. No single strategy can do that, but it is the start we need for our people to create a better life.
Our critics keep saying that the CDC is a failure and we should go back to a system which has been an absolute failure for our people over 50 years. The payment of cash welfare benefits has not produced any tangible benefits for our people and the Closing the Gap statistics produced each year by government prove this. The success of the CDC has varied between locations. Towns such as Wyndham and Ceduna have achieved better results than towns which are more of a community hub, such as Kununurra. The influx of people from outlying communities around Kununurra and over the border who are not on the CDC distorts the outcomes in Kununurra. The problem is also compounded by the fact that each cashless debit card region has a limit on the number of participants (by legislation) who can be put on the CDC, and once this number has been reached new participants receiving benefits in the region are not put on the CDC but receive their benefits in cash.
The major positive results from the CDC in places like Kununurra is the reduction of gambling and the harassment of the elderly and vulnerable people for their money on payday. If you are a vulnerable person this outcome alone is huge. It has also helped people budget their money for the whole fortnight rather than running short of funds towards the end of the pay period to purchase food. Another advantage of the CDC is that a record of expenditure is maintained of the expenses incurred on the card. This is particularly important to monitor the spending patterns of the elderly and vulnerable people using services such as taxis. Not all taxis and other services are exploiting vulnerable people, but in the cash payment environment it is impossible to monitor if such people are being exploited, which we believe they were.
Although the achievements are modest, they are better than what we have experienced from cash welfare benefits, and we believe it is easier to build a strategy for change using the CDC as a base than cash welfare. We do not believe the CDC does any harm as participants receive the same amount of money as those on cash welfare benefits, but it has the potential to be improved over time, and that is what we need to do to build a better future for our people.
The vote for the CDC is a simple choice between trying something different which we believe can, over time, achieve change, or staying with a system which has created dependency for many Aboriginal families over generations.
I feel like in the Government's eyes I'm a lesser person … If my partner was to quarantine some of my money and tell me where and when I can't spend it, tell me it's for my own good … people would be screaming financial abuse. Why is it OK for the Government to do it?
… imposing the Cashless Debit Card on approximately 25,000 Aboriginal Territorians will fundamentally impinge on the equal enjoyment of human rights and freedoms.
Rather than building capacity and independence, the program has had the opposite effect, by further entrenching an individual's dependence on welfare.
We found no substantive impact on measures of gambling, drug and alcohol abuse, crime or emergency department presentations.
…if there are plans to expand this scheme, we should be sure it's meeting its objectives, and the data indicates it just isn't doing that.
We have shown the CDC policy to have had no substantive effect on the available measures for the targeted behaviours of gambling or intoxicant abuse.
The reason we haven't done it in the major cities is because we need to deal with the technology issue, which we are now close to resolving.
Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help. The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays in to the very worst of human nature; we're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something 'other' or 'less than'.
That's not the Australia I want to live in.
Frankly, I'm scared about what's going to happen to me … People like me deserve to be treated with some respect for our contribution to our country and to be able to keep some dignity … and not to be reduced to the poverty line and be forgotten about. We paid our taxes and we deserve better.
… there is an absolutely astonishing lack of credible evidence that income management has made any significant improvement to any of the key indicators of wellbeing: child health, birth weights, failure to thrive, and child protection notifications and substantiations. There are no improvements in school attendance, and … nothing we can see would suggest that there has been a reduction in family or community violence.
… to rob a person of their right to take responsibility for themselves; to strip them of responsibility and capability to direct their own futures; to make them dependent … is to deny them of their liberty—and slowly that person will wither before your eyes.
We, the undersigned, support the passage of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 to pass. In principle, we support the continuation of the CDC as an ongoing income management program, to make the existing CDC trial sites permanent, and to transition income management in the Northern Territory and the Cape York region from the BasicsCard to the CDC.
We agree to continue working together to support the Commonwealth Government in delivering the objectives of the CDC, and identified that the ongoing implementation of the CDC should be underpinned by:
• Economically thriving, healthy and strong communities;
• A collective and culturally respectful voice on the positive impact the CDC does and can have;
• Enhanced technology to ensure CDC participants have access to a world-class cashless banking and payment experience;
• Improved delivery of wrap-around services to support CDC participants;
• Improved financial literacy for CDC participants and the broader community.
Since the introduction of the CDC, we have observed positive changes in our communities. Fewer vulnerable people have been harassed, or ‘humbugged’, to hand over cash to others. More children are attending school, families have money to spend on groceries, and alcohol-fueled violence has decreased. Our communities are safer, people are saying they have the money they need to provide for the basics of life such as buying clothes and food, and paying rent and bills.
We agree there are differences of opinion and the CDC is not perfect, but we are collectively committed to working with Government to support the changes the CDC can bring about. We recognise and accept the CDC model must continue to evolve in response to community needs, such as reflecting the importance of local authority by involving community Elders in the decision-making processes, and there is much work to be done to achieve the changes we so strongly want for our communities.
In order to create stronger, safer and healthier communities now and for generations to come we call upon our parliamentary representatives to pass the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020.
The Senate divided. [21:57]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) this bill will entrench the racist, discriminatory, paternalistic, ineffective, top-down, blanket approach of compulsory income management via the Cashless Debit Card,
(ii) the Government did not consult with First Nations peoples in the Northern Territory about the introduction of the Cashless Debit Card or the continuation of compulsory income management, and
(iii) the Government failed to consult with people currently on the Cashless Debit Card about making it permanent; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) abandon all forms of compulsory income management currently operating in Australia,
(ii) carry out extensive consultation around Australia for any move to make income management voluntary and ensure that any new program is co-designed, and
(iii) immediately release the second impact evaluation being undertaken by the University of Adelaide".
The Senate divided. [22:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to provide a commitment that no recipient of the Age Pension or a Veteran or Service Pension will be placed on the Cashless Debit Card, with the exception of those who volunteer or are referred by the Family Responsibility Commission, child protection workers, social workers or the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal in the Northern Territory".
The Senate divided. [22:04]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [22:08]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
(1) Schedule 1, items 3 and 4, page 3 (lines 8 to 19), TO BE OPPOSED.
The committee divided. [00:05]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(2) Schedule 1, page 11 (before line 3), before item 50, insert:
49A Section 123TC (paragraph (b) of the definition of excluded Part 3B payment nominee)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) a Part 3B payment nominee who:
(i) is not subject to the income management regime; and
(ii) is not a program participant under Part 3D.
(3) Schedule 1, item 74, page 17 (lines 13 to 15), omit paragraph 124PGE(1)(f), substitute:
(f) the person has made a request under subsection (4A) to become a program participant under this section; and
(fa) the Secretary has given the person a notice under subsection (5) stating that the person is a program participant under this section and the notice is in force; and
(fb) one of the following applies:
(i) the person was subject to the income management regime under section 123UCB or 123UCC on the day before the notice given by the Secretary under subsection (5) of this section came into force;
(ii) the person has previously been a program participant under subsection (2) of this section and a notice of a kind referred to in paragraph (2)(d) of this section is not in force in relation to the person;
(iii) the person has previously been a program participant under subsection (3) of this section but is no longer such a participant; and
(4) Schedule 1, item 74, page 18 (lines 6 to 8), omit paragraph 124PGE(2)(h), substitute:
(h) the person has made a request under subsection (4A) to become a program participant under this section; and
(ha) the Secretary has given the person a notice under subsection (5) stating that the person is a program participant under this section and the notice is in force; and
(hb) the person was subject to the income management regime under section 123UC or 123UFAA on the day before the notice given by the Secretary under subsection (5) of this section came into force; and
(5) Schedule 1, item 74, page 18 (lines 25 to 27), omit paragraph 124PGE(3)(g), substitute:
(g) the person has made a request under subsection (4A) to become a program participant under this section; and
(ga) the Secretary has given the person a notice under subsection (5) stating that the person is a program participant under this section and the notice is in force; and
(gb) the person was subject to the income management regime under section 123UCA on the day before the notice given by the Secretary under subsection (5) of this section came into force; and
(6) Schedule 1, item 74, page 18 (after line 36), after subsection 124PGE(4), insert:
Person's request
(4A) A person may make a request to the Secretary to become a program participant under this section.
(4B) A request under subsection (4A) cannot be withdrawn or revoked.
(7) Schedule 1, item 74, page 19 (line 3), omit "subsection (1), (2) or (3)", substitute "this section".
(8) Schedule 1, item 74, page 19 (after line 10), at the end of section 124PGE, add:
Continuity of requests and notices
(8) If:
(a) a person makes a request under subsection (4A); or
(b) the Secretary gives a person a notice under subsection (5) and has not revoked the notice;
the continuity of the request or notice is not affected by the person ceasing to be a program participant under subsection (1), (2) or (3) for a period.
(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:
16 Section 124PF
Repeal the section, substitute:
124PF Sunset provision
(1) This Part ceases to have effect at the end of 31 December 2022.
(2) Despite subsection (1), at any time before 1 July 2023, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to that cessation.
(3) The rules must not provide for the crediting of amounts to welfare restricted bank accounts after 31 December 2022.
(4) For a person who was a program participant under section 124PGE immediately before that cessation, the rules may make provision for and in relation to that person becoming subject to the income management regime under Part 3B on and after 1 January 2023.
(5) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:
(a) create an offence or civil penalty;
(b) provide powers of:
(i) arrest or detention; or
(ii) entry, search or seizure;
(c) impose a tax;
(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;
(e) directly amend the text of this Act.
(2) Schedule 1, item 52, page 12 (line 25), at the end of subsection 123UP(4), add "and before 1 January 2023".
The committee divided. [00:09]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 26), after item 79, insert:
79A Subsection 124PHB(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
Form of application
(2) The application must:
(a) be made in writing using a form approved by the Secretary; and
(b) be accompanied by the documents and other information required by the form.
79B After subsection 124PHB(3)
Insert:
(3A) If:
(a) the person has a disability or the person provides care to one or more other persons (other than as a parent); and
(b) the Secretary is satisfied that, because of that disability or the provision of that care, the person is unable to demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person's affairs (including financial affairs), taking into account all of the matters referred to in paragraph (3)(a); and
(c) the Secretary is satisfied that the person has reasonable and responsible management of the person's affairs (including financial affairs), taking into account all of those matters;
then paragraph (3)(a) is taken to have been met in relation to the person.
79C After subsection 124PHB(4)
Insert:
(4A) If the Secretary has not made a decision on a person's application at the end of the period of 60 days beginning on the day after subsection (2) is satisfied in relation to the application, then the Secretary is taken to have made a determination under subsection (3) that the person is not a program participant.
79D Subsection 124PHB(8)
After "subsection (3)", insert "(including because of the operation of subsection (4A))".
(2) Schedule 1, item 87, page 22 (line 11), omit "notifiable instrument", substitute "legislative instrument".
(3) Schedule 1, item 87, page 22 (line 20), omit "notifiable instrument", substitute "legislative instrument".
(4) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 13), after item 92, insert:
92A Paragraph 124PJ(4)(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's welfare restricted bank account, or is unable to access that account, as a direct result of:
(i) a technological fault or malfunction with that card or account; or
(ii) a power or communications outage; or
(iii) a natural disaster; or
(iv) if a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 ) is in force—an emergency to which the declaration relates; or
(5) Schedule 1, page 23 (before line 14), before item 93, insert:
92B At the end of Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 3D
Add:
124PMA Transfer of funds from welfare restricted bank account
(1) For a person who is a program participant or voluntary participant, the Secretary may make a determination that the person is permitted to transfer a specified amount from the person's welfare restricted bank account to another bank account.
(2) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (1) only if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's welfare restricted bank account as a direct result of a matter covered by paragraph 124PJ(4)(a).
(3) A determination under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
(6) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 31), after item 98, insert:
98A Application provision—exiting cashless welfare arrangements
The repeal and substitution of subsection 124PHB(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Part, and subsections 124PHB(3A) and (4A) of that Act as inserted by this Part, apply in relation to applications made on or after the commencement of this item.
The committee divided. [00:14]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 4, page 3 (lines 4 to 19), TO BE OPPOSED.
(3) Schedule 1, items 6 to 15, page 3 (line 22) to page 5 (line 15), TO BE OPPOSED.
(6) Schedule 1, items 17 to 49, page 5 (line 18) to page 10 (line 28), TO BE OPPOSED.
(7) Schedule 1, Parts 2 and 3, page 11 (line 1) to page 35 (line 10), TO BE OPPOSED.
The committee divided. [00:19]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [00:23]
(The President—Senator Ryan)