I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I move:
That the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019
Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019; and
(b) the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 be called on before government business order of the day no. 1 (Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and related bill).
I table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement s read as follows—
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2019 AUTUMN SITTINGS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Bill is to make the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and each State anti-corruption body an "interception agency" for the purposes of the industry assistance measures under the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 (the Assistance and Access Act). The purpose of the Bill is also to require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the Assistance and Access Act before the end of the 18 month period beginning on the day on which that Act received Royal Assent (being 8 December 2018).
Reasons for Urgency
Passage of the Bill is required in the 2019 Autumn sittings to expedite the INSLM's oversight and scrutiny of the operation of the measures introduced by the Assistance and Access Act. This will support timely monitoring by the INSLM to ensure the Assistance and Access Act is operating as intended. Further, timely passage is required in order to extend to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and State anti-corruption bodies the industry assistance measures enacted as part of the Assistance and Act. This will enable the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and State anti-corruption bodies to identify and investigate serious crime, and serious misconduct and corruption across the public sector.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Home Affairs)
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2019 AUTUMN SITTINGS
WINE AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT (TRADE WITH UNITED KINGDOM) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill will amend the Wine Australia Act 2013 to enable continued facilitation of trade in wine between Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) if the UK begins transitional arrangements to withdraw from the European Union (EU) on 29 March 2019. Trade in wine between Australia and the UK is currently facilitated by the Agreement between Australia and the European Community on Trade in Wine (EC-AU Wine Agreement). The EC-AU Wine Agreement:
This agreement will no longer apply to the UK following the withdrawal from the EU. In the event of a transition period, provided for under the draft UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement, the UK would remain bound by obligations 'stemming from' EU-third country agreements from 29 March 2019 until the end of 2020. To ensure the UK continues to be recognised as a member of the EU for the purposes of the EC-AU Wine Agreement, during any transition period, amendment to the Wine Australia Act 2013 is required.
Amendment to the definition of an EC country under the Wine Australia Act 2013 is required to clarify that the UK is taken to be an EU country for the purposes of the agreement during the transition period. The amendment will enable the EC-AU Wine Agreement to continue to facilitate wine trade between Australia and the UK.
Reasons for Urgency
Passage is required in Autumn 2019 to ensure the legislative amendments commence before 29 March 2019 to enable the continued trade in wine with the UK on 29 March 2019 and beyond. Failing to enact the legislative amendments in time could have a significant impact on Australia's wine trade with the UK. Without the amendments, Australia's wine-making practices may no longer be recognised by the UK, limiting access to the UK market or requiring winemakers to re-label their products. Australia's GIs would also no longer be protected in the UK.
The UK is a key export market for Australian winemakers as it is the sixth largest wine market in the world and the second largest wine importer. The UK is Australia's top wine export market by volume and third largest market by value. In the 12 months to
September 2018, Australia exported 238.6 million litres of wine to the UK, with a value of $380 million. The UK also represents a significant market for Australian bulk wine. Approximately 80 per cent of wine shipped to the UK is unpacked (bulk), which is bottled in market and distributed across the EU. The value of bulk wine exports to the UK grew by 20 per cent to $200 million in the 12 months to September 2018.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.
by leave—Mr President, I woke up this morning to read about a very unedifying incident involving a senator and a staffer that occurred last night outside the Great Hall. I wonder what the role of the presiding officers is in investigating this, because it is of deep concern if alleged assaults can take place in this building without deep investigation? I wonder what your role is in this?
I have been in discussions with the Speaker this morning and those discussions continue. We will be looking into this matter as a matter of urgency. Just off the top of my head from what I've read in the media, there are issues that range from the use of media and recording, to claims of assault, to potential privilege issues about senators being able to go about their business in the building. At this stage, unless there is something in my office, I have received no formal information on it, but I will be chasing this up through the course of the morning and I plan on speaking to senators involved. If anyone would like to bring anything to my attention, I would encourage them to do so. We both regard this as a grave matter, for the reasons you outlined.
Mr President, will you be reporting back to the Senate, or will you be reporting privately?
My initial instinct would be that if it was the case that I do not have the ability to say anything today, because there are potential legal issues that I don't want to prejudice, I will likely say something at estimates hearings on Monday, when I appear. I am conscious that I will restrain statements if there are potential legal issues involved, because I would not want to prejudice those. But I am not aware of the specific facts at the moment, other than media reports.
I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the inquiry into 'The practice of dowry and the incidence of dowry abuse in Australia', together with the Hansard record of proceedings and the documents presented to the committee. By leave, I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks at item 15 this afternoon.
Leave granted.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019. This bill makes further amendments to the telecommunications access regime that passed this parliament on the final sitting day of last year. In recent years, the agencies charged with maintaining Australia's national security have publicly and privately expressed concerns about encryption technologies, and these are not abstract concerns. The agencies contend that their investigations of individuals and entities suspected of being involved in a range of serious offences have been frustrated by these technologies. As people under investigation or surveillance migrate towards the use of encrypted apps, their communications go dark and the process of obtaining a lawful warrant to gain access to those communications is frustrating. The telecommunications access regime passed by this parliament in December last year was put in place in response to clear advice from our national security agencies that widespread use of encryption in digital telecommunications was hindering intelligence and law enforcement, to the detriment of Australia's national security. Labor accepts that advice.
Indeed, Labor approached this bill as we have approached all other national security bills. Whether in government or in opposition, Labor has consistently worked to ensure that our security agencies have the powers and resources they need to keep our community safe and that our laws are adapted to meet the changing security threats we face. In pursuing that objective, our approach has been consistent. We take the advice of national security agencies seriously. We understand the context of our decisions, most specifically that in acting to protect our nation, founded on the rule of law and respecting individual liberties, we need to respond to those core values and that, to the extent that individual rights are burdened by national security measures, such burden must represent the least intrusive manner to achieve the security objective and be proportionate to the actual threat. We scrutinise evidence carefully and we never, never, politicise national security.
Labor is committed to working through the evidence of agencies, stakeholders and experts in a deliberative manner. Our bipartisan approach means exactly this. We expect the PJCIS to robustly interrogate the issues that are placed before it without seeking to obtain narrow electoral advantage, and we seek to embed in our national security architecture robust oversight. Strong and effective oversight does not undermine our national security; it enhances it. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies are best ensured through strong and rigorous oversight and scrutiny. As with all bills, this is the approach we took to the TOLA bill last year.
It is worth briefly recapping the process that led to the bill before the chamber today. I know there are many people who've keenly followed the debate. I also know there are many people who are probably wondering why we are debating this issue again when we dealt with it only in December last year, and that is a fair question to ask. In September 2018, the government introduced the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, the TOLA bill. It was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry, and the committee started its inquiry, called for submissions and held hearings as it normally does. There was no end date specified by the government for this process, but midway through the process, in November 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs asked the committee to accelerate its inquiry into the 2018 bill in order to enable it to pass the parliament before the end of the year.
The case for urgency was forcefully prosecuted by the government in the media. At one point documents that had been provided to the committee confidentially were leaked into the public domain and appeared on the front page of a newspaper, and the government has refused to initiate any investigation into that leak. National security agencies subsequently gave public evidence to the committee that they needed the powers contained in the 2018 bill in order to respond to the heightened risk of terror over the Christmas period.
In response to that evidence, the committee finished its inquiry early. It issued a consensus report that made 17 recommendations for a range of amendments to improve these laws. The government committed to moving amendments that reflected those recommendations. On the morning of 6 December 2018, the last parliamentary sitting day of 2018, the government introduced 173 lengthy amendments to the 2018 bill. Some of those amendments did not properly reflect the text or the intent of the committee's recommendations, and that is not just Labor's view. It is the view of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; it is the view of lawyers; it is the view of civil society groups; and it is the view of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Labor noted our dissatisfaction with the rushed process during the debate in December last year. We secured from the government a commitment that it would allow consideration of our proposed amendments to rectify these problems and oversights, and the bill before the chamber today is a product of that commitment. We do not suggest that the amendments that will be moved in the chamber by Labor today are all that are necessary to align the legislation with the recommendations of the committee nor that the recommendations of the committee are all that are necessary to address the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders.
As was the case last year, we are operating under a compressed time line. The government has left us with less than four sitting days in this chamber before the budget. This bill has just a few hours scheduled for debate today. We have been forced to prioritise. As a consequence, this bill and Labor's amendments to it are not intended to deal with all of the potential issues that have been identified in the legislation passed in December last year. We seek only to address some of the more important deficiencies in that legislation, including the definition of systemic weakness; the role of the AFP Commissioner in ensuring a national approach is taken to the exercise of some of the powers in the legislation; the oversight role of the Ombudsman; and limiting the scope of technical assistance notices and technical capability requests. I'll address these amendments in further detail later in my speech.
It is worth noting that this bill is just one of a number of separate, ongoing processes to improve the legislation passed in December last year and address the deficiencies identified by stakeholders. There are three other processes that bear mention. At the same time as this process is underway, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is conducting another inquiry into the legislation passed last year. Although Labor accepted the evidence of the security agencies that they needed the powers over the holiday period, we insisted that the committee be allowed to resume its inquiry in order to be able to properly examine all five schedules of the legislation. As part of this ongoing inquiry, the committee has received further submissions and briefings from stakeholders, and the inquiry is due to report on 3 April this year.
Labor secured a commitment that the legislation will be referred to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor for review within 18 months. Labor is also committed to referring the measures introduced by this legislation to our parliamentary inquiry to report on the economic impacts. The telecommunications access regime has a clear national security imperative, but its consequences are not limited to the national security realm. Labor has heard and understands the message from industry that this legislation has the potential to impact the viability of the tech sector in Australia.
The evidence from industry placed before the committee raises serious concerns about the government's bill and its impact on internet security—and public trust in internet security—and consequently on the competitiveness of the Australian IT businesses subject to these laws. Throughout last year, the government sought to reassure industry that the bill prohibited an agency from forcing a provider to implement any kind of systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability into a form of electronic protection. However, many submitters to the committee contended that it was not clear what those terms actually meant. These witnesses expressed concern that, in the absence of a definition, the protective measures in the bill provided little actual protection at all. To this end, the committee made two recommendations, recommendations 9 and 10, which both relate to the meaning of the term systemic weakness. In doing so, the committee had regard to evidence from the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate, who stated that a systemic weakness is a weakness that might actually jeopardise the information of other people as a result of that action being taken. The committee also noted evidence from the Director-General of Security that the powers in schedule 1 of the bill will not be used to require a designated communications provider to do anything that jeopardises the security of the personal information of innocent Australians.
Labor does not consider that recommendations 9 and 10 in the committee's report have been satisfactorily realised in the government amendments to their own bill of December last year. During the committee stage, Labor will introduce amendments that seek to clarify these terms in the legislation. Labor's amendments have the support of industry and put in place safeguards to ensure that actions taken under this legislation will not create a material risk that the information of innocent persons would be compromised by an unauthorised third party.
I note the joint comments made in a public submission to the PJCIS by the Communications Alliance, the Ai Group, the Australian Information Industry Association, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, the Digital Industry Group and the Information Technology Professionals Association. These organisations said in their submission:
It appears very difficult to adequately define the terms 'systemic weakness/vulnerability' and 'target technology'. As currently drafted in the Act, these definitions are difficult to understand, ambiguous and are significantly too narrow. The limitations intended to be given to systemic vulnerability/weakness through the definition of target technology do not achieve the desired objective. Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes a class of technology, (e.g. would a 'class' be all mobile handsets, or Android phones, but not iPhones, or the mobile handsets offered by one service provider but not another, or some other combination of factors?). Assuming this term has a common-sense meaning (to the extent this exists), then the application to the whole class of technology creates a far too narrow characterisation of what constitutes a systemic weakness or vulnerability.
Consequently, we recommend deleting the definitions of systemic weakness/vulnerability and target technology and, instead, to more clearly and narrowly articulate in Section 317ZG the prohibited effects of a TAN or TCN. We note the limitations contained in Section 317ZG but maintain that the definitions of these three terms are not useful and/or significantly too narrow to be acceptable.
We support the amendments to Section 317ZG as tabled by Labor on 6 December 2018.
That is the advice from industry.
I would like to briefly canvass the other amendments that Labor will seek to introduce during the committee stage. Recommendation 4 of the PJCIS report called for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be given appropriate oversight of the administration of the industry assistance measures. Although the government's amendments sought to give effect to those recommendations, they also introduced an additional provision enabling the Minister for Home Affairs to delete information from an Ombudsman's report if that information could reasonably be expected to prejudice certain of an agency's activities. The inclusion of that new power has not been explained by the government. The Commonwealth Ombudsman wrote to the committee to express his concern that the minister's power to delete information from a report prepared by the Ombudsman is 'a power that is not available to a minister under any other legislation under which my office may issue a report and, in my view, is inconsistent with the Commonwealth Ombudsman's role as an independent and impartial office'. The Ombudsman also argued that this power is unnecessary given that his office routinely consults with agencies to identify whether a draft report contains operationally sensitive material that should be removed or amended before it is published.
Recommendation 7 of the committee calls for the Commissioner of the AFP to have a role in approving technical assistance notices initiated by state and territory authorities. The intention of this is to ensure consistency of decision-making and reporting across jurisdictions. To do this, the AFP Commissioner is required to apply the same statutory criteria and go through the same decision-making process as would apply if the AFP were the original issuing authority. That was the recommendation. The government's amendments provide that the AFP Commissioner may approve a technical notice, but the amendments did not establish the decision-making criteria for approval. Labor's amendment will make it clear that the AFP must follow the process recommended by the committee. We are also moving other amendments that would limit technical assistance requests and technical capability notices to certain specified acts and things.
As I said earlier, Labor does not believe that these amendments solve all the potential issues with the bill that have been highlighted by stakeholders. Rather, this is one of a number of processes that Labor has forced the government to go through in order to remedy some of the issues that arose as a result of the rushed time line the government imposed for consideration of the original legislation last year. These issues have been raised for years. There was no reason for the government to make a last-minute introduction of the legislation and a last-minute call for acceleration. The committee ought to have been given the time to conclude its work. The government did not provide either the intelligence and security committee or the parliament the time needed to properly consider the legislation. Labor voted for the legislation last year nonetheless because of the advice of our national security agencies. They said there was a need for these powers before the holiday period, and we acted promptly because we take seriously the task of protecting Australia and Australians.
But we also take seriously the task of making sure legislation is appropriate and adapted to the ends it is trying to undertake. That means limiting the unintended consequences to individuals and businesses. That is why we are going through this process today. We have been consulting with industry, with tech experts, with lawyers and with civil society, and also with the agencies themselves. We are doing the work necessary to improve this legislation.
What are we to make of the situation which has conspired here this morning? I will put it in one word: a mess, an absolute mess. Our job as senators, our role as elected members of the house of review, is to scrutinise legislation. And yet again we see a government attempting to sneak out of that role, to avoid that scrutiny, and we see an opposition complicit in that process. Before the commencement of this part of the procedure, there was an opportunity for the opposition to vote against the government's motion to exempt the bill from proper senatorial process. They voted with the government, once again playing a facilitatory role in the carnival of malprocess which has been the formulation and legislation of this diabolical act.
I am not sure whether the opposition have taken leave of their senses. I am not sure whether they have perhaps misunderstood the nature of the chamber in which they work or the job that we are sent here to do. I will provide them with an opportunity to go back and look at the Constitution and consider what they themselves got into this job for, and vote for my motion to refer this legislation to the relevant committee for scrutiny, because, in case anybody in here hasn't noticed, you guys have got no idea what you are doing. You drafted a mongrel piece of legislation before Christmas. You rushed it through so fast that even members of the government were ashamed of what they'd done. You then had the Prime Minister go out there and terrify everybody about attacks over Christmas, and, like some kind of obscene jelly creature, the opposition melted. They were comprehensively duped. They slink in here this morning, speaking words of: 'We've held them to account. We've made sure that what the industry wanted will be represented in the legislation.' Rubbish! What the industry wanted was for you to do your damn job—oppose and scrutinise, not go weak at the knees.
This bill that has come before us this morning proposes to expand these dangerous powers to yet more institutions; institutions which are, by their very nature, different from the agencies which currently have them. And yet again we see the opposition getting on board. You do not understand the technology you are working with. You are allowing yourselves to be ruled by people of fear.
I have, through the course of this process, worked in deep consultation with industry, with advocates, with people who actually understand the process. At every step of the way I have attempted to alert the opposition and the government to the true nature of the legislation that they are working with, and at every opportunity they have shown the ignorance, the arrogance and the recalcitrance of those who simply do not care about the detail of policy but are totally consumed by the nature of politics. This is one of the greatest crimes that can be perpetrated by a legislator. We are talking of the fundamental right to privacy of the Australian people. That should be an issue which is above the game playing and the nonsense which occupies so much of this chamber's time. But, no, the opposition couldn't pull themselves to do it. Now, this moment which we have before us is an opportunity for the opposition and the crossbench to come together and draw a line in the sand.
This is a truly unifying speech!
Well, the truth hurts, doesn't it? There is an opportunity now to move forward from this moment, to refer this bill to a committee and do our job, to ensure that the legislation before us does what we expect it to do, to perform the very basic nature of our duties. I have expressed—and it will probably seem to be an understatement to some listening tonight—a great deal of anger on behalf of those who work in this sector. I do so because, through ignorance, you have put at risk billions of dollars of industry and threatened the right to privacy of all Australians. Through that process, though you were comprehensively told over the Christmas break that you were wrong, that you didn't know what you were doing and that you had passed bad legislation, you have come before this chamber today with the same mindset. That is ultimately the inexcusable aspect of today's spectacle. You mucked up, you didn't read it carefully, and now you continue to make your mistake worse. That is the unforgivable part that the opposition is playing in this process.
We will be moving amendments during this debate which seek to get good outcomes to repair some of the damage, to do right by the citizenry and the industry. I urge the crossbench and the opposition to support those amendments, to support referral and to finally get on and do your damn job. I thank the chamber and I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
", and the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 April 2019."
The first duty of government is to make sure the citizens in its jurisdiction are safe. Very often that means some of the rights and liberties we all love and expect in a country like Australia have to be adjusted because criminals and terrorists do not work by any rules; they can do what they like. In this area we're discussing, the criminals and the terrorists have taken advantage of technology to defeat and make difficult the work of Australia's security, criminal investigation and enforcement agencies. The earlier bill was all about making sure Australians were protected. Senator Steele-John and Senator McAllister are correct: that was passed through the houses quickly before the Christmas break. That was done on the advice of security agencies, who thought that the Christmas break could be a time for increased terrorist activities. So it was, fortunately, passed through the House and the Senate before the parliament rose last year, and I thank the Labor Party for their responsible approach to this then and now.
From my point of view, if it's a choice between someone close to me being blown up by a terrorist bomb or me having someone eavesdropping on my conversations or looking at my texts or tweets or Facebook or chat page, I know which I'd prefer. Quite frankly, if anyone wants to listen to anything I say or thumb into my device, they're welcome to it. They'd quickly die of boredom—and perhaps that, in some cases, might be a good outcome! But it is important that we take the advice of those who have the knowledge. Whilst I appreciate Senator Steele-John's passion and his self-proclaimed expertise in this area that many of us don't have—
I've listened to experts, Ian. I'm not one myself.
Thank you for that clarification, Senator Steele-John.
Ignore the interjection, Senator Macdonald.
I was about to say that the Greens always have the luxury of being able to say, do, oppose and suggest whatever they like, knowing that they will never be in a position to have to take responsibility for the safety of Australians. The government and indeed, at some stage, the opposition—not in the immediate future, but at some stage, I guess, in the future they will be in government—have the challenge, the responsibility and the duty to do everything that is possible to keep safe ourselves, our family members and our neighbours.
These bills, while some say they are draconian, are—I believe and I think most Australians would accept—put in place purely to make it easier for the agencies that protect us to actually do their job and protect us. The government supports the use of strong encryption to protect personal, commercial and government information. However, the increasing use of encryption to conceal communications has significantly degraded law enforcement and intelligence agencies' ability to collect intelligence, conduct investigations and detect intrusions into Australia's networks. Encryption actually impacts on at least nine out of every 10 of ASIO's priority cases. Ninety-five of ASIO's most dangerous counterterrorism targets actively use encrypted messages to conceal their communications. Over 90 per cent of data being lawfully intercepted by the AFP now use some form of encryption. Effectively, all communications amongst terrorists and organised crime groups are expected to be encrypted by 2020. If that happens, the agencies that protect us will have to have some ability to intercept and learn what those terrorists and organised crime groups are doing, and that means breaking their encryption.
The bill was introduced to equip our agencies with the tools that are necessary to adapt to the increasing use of encryption by terrorists and serious criminals. Claims by some industry representatives that the laws weaken online security by breaking encryption are absolutely false. Quite simply, under the legislation, a company cannot be compelled to create a decryption capability. It cannot be asked to make encryption less effective for general users, it cannot be compelled to build backdoors and it will not jeopardise the information security of general users.
In the time available to me, I want to go through some of the claims that have been made in the media and elsewhere about this bill which, quite frankly, are what some important person once called fake news. And, I confess, of course, that my information comes to me not from my own clever thought but from experienced law enforcement and security people who do understand these things, who know what needs to be done and what the legislation and this amendment will actually do.
The claim has been made that the bill would allow the government to order the makers of smartphone speakers to install persistent eavesdropping capabilities into a person's home, require a provider to monitor the health data of its customers for indications of drug use or require the development of a tool that can unlock a particular user's device, regardless of whether such a tool could be used to unlock every other user's device as well. That's the claim, but that claim is not correct. The actuality is that the bill expressly prohibits notices from doing anything for which a warrant would be required. A surveillance device in a home or monitoring a person's device would require a warrant. The bill expressly further prohibits requiring the building or implementation of the systemic weakness—and that's in section 317ZG.
Another claim being falsely made is this: that it will force tech companies and telcos to insert a backdoor—a systemic vulnerability into all encrypted systems—so that the government can access everyone's private communications. That's the claim, and that claim also is not correct. The bill, to the contrary, is absolutely explicit that the notice cannot require the building or implementation of a systemic weakness. This includes the requirement of a new decryption capability or anything that would make any form of electronic protection like encryption less effective.
There is a further claim, and that claim is that, unlike surveillance laws around the world, this bill requires no judicial oversight. That's the claim. That claim is also not correct. In Australia, judicial authorisation is typically reserved for intrusive powers that access personal information and data. Access to that type of data is prohibited by the bill. To conduct telecommunications intercept or surveillance, the law enforcement agency will still require a judicially authorised warrant. Overseas legislation that has similar provisions directed at securing industry assistance does not always have judicial oversight. The primary exception is the Investigatory Powers Act of the UK parliament which was passed in 2016. The double-lock regime in the UK requires judicial and ministerial authorisation for certain powers. However, no direct comparison can be made between the size and scope of the Investigatory Powers Bill of the UK and this bill. Unlike the English bill, this bill does not provide for bulk interception, bulk equipment interference, disclosure of communications data and the retention of personal data sets, including internet collection records. As a result, the double-lock regime is not appropriate for this bill, as the English bill is more expansive and has a more significant impact on providers. Further, the double-lock feature is a product of the oversight mechanism applying to other intelligence collection powers.
I'm going through these claims in some detail because I think it's important that anyone who has a serious interest in this bill understands that some of the claims that have been made popularly are not, in fact, true. There is a claim that ASIO, ASIS, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Federal Police, state police forces and bureaucrats in the Department of Home Affairs, acting in secret and without the oversights of the courts, would be able to force companies to compromise their products to gain access to any data they want, including access to the data of other governments. That's the claim. The reality is this: the compulsory industry assistance powers will only be available to ASIO and interception agencies, as they are defined in the bill. These are the same agencies which have powers to intercept live communications under a warrant issued by a judge or members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. ASIS and the Australian Signals Directorate can only request voluntary assistance. It's important to understand that.
In addition, in relation to that claim, with the prohibition of systemic weakness the bill includes the following strong safeguards: the requirement for the decision-maker to consider the reasonableness, proportionality, practicality and technical feasibility of a notice, including the interests of the provider and the integrity of the devices and services. Some other of these safeguards include requiring the decision-maker to consider any advice received from a provider about the requirement in a notice. This is an opportunity for the provider to detail how a notice may create a systemic vulnerability or weakness. And there's a further safeguard in the ability of the government and the provider to appoint a person with technical expertise to assess whether the requirements of the technical capability notice would actually create a systemic weakness. Judicial review is available for the use of the industry assistance powers.
There are a number of other claims that have been made which have engendered the sort of concern that the previous speaker raised. Most of them are simply not accurate. I'm not going to have time to go through the whole list of the claims that have been made and discount them by giving a factual rejection of those claims.
I conclude my contribution to this bill, and again thank the Labor Party and members of the crossbench for supporting this bill—and supporting it prior to Christmas in some haste—because our first duty, which the previous speaker spoke a bit about, as a government and as a parliament is to do the best we can to keep our fellow citizens safe. We have wonderful agencies—the AFP, ASIO, ASIS, the relevant agencies of the Department of Home Affairs—who I think do a wonderful job. I've had the privilege of chairing the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for some years now, and all of those agencies appear before our committee at estimates time. Very often they are subject to very intensive grilling, very intensive questioning, by senators about a range of matters, including the powers that they have and the actions that they take and are compelled to take to protect privacy and to protect citizens' basic human rights.
But there is a time when some things have to be done because of advances in technology. As I said earlier—and I want to repeat—the terrorists and the organised criminal gangs run by no rules. They are not overseen by anyone. They don't have to account to anyone except their masters, who want the results of their criminal or terrorist activity. We have to give our agencies the tools to be able to counter the activities of terrorists and criminal agencies as they get smarter, as they make increasing use of advanced technology to pursue their evil goals, and so bills like this are essential. Very often, as I concede, we have to rely on the advice of the people whose job it is to investigate and protect us. In my long experience in this parliament, we've always been very well served, very carefully served, as Australians by our security agencies and our police agencies, and this legislation—the legislation passed before Christmas—give our agencies a fair chance at countering the advanced technological attempts of criminals and terrorists. I urge the Senate to adopt this bill.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019. I have been a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for only a couple of months. Many other members of the committee have been on that committee for many, many years, and the corporate knowledge within that committee of human rights, of technology, of the processes that this Senate chamber goes through and that the lower house goes through is deep and very detailed.
People have often asked me why we only have the government and the opposition on the PJCIS. Unfortunately, we've seen today why that is the case. We heard from Senator Steele-John words such as 'anger', 'ignorance' and 'risk'. I don't mind risk. Everyone must look at risk. Everyone must take risk. Governments take risk all day, every day. But how patronising of Senator Steele-John to say that we do not understand the technology. I find that absolutely patronising—as though the Greens have a monopoly on understanding technology. I suggest to Senator Steele-John that, firstly, he read the bill and, secondly, he understand the bill. As for the amendment, which suggested that this legislation should go to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, we have put the most amazing amount of time and effort into this, and it is a continuing process, so to derail that process now is totally irresponsible.
Of course, the reason that we only have the opposition and the government on this committee was, I think, shown by the speech made by Senator McAllister. Having been in the Senate now for only 12 months, I am overwhelmingly impressed by the fact that in this committee we do not politicise issues such as this. We have an extraordinarily bipartisan approach to these incredibly important activities. It is extraordinarily robust. It's not as though compromises through ignorance of technology or lack of understanding of human rights occur; it is incredibly robust.
Some of the most important things that have continually come out of this, both in the popular media and in the committee itself, are the issues that industry has brought before us. I understand the concerns of industry; I deeply understand the concerns of industry. They are concerned about systemic weaknesses, which Senator Macdonald has spoken about in some detail, and I will build on his speech. I acknowledge the difficulties of this bill and the complexity of the bill, but, as I say to just about everyone in the debates I've been involved in in the open media, read the bill in the first instance, which so many people have not. I say understand the bill, which is complex and hard, but it is necessary. I then say let's see it in operation. We will report again by 3 April. Let's see it in operation, and then we will learn and then the confidence will come.
I will speak in passing only on the background of this bill, because I think that Senator Macdonald has covered in great detail what the bill is, as has Senator McAllister. I'll speak a little bit about the government reaction and a lot about systemic weakness and back doors. I'll speak about the implementation of the bill, and we've had a period of implementation of the bill. What you've got to do when you put in a complex activity like that is implement it, look at it and learn from it. If there are changes to be made in our continual struggle for perfection, then we make those. I'll talk about the framework that we've implemented to implement it: the speed, the compressed time line that we worked in for operational reasons; issues such as authority creep and metadata, passwords, oversight, how international companies have looked at this, and the harm to Australian industry and other comments. If I can get through that in 15 minutes, I will be astounded, but I'll give it a good go.
On 5 December 2018—and it's very important that we lay down, through Hansard, the process that we have gone through to bring this bill into being—the committee tabled its report on the act, which focused on the urgency and operational benefits of key measures in the act. The government accepted, in principle, the 17 recommendations in the committee's report and moved 167 amendments in the House of Representatives to implement these recommendations on 6 December 2018. The act passed both houses later that day.
On 21 December, the government provided agencies that were going to implement this over the Christmas period with comprehensive interim guidelines to support the use of their new powers until more detailed industry consulted guidance could be developed. The committee has commenced, as Senator McAllister has laid out, another review of the legislation, focusing on implementation and the government amendments, passed on 6 December 2018. We will report by 3 April 2019.
On 9 January 2019, the government approved 21 companies and industry bodies to form a consultation group for the development of administrative guidance material. An issues paper was released for distribution and industry comment on 1 February 2019. The government delivered onsite training, on 24 January and 4 February 2019, on the use of the powers to the police forces in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.
On 29 January 2019, the Department of Home Affairs provided a submission to the committee review addressing how the amendments to the legislation are consistent with the committee recommendations and how the act is being operationalised, and from being operationalised we will learn. On 8 February 2019, the Department of Home Affairs provided a supplementary submission addressing concerns raised in submissions to the review by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and this has been mentioned before.
The government has now introduced the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019. The miscellaneous amendments bill brings forward the review of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. That review will happen before, rather than after, June 2020 and ensures that the Commonwealth and state anti-corruption bodies are able to use the industry assistance powers in the assistance and access act that we're talking about.
Of course, one of the big ongoing questions, which was raised by Senator McAllister quite rightly, is the definition of 'systemic weakness'. The act defines 'systemic weaknesses' or 'vulnerabilities', to be a weakness or vulnerability that affects an entire class of technology—that is, it's a weakness that relates to a whole system rather than to a particular part. Defining 'systemic weakness' or 'vulnerability' as something that affects a whole class of technology ensures that items of technology cannot be made less secure. This means that the government cannot require companies to weaken their product or services in a way that would undermine widely used security measures. Without a definition of 'systemic weakness'—and we spent hours in the committee discussing this definition—a significant threshold is removed from the process of determining if the exercise of the power is prohibited.
Other definitions that have been moved in parliament may create greater ambiguities or may be too descriptive. The act refers to the prohibition against building or implementing a systemic weakness or vulnerability in the context of electronic protection. Without reference to 'electronic protection', which includes passwords, encryption methods and other security layers, it's unclear what kind of weakening is prevented by the prohibition.
There is a framework to implement this, and the government continues to work closely with agencies to facilitate implementation and operationalisation of the act. On 21 December 2018, the Department of Home Affairs provided those comprehensive interim guidelines I spoke about before to support the use of these new powers over the Christmas period. The Department of Home Affairs is delivering onsite training to the police forces that will have to implement these powers. The government has been advised that, in late 2018 and early 2019, agencies have used the industry assistance and computer access powers in the act. I'll just repeat that: the agencies have used the industry assistance and computer access powers in the act, and the world still exists.
Agencies have indicated that they will take a collaborative approach with industry in utilisation of the industry assistance powers, commencing with what's called 'technical assistance requests'—the definition of which and the description of which are in the act—to engender support and cooperation. The government continues to consult with industry stakeholders to ensure their views are incorporated in the ongoing implementation of the new framework. The government has collated a comprehensive industry information package for regular distribution to industry members, providing further details on the intended operation of the act. Twenty-one companies and industry bodies have been identified to form a consultation group for the development of administrative guidance material. An issues paper, as I said before, is out there for them.
We've done this fairly fast. It's was important that it be done fast because we faced an operational challenge over the Christmas period. The use of encrypted messaging applications by terrorists, as Senator Macdonald spoke about in some detail, represents a significant threat to the safety of all Australians, and this creates an appalling blind spot for our agencies as they work to protect us. It's vital they be given the appropriate tools in the 21st century to detect and disrupt attacks. The need for the powers in the act became more urgent in light of the fatal terrorist attack in Melbourne in November of last year. The likelihood for further attacks was heightened, as we've all agreed, during the Christmas period that we've just come out of.
The measures in the act are a holistic answer to the challenges posed by encryption and modern communications. The act allows our agencies to address current and emerging threats in the following ways: by modernising the way they seek industry assistance and allowing them to work together with providers to identify new ways to address extant risks. We are working together with providers by enhancing computer access and alternative collection methods that enable them to work around encryption without compromising it—again, I repeat: to work around encryption without compromising it—and bolstering overt access to devices by compelling users of a relevant device to handover passwords.
The criticism is often made of this act that there is, manifest within this bill, what has been called authority creep, and that authority creep relates to metadata. The act does not allow agencies to request metadata. Interception agencies will continue to request metadata if they need it through the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. The data retention legislation restricted the number of agencies that could make such covert requests through this legislation. A broader range of agencies have always been able to request information from carriers through the telecommunications act itself. This act allows a disclosure of data consistent with the notice-to-produce powers of a Commonwealth, state or territory agency.
The question then arises quite often in popular context: does this address the issue of passwords? Well, no. Passwords are a form of electronic protection. We cannot build a capability to remove passwords. That is in the bill. As has been made very clear, this legislation does not allow new capabilities to be developed that enable the removal of a form of electronic protection, passwords being one of those forms.
What about oversight? If you are going to give people and agencies powers, you must always have an appropriate level of oversight. All requests and requirements of industry are subject to extensive independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or state and territory oversight bodies. The integrity body must be notified when a notice for assistance is issued, varied, extended or revoked. The integrity body has the authority to inspect agency use of powers at any time and may make a report to parliament on the outcome of their inspection. Compulsory powers carry additional oversight measures to ensure they are used appropriately. One in particular, probably the most complex one, which is called a technical capability notice, may only be issued by the Attorney-General. A company may also refer any requirement to build a capability to an independent assessment panel consisting of a retired judge and a technical expert. This panel must consider whether proposed requirements will inadvertently, as parts of the industry have argued, create a back door. Further, any decision to compel assistance may be challenged through judicial review proceedings.
Some people have asked: why aren't these notices issued by a judge? It is all part of the normal oversight. Judicial authorisation is typically reserved in this country for intrusive powers that access personal information and data. These notices we were talking about before are designed to facilitate industry assistance. Warrants are still required to access content, and that is critically important. There are robust safeguards built into the framework, including a statutory reasonableness test, ministerial oversight and judicial review, as I've spoken about before. These are on top of the prohibition on systemic weaknesses and accessing personal content. That might be complex, but it requires you to actually read the bill and to understand the bill.
What about international comparisons? There is one that you can make, and that is to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 from the UK. The legislation that we are looking at is far narrower in scope and application than the UK's Investigatory Powers Act. The UK act reformed interception powers, imposed data retention requirements and allowed for bulk collection of data. This act does none of these things. Unlike the Australian legislation, the UK act does not prevent the building of a capability that removes encryption or other forms of electronic protection. The government understands the UK powers can also be used to require providers to build core interception capabilities, and this is not enabled via the assistance and access act.
Australian notices are subject to a global safeguard that means industry can't be required to build flaws in their system, and industry cannot be required to stop making their systems more secure. This comes to a very, very interesting conclusion. Will the act harm Australia's technology industry? During the development of the legislation, the government recognised concerns that the act may harm Australian products' competitiveness at market. However, the legislation includes provisions for companies to publish statistics regarding the number of requests or notices they have received. This will leave most companies unaffected, as they will be able to disclose that they have not been asked to provide assistance, while companies who do assist can demonstrate that their systems are not compromised by the assistance provided, consistent with the act's explicit protections against the creation of back doors and degradation of security features.
This is a very complex, very large and very important bill. It does not require reference to any other committees. It has been worked through in a process of bipartisanship—not politicised—in a very, very robust way, and it is a credit to the PJCIS. I recommend the bill.
People right around the country are desperate to vote this mob out. They are desperate to see a change in direction for our country. They are desperate to remove a government that has shown itself incapable of dealing with the challenges of our generation. They are desperate to see a new government take us to another place—a better place, a place that acknowledges the future and that does not attempt to drag us back to a bygone era. What we have with this piece of legislation is a government that doesn't understand what the future looks like and wants to hand over more power to a group of unaccountable agencies, to ensure that we continue the slow and gradual erosion of people's private information and to destroy a burgeoning industry.
That was also the view of the Labor Party. It was the view of the Labor Party. They stood with the Greens and made it very clear that they believed this legislation was bad legislation. Yet all it took was for the government to throw around those two words, 'national security'—they throw them around like confetti—and the Labor Party went to water. A weak-kneed Labor Party refused to stand up and mount a defence for individuals to ensure that their information remains private and to ensure that our software industry and our IT industry are able to continue to grow and export and develop into the industry that we know that it can be. They went to water.
We congratulated them at the time. We agreed with them on their criticisms of this piece of legislation. The evidence was clear. We heard that this would open up a gate to corporate and state espionage. We heard that this bill would enforce our software industry and talented IT entrepreneurs offshore. We know that because they told us. We heard that this would compromise the privacy of all Australians. We heard that it would weaken the cybersecurity of Australian companies and, indeed, of the Australian government. Of course we knew that it would hand over more power to our unaccountable intelligence agencies.
We just had a contribution from Senator Molan, who made it clear that he doesn't want the Greens to be involved in the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Of course he doesn't. He doesn't want the scrutiny that the Greens provide in that environment. He doesn't want the transparency that is necessary for Australians to judge for themselves whether this is a good law or a bad law. He doesn't want to be held to account, and this government don't want to be held to account for the decisions that they are making that erode Australians' private information and that ensure we put the brakes on this hugely profitable and potentially job-creating IT industry. That's why we do need the Greens in the Senate holding both major parties to account, being a buffer against the repeated disappointment of the Labor Party, who cave in as soon as those two words 'national security' are thrown around.
This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with securing information and with individuals and organisations being absolutely certain that their information remains private and that it is used for their benefit and not for the benefit of some of these unaccountable agencies. If it wasn't for the work of Senator Jordon Steele-John, through his engagement with the IT sector, with the digital rights sector, with a range of organisations who have told us repeatedly: 'You must repeal this legislation because it does nothing to keep Australians safe. Indeed it makes us less safe,' we still wouldn't know some of the egregious impacts that this legislation will have. We now know that the words 'national security' are thrown around as a cover for governments to go about and implement even more authoritarian laws. Well, it looks like the Home Affairs monolith created by Peter Dutton will continue, regardless of who wins the next election.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, and that's the response we should be giving to this scare campaign being mounted by the Liberals when it comes to national security. We've got the Labor Party putting the desires of an authoritarian minister ahead of the deepest concerns of individuals, of technology companies, of defence contractors, of the UN, of the EU, of lawyers and of digital rights and civil liberty groups, all of whom know this is bad legislation. Indeed, that was the view of the Labor Party until they caved.
We know there are good people inside the Labor Party who are arguing that this bill should not pass. Sadly, it seems they've lost. That is why you need the Greens in the Senate, because we have both parties now willing to destroy the future of Australian businesses who develop software. Internationally, people are looking on this bill, and the signal that this sends to the rest of the world is that we can't trust software developed here. We can't trust that it hasn't been compromised and is being utilised against secure systems. We cannot trust Australian technology. The government, with the support of the Labor Party, are sacrificing our IT industry. This is an export market estimated by Austrade to be worth over $3 billion, rising to at least $6 billion over the next decade. Let's look at what's at stake here. Encryption is critical. Encryption is critical for the safety of our digital infrastructure in our banking system, in our energy grid, in mass transit systems. Essential services in this digital economy rely on encryption and they will now be opened up for exploitation.
We'll support the amendments that have been proposed to this current piece of legislation, but let's not delude ourselves: they make a shocking, dreadful piece of legislation a little less bad. The right response now is to not support this bill in its entirety. We need to ensure that individual Australians and organisations, remain safe. We need to ensure that we create the conditions that allow these industries, which are the industries of today and tomorrow, to grow and prosper.
Let me finish my contribution by quoting the Australian Digital Rights Watch chair, Tim Singleton Norton. He made this statement:
This bill is still deeply flawed, and has the likely impact of weakening Australia's overall cybersecurity, lowering confidence in e-commerce, reducing standards of safety for data storage and reducing civil right protections. In its very design, it is antithetical to human rights and core democratic principles. Lawmakers are on notice that they will be responsible for the consequences of introducing weaknesses into our digital infrastructure – including adverse consequences borne by everyday people who rely on encryption to go about their daily lives in a digital society.
I get it that most people in this place don't understand the very nature of the bill that they're currently supporting. It's okay to admit you don't know, but surely it's critical that we take a cautious approach in this area, that we listen to the advice of people from right around the world. It is unprecedented action that this chamber is now taking. Listen to the UN, to the EU lawyers and to the digital rights and civil liberty groups. Listen to the many millions of Australians who are horrified by this. Listen to those tech companies who understand the impact of this law on the business that they are currently conducting. This is bad law even with these amendments. It introduces vulnerabilities into people's private information and into vital national infrastructure and it risks bludgeoning an incredibly lucrative and important industry for Australia.
We Greens in the Senate will always stand up against bad legislation. You may use the words 'national security'. Well, we believe it is in the interests of all Australians to ensure that their information remains safe and secure. We won't be cowed by your campaign to ensure that the next election is based on fear and division. We stand ready to vote and repeal this legislation—it won't be long before its flaws are revealed and we have to undo the damage that has been done—but we have an opportunity to stop it now, and that is exactly what we will be endeavouring to do.
I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2019. National security, keeping Australians safe from harm, is the highest priority of every government, but it is a particularly important priority for this government. That's why, on Monday, the Prime Minister spent quite some time outlining our plan for keeping Australians safe and secure. The Prime Minister highlighted many of the existing threats to the freedom and the security of all Australians. They include the dangers that arise from organised crime; the consequences of trafficking in drugs; the issue of border security and the risks of people smuggling; and the threats of terrorism, corruption and online predators, particularly those who do so for the sexual exploitation of children. In the many years before I came to this place, I served as a Commonwealth prosecutor, and I don't think I'm exaggerating in saying that I've prosecuted near enough to all of these offences at one time or another. I've seen how hard our agencies work to stop crimes of this nature and I've seen how difficult it is to mount a case to hold accountable those who engage in this kind of conduct in the digital age. These threats are continually growing and continually evolving. This isn't something we need to be scared of but something that we need to deal with. We need to prepare our agencies and give them the tools they need to be able to be effective in the interests of all Australians.
Today our security agencies face one of the most significant technological challenges we have ever faced in our history. With fatal terrorist attacks overseas, the recent disruption of alleged planning for a mass casualty attack by three individuals in Melbourne—incidents like this highlight the threat to all Australians that is presented by those who would seek to harm Australians using terror and who plan to do so and communicate using encrypted messaging applications.
The government supports the use of strong encryption to protect personal, commercial and government information. We understand it has a positive commercial and public role to play. However, the increasing use of encryption to conceal communications has significantly degraded law enforcement and intelligence agencies' ability to collect intelligence, to conduct investigations and to detect intrusions into Australian networks. Our intelligence agencies have told us some facts about which we should all be concerned and of which we should all take note. The first is that encryption impacts at least nine out of every 10 of ASIO's priority cases. The second is that 95 per cent of ASIO's most dangerous counterterrorism activities target those who actively use encrypted messages to conceal their communications. The third fact is that over 90 per cent of data that is being lawfully intercepted by the AFP now uses some form of encryption. The fourth is that effectively all communications among terrorists and organised crime groups are expected to be encrypted by 2020. And let's be frank about it: near enough to all of them are already using these services.
It's a reality to which we must adapt. The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 was passed at the end of last year to help equip our agencies with the tools that are necessary to adapt to the increasing use of encryption by terrorists and serious criminals. We now seek to improve upon this legislation by bringing forward a review of the act and by ensuring that Commonwealth and state anticorruption bodies are able to use the industry assistance powers in the act. Those who have concerns about this act should feel reassured by the bringing forward of that review. It demonstrates this parliament's commitment to transparency in the use of powers like this.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security supports the government's position that Commonwealth and state anticorruption bodies should have the same access to industry assistance powers as law enforcement agencies. The use of industry assistance powers by these bodies will be subject to appropriate oversight, and that will be effected by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Access to the industry assistance measures will help corruption bodies in identifying and investigating serious crime and serious law enforcement misconduct and corruption across the public sector. At a time when other people in this building have spent a lot of time talking about the need for institutions like a federal ICAC, one would think that facilitating the use of evidence-gathering techniques such as this by those who would seek to stamp out corruption would be something that would have some appeal.
There have also been claims by some that these laws have been rushed through the parliament. That's not right. The use of encrypted messaging applications by terrorists represents a significant threat to the safety of all Australians, and it creates a real and critical blind spot for our agencies. It's vital that they be given the appropriate tools to detect and disrupt attacks, and it's vital that we do that in a way that is sufficiently prompt and sufficiently responsive to ensure that Australians' safety, that which is protected by the investigations our agencies undertake, is not prejudiced by our failure to act.
The need for the powers in the act was highlighted—became more urgent—in light of the fatal terrorist attack that occurred in Melbourne in November 2018. It was a tragic and awful day for all Australians, and it should serve as a wake-up call for us all about the need to act. The likelihood for further attacks was heightened during the Christmas and New Year period. The measures in the act provide a holistic answer to the challenges posed by encryption and modern communications. We can see that this is a difficult balancing act, and it's important that we get it right—and this bill does. It allows our agencies to address current and emerging threats, first, by modernising the way that they seek industry assistance and allowing them to work together with providers to identify new ways to address existing risks; second, by enhancing computer access and alternative collection methods that enable them to work around encryption without compromising it; and, third, by bolstering overt access to devices by compelling users of a relevant device to hand over passwords in particular situations.
Claims by some in this chamber that the laws weaken online security by breaking encryption are false. Quite simply, under the legislation, a company cannot be compelled to create a decryption capability. It cannot be asked to make encryption less effective for general users, and it cannot be compelled to build backdoors. It will not jeopardise the information security of general users. Importantly, access to private communications and personal information remains subject to existing requirements for a judicially authorised warrant or an authorisation of a similar kind. Requests for metadata will continue to be governed by the current requirements. The act places obligations on companies supplying communication services or devices in Australia to provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement and security agencies. The act also enhances existing search warrants and introduces new computer access warrants to modernise the search and seizure powers of law enforcement. Quite simply, this legislation does not allow for mass surveillance, as the Greens would have you believe—they love a good scare campaign. In fact, the act has considerable oversight arrangements. For instance, all requests and requirements on industry are subject to extensive independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or state and territory oversight bodies.
It's worth noting that the integrity body must be notified when a notice for assistance is issued, varied, extended or revoked. Further, the integrity body has the authority to inspect agency use of powers at any time and may make a report to parliament on the outcome of their inspections. Compulsory powers carry additional oversight measures to ensure they are used appropriately. For example, technical capability notices may only be issued by the Attorney-General. Furthermore, a company may also refer any requirement to build a capability to an independent assessment panel, consisting of a retired judge and a technical expert. It's quite sensible, really, that the technical expertise needed to get this right be coupled with the judicial expertise that's necessary to ensure that individual rights continue to be protected. The panel must consider whether proposed requirements would inadvertently create a back door, again using that combination of legal principle and technical expertise. Further, any decision to compel assistance may be challenged through judicial review proceedings, providing transparency and accountability for those who don't believe the powers have been exercised in the way that they should or providing opportunities for review for those who strenuously object.
The act does not allow agencies to request metadata. Interception agencies will continue to request metadata through the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The data retention legislation restricted the number of agencies that could make covert requests through this legislation. A broader range of agencies have always been able to request information from carriers through the Telecommunications Act 1997. This act allows disclosure of data consistent with the notice-to-produce powers of a Commonwealth, state or territory agency. There are also a number of misconceptions posed around the definition of 'systemic weakness'. The definition of 'systemic weakness' is sufficiently clear about what would amount to creating a back door. For example, the government moved amendments to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 on 6 December 2018 to further strengthen and clarify the prohibition against requiring providers to create or implement a back door. This included providing a definition of 'systemic weakness' that was clear and also providing a definition of 'systemic vulnerability'. This prohibits requirements in a request or a notice which would have the effect of leading to systemic intrusions into devices or networks. The effect of this is to enhance the safeguards that exist to prevent the creation of back doors.
Defining systemic weakness or vulnerability as something that affects a whole class of technology ensures that general items of technology like a type of operating system or a commercially available encrypted messaging service cannot be made less secure. Other definitions that have been moved in parliament may create greater ambiguities or, in effect, be too prescriptive. These other definitions that have been proposed may not achieve the policy intent of ensuring the overall security of devices and services, and it's important that we make sure that remains intact. For example, amendments to the definition of 'systemic weakness' use the language of 'communicating directly' to designate what constitutes 'otherwise secure information'. This language may be too narrow and exclude popular methods of communication such as private internet forums and online broadcast platforms. And I can tell you from my experience in prosecuting that these private internet forums in particular are extremely popular among those who would seek to be involved in organised crime; those who would seek to exploit children online; those who would seek to produce some of the most barbaric, predatory material for others on the internet to use; and, as we have all, I think, become aware in recent years, those who would seek to plan terrorist acts against this nation.
Additionally, the language of 'may create a material risk to otherwise secure information', may be too broad and may create an unworkable standard for assessors. The current test, which uses the language 'likely', is an appropriate legal standard. It clarifies that requests and notices must not jeopardise information security of any other person. The amendment to the language also further enhances the prohibition on any inadvertent impact on broader cybersecurity that might arise from the activities that are being targeted by an agency.
Other amendments propose the removal of the anchor of electronic protection, which makes the prohibition unnecessarily ambiguous. Without reference to 'electronic protection', which includes passwords, encryption methodology and other security layers, it is unclear what kind of weakening is prevented by the prohibition.
There have also been questions asked as to why there is a definition of 'systemic weakness'. In the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill as originally tabled, these terms were subject to their ordinary meaning. However, this approach was subject to considerable public debate and scrutiny. Leaving these terms as subject to their ordinary meaning provided maximum flexibility for providers to raise concerns as to what would be considered a systemic weakness or vulnerability. So, in response to concerns raised by industry and by the public, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended that the meaning of the term 'systemic weakness' be clarified and made more precise and so that's what's happening.
The government has also strengthened the prohibitions and limitations by: clarifying what is meant by 'systemic weakness' and 'systemic vulnerability'; strengthening the prohibitions against an agency requesting the building of a systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability; clarifying the limitations for technical assistance requests, technical assistance notices and technical capability notices; and introducing an assessment panel to consider and report on whether technical assistance would result in a systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability. Let's be clear. It doesn't allow for mass surveillance or require the construction of decryption capabilities or so-called back doors. It doesn't require companies to jeopardise information security for innocent users. It doesn't require employees of companies to work in secret without their employer's knowledge. It doesn't discriminate between Australian and foreign companies. It doesn't require Australian citizens to do things by virtue of their citizenship or allow our Five Eyes partners to request Australia circumvent human rights obligations. None of that is facilitated by this bill.
National security and keeping Australians safe from harm is our highest priority. The heads of ASIO and the AFP and the National Cyber Security Adviser support these laws. The government will continue to listen to the concerns of our intelligence agencies and provide them with the tools they need to continue their good work to protect Australians from those who would seek to do us harm.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill as well, but given that my colleagues have so comprehensively covered this bill—and I thank them for that—I would like to commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is that the second reading amendment circulated in the chamber and proposed by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8642:
(1) Page 9 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability
Telecommunications Act 1997
1 Section 317B ( definition of electronic protection )
Repeal the definition.
2 Section 317B ( definition of systemic vulnerability )
Repeal the definition.
3 Section 317B ( definition of systemic weakness )
Repeal the definition.
4 Section 317B ( definition of target technology )
Repeal the definition.
5 Section 317ZG
Repeal the section, substitute:
317ZG Designated communications provider must not be requested or required to implement or build a systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability etc.
(1) A technical assistance request, technical assistance notice or technical capability notice must not have the effect of:
(a) requesting or requiring a designated communications provider to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability; or
(b) preventing a designated communications provider from rectifying a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability.
(2) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, includes a reference to implement or build a new decryption capability.
(3) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, includes a reference to one or more actions that would render systemic methods of authentication or encryption less effective.
(4) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, includes a reference to any act or thing that would or may create a material risk that otherwise secure information would or may in the future be collected, accessed, used, manipulated, disclosed or otherwise compromised by an unauthorised third party.
(5) The reference in subsection (4) to otherwise secure information includes a reference to the information of, about or relating to any person who is not the subject, or is not communicating directly with the subject, of an investigation to which the relevant technical assistance request, technical assistance notice or technical capability notice relates.
(6) The reference in subsection (4) to an unauthorised third party includes a reference to any person other than:
(a) the person who is the subject of, or who is a person communicating directly with the subject of, an investigation to which the relevant technical assistance request, technical assistance notice or technical capability notice relates; or
(b) the person that issued, or asked the Attorney-General to issue, the relevant technical assistance request, technical assistance notice or technical capability notice.
(7) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) are enacted for the avoidance of doubt.
(8) A technical assistance request, technical assistance notice or technical capability notice has no effect to the extent(if any) to which it would have an effect covered by paragraph (1)(a) or (b).
6 Application provision
Section 317ZG of the Telecommunications Act 1997, as amended by this Schedule, applies in relation to a technical assistance request, technical assistance notice or technical capability notice given on or after the commencement of this Schedule.
I foreshadowed this amendment in my second reading speech. It goes to the definition of systemic weakness, which this was a core issue in the material that was presented to the committee during our hearings. Essentially, stakeholders were concerned that the protection in the bill which prohibits an agency from forcing a provider to implement any kind of systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability is inadequate because those terms are not defined.
The government sought to address that in their amendments to their own bill in December last year, but the government's amendments have been condemned as difficult to understand, ambiguous and significantly too narrow. In fact, technology experts Dr Chris Culnane and Professor Vanessa Teague have described the government's amendments as an abomination.
The amendments before us now would repeal the systemic weakness definitions that were introduced by the government and give clear legislative effect to the advice provided publicly by the Director-General of ASIO. Our amendments are supported by the main industry groups, and I named those groups in my second reading speech. By contrast, we are not aware of any non-government organisations or individuals who support the government's amendments on this issue.
The critical paragraph on sheet 8642 is to amend 317ZG(4) to include this phrase:
(4) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, includes a reference to any act or thing that would or may create a material risk that otherwise secure information would or may in the future be collected, accessed, used, manipulated, disclosed or otherwise compromised by an unauthorised third party.
These changes seek to protect the information of innocent people, and I commend the amendment to the house.
The government opposes the opposition's amendments for the following reasons. First, the amendments moved by the opposition propose to delete the definition of 'systemic weakness' from section 317B and leave that term undefined. These amendments also propose to rewrite the prohibition in section 317ZG. The amendment version of section 317ZG removes references to the term 'electronic protection'. This term anchors the current prohibition by explaining what the powers are prohibited from weakening. Electronic protection includes things such as encryption and also authentication. Without reference to electronic protection, it is unclear what section 317ZG prohibits from being weakened. In one instance, for example, these amendments replace 'electronic protection' with 'systemic methods of authentication or encryption'. This includes a narrower set of things than the previous language.
The second reason is that these amendments would also change the legal standard required before the prohibition becomes operative from 'likely' to 'may'. This creates material risk to information security. This standard is too high to be practicable, as it concerns a question of future possibilities. When explaining what is otherwise secure information, these amendments refer to persons other than the person communicating directly with the target person. This concept fails to consider contemporary communication styles, such as forms and broadcast platforms, wherein a communication may not be directly communicated to any person or persons.
Third, the government opposes the opposition's amendments because these amendments refer to an unauthorised third party in order to explain when otherwise secure information has been compromised. This description provides only that the person who is communicating directly and that the interception agency using the power are not unauthorised third parties. We believe this is too narrow. Under this construction, telecommunications companies would become unauthorised third parties.
The Australian Greens will be supporting the amendment put forward by the opposition. They make a bad bill slightly better. I am fascinated to hear Senator McAllister quote from the good Dr Chris Culnane and Professor Teague in relation to this bill. I have been working very closely with individuals, such as themselves, and I can assure the chamber that their preferred outcome would have been for the opposition to oppose the bill and to now have a position of repealing the bill. But, as I said, this makes it a little bit better, so, until we have an opportunity to repeal, it will do.
The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8642 as moved by Senate McAllister be agreed to.
I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8643:
(1) Page 9 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 4—Limiting technical assistance requests and technical capability notices to listed acts or things
Telecommunications Act 1997
1 Subsection 317G(6)
Omit "that may be specified in a technical assistance request given to a designated communications provider include (but are not limited to)", substitute "specified in a technical assistance request given to a designated communications provider must be".
2 Subsection 317JA(10)
Omit "that may be specified in a varied technical assistance request include (but are not limited to)", substitute "specified in a varied technical assistance request must be".
3 Paragraph 317T(4 ) ( c)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(c) consist of one or more listed acts or things (other than an act or thing covered by paragraph 317E(1) (a));
4 Subsections 317T(5) and (6)
Repeal the subsections.
In the report from the PJCIS on the original bill, Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, recommendation 10 called on the government to amend the legislation to apply the systemic weakness limitation to all listed acts or things that an agency may be provided to do and to provide exhaustive definitions to the terms 'listed acts or things' and 'listed help' to ensure an agency could only ask or require a provider to do something actually listed in the access bill. There were no government amendments that addressed that first limb of that recommendation back in December, and our proposed amendments to section 317ZG implement that limb of recommendation 10.
With regard to the second limb of recommendation 10, the government's amendments did not address the ability for an agency to issue a technical assistance request to seek voluntary assistance outside of those matters listed in the definition of 'listed acts or things' as prescribed in the act, and these amendments correct that. The government's amendments also did not amend the provisions that would limit the types of new capabilities that a provider may be compelled to develop—that is, a provider may be compelled to develop new capabilities other than those listed in the act. As originally introduced, the access bill allowed the Minister for Communications and the Arts to prescribe other capabilities that would constitute listed help. Rather than removing that power as required by recommendation 10, the government's amendments transferred such decisions to the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton. These amendments will implement recommendation 10 of the committee's report by removing that power.
The government oppose this amendment, and I would just like to detail why. There are numerous reasons why we oppose this amendment. Firstly, in response to recommendation 10, the government amended section 317E to ensure the listed acts or things are exhaustive for compulsory industry assistance measures. To balance this amendment against the legislative intention of keeping powers current with new technological developments, it was necessary to add a new item to the list of acts or things.
Section 317E(da) allows the industry assistance powers to be used in facilitation of an activity conducted under a warrant or authorisation under a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory or the effective receipt of information in connection with a warrant or authorisation. The introduction of section 317E(da) ensures that interception agencies are able to use the industry assistance measures as intended to give effect to a warrant or to authorisation. This is an appropriate addition as it will only authorise activities that are immediately incidental to doing a thing that has been approved pursuant to an underlying authority, subject to existing safeguards and thresholds, and that also, of course, includes judicial approval. Section 317E(da) will also ensure that the utility of the industry assistance measures continue to be relevant for law enforcement and also, of course, for security agency warrants, which continue to be updated and fitted to technological developments.
The aim of keeping legislation fit for purpose as a regulated industry evolves is genuine and legitimate, particularly when seeking assistance from an innovative and fluid sector such as the communications industry. Without forward-thinking legislation, it may also be necessary to consider wholesale legislative reform in the near future. It would be irresponsible to design a regime that does not consider the implications of technological process where the very issue the regime has been designed to address has been created by technological process. Additionally, this approach finds precedent in section 313(7) of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which specifies that giving help in the context of domestic industry assistance includes giving effect to warrants and authorisations under the T(IA) Act. Given the broader potential use cases of industry assistance, it was necessary to forgo enumeration of the potential warrants and authorisations in section 317E(da).
Technical assistance requests are supported by strong safeguards and limitations to ensure they are used appropriately and only when required. Importantly, the voluntary nature of requests means that providers will not be issued with a penalty for noncompliance. Requests must relate to a relevant objective which forms the core functions of law enforcement and national security agencies. In the case of ASIO, this includes safeguarding national security. In the case of ASIS, this includes the interests of Australia's national security, the interests of Australia's foreign relations or the interests of Australia's economic wellbeing. In the case of ASD, this relates to their cybersecurity functions. In the case of an interception agency, it is enforcing the criminal law so far as it relates to serious Australian offences or enforcing the criminal laws enforced in a foreign country so far as those laws relate to serious foreign offences.
Technical assistance requests are supported by strong safeguards and limitations to ensure they cannot be used for mass surveillance or assessing content without a warrant, and they certainly cannot be used to systematically impact the security of networks and devices. Agencies and law enforcement authorities will only be able to use requests when there is an underlying warrant. There are cost recovery provisions built in to ensure that providers are not penalised for providing legitimate support to agencies. It is important for all of the reasons we've outlined that the Senate does not support this amendment as, I believe, it is absolutely essential to keep the legislation fit for purpose as regulated industry evolves. Making listed acts or things exhaustive for TARs or TANs is problematic for these very reasons. Technical capability notices go to capability building, and it is for those reasons—
Senator Reynolds, please resume your seat. Thank you. We've reached the hard marker here, so the committee will now report.
Progress reported.
I present the first report of 2019 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Report no. 1 of 2019
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 February 2019 at 7.15 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Australian Business Securitisation Fund Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2019 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2019 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2019 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the Commonwealth Registers Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (Registries Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2019, Business Names Registration (Fees) Amendment (Registries Modernisation) Bill 2019, Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Registries Modernisation) Bill 2019, and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (Registries Modernisation) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2019 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the Environment Legislation Amendment (Protecting Dugongs and Turtles) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2019 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) the Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 August 2019 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) the reporting date for the referral of the provisions of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, which was referred by the Senate to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee pursuant to the adoption of 15th Report of 2018 be amended to 26 March 2019 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(h) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Request Casual Conversion) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2019 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral);
the provisions of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018, and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2019
(see appendix 9 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(j) the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2019 (see appendix 10 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(k) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2019 (see appendix 11 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(i) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2019 (see appendix 12 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(m) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2019 (see appendix 13 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(n) the Water Amendment (Purchase Limit Repeal) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2019 (see appendix 14 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Customs Tariff Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018
National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:
Dean Smith
Chair
14 February 2019
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Australian Business Securitisation Fund Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Obtain further information about how the fund actually works and determine stakeholder views.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Treasury, APRA, AOFM, COSBOA, non-bank lenders such as Prospa.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
26 March 2019
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Australian Business Securitisation Fund Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To understand the implications on capital markets.
To understand the impact on small business.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Economists.
Accountants.
Small business.
Debt providers.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
Not necessary.
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans' and Their Families First) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The legislation hasn't been seen as it has not yet been introduced to the House. We would like to refer to an inquiry to ensure veterans have a chance to review, provide input and be happy with the proposed legislation, to ensure it is bipartisan.
We propose a short timeframe to in no way hold up the legislative process but ensure that everyone is comfortable and the veterans' and ex-serving community will have their say.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Alliance of Defence Service Organisations
Returned and Services League of Australia
Department of Defence
Department of Veterans Affairs
Individual veterans
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 22 March 2019
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a Bill to a Committee
Name of Bill:- Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2019
Reasons for Referral/ Principal issues for consideration:-
(a) The Hayne Royal Commission report and recommendations;
(b) The Community expectations to the reform of the Australian Banking system;
(c) The business, community, political, economists, financial advisory sector, superannuation advisory bodies and financial commentators published articles expressed need for separation of bank intrusion & internal referrals through vertical integration of services such as financial advice and superannuation recommendations of inhouse bank products other than direct banking services;
Possible submissions or evidence from:-
(1) Dr Wilson Sy;
(2) Mr John Dahisen (fur ANZ);
(3) Mr Martin North (DFA);
(4) Independent Financial Advisers;
(5) Industry Superannuation Groups
(6) Treasury;
(7) APRA;
(8) RBA
(9) All banks
(10) Financial Commentators such as Mr Alan Kohler, Mr Michael Pascoe, Mr Adam Creighton, Ms Adele Ferguson; Mr Bernard Keane, Mr Martin North, Mr Andrew Lindon and Mr David Fickling
Committee to which the Bill is to be referred:-
Economics Committee Possible
Hearings dates:
Subject to availability of the Committee but a separate date for each Capital city within a 3 month period
Possible Reporting date
13 May, 2018
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Commonwealth Registers Bill 2019
Treasury Laws Amendment (Registries Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2019
Business Names Registration (Fees) Amendment (Registries Modernisation) Bill 2019
Corporation (Fees) Amendment (Registries Modernisation) Bill 2019
National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (Registries Modernisation) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Significant reform which should be reviewed to ensure effectiveness, ease of access and protection of privacy.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Treasury, APRA, consumer credit groups, ASIC, CHOICE, financial rights legal centre
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date: 26 March 2019
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Environment Legislation Amendment (Protecting Dugongs and Turtles) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Possible reporting date:
March 26
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impact of export ban
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Cotton Australia, Rob McBride, Cubbie Station and others to be advised.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: Monday 12 August 2019
Appendix 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Stakeholder consultation
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Academics
Aid sector
EFIC
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
26 March 2019
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Name of bill:
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This was referred last year, but the bill was not introduced and the reporting date has now passed
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The aid and development sector
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
FADT
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
First sitting week of August 2019
Appendix 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Fair Work Amendment (Right to Request Casual Conversion) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
There are concerns that the Bill does not examine the full extent of issues in relation to casual workers. Stakeholders ranging from unions and business organisations have already reacted today stating possible concerns with the way the bill is currently drafted.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Industry groups Unions
Workers in vulnerable industries
Legal academics
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be decided by the committee
Possible reporting date:
26 March 2019
Appendix 9
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018 and Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The Wilderness Society
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
March 2019
Possible reporting date:
2 April 2019
Appendix 10
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
impact of extended the cashless debit card on those across current trial sites
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ACOSS, National Social Security Rights Network, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
April 2
Appendix 11
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2019 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2019 (and EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (SUPPORTING CRAFT BREWERS) BILL 2019)
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
A significant reform on self-managed superannuation funds has been mixed into an otherwise non-controversial appearing bill. The SMSF measure needs to be explored for ramifications.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Treasury, superannuation groups (industry, retail, SMSF).
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
26 March 2019
Appendix 12
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To understand the extent to which this amendment ensures that adequate revenue is collected from the extraction of petroleum resources.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Economists.
Accountants.
Tax reform advocates.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
Not necessary.
Possible reporting date:
2 April 2019
Appendix 13
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (COMBATING ILLEGAL PHOENIXING) BILL 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Treasury has not published submissions, but those shared with Labor have serious reservations about some measures in the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Treasury, Helen Anderson (Melbourne Law School), Chartered Accountants ANZ, ARITA.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
26 March 2019
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Water Amendment (Purchase Limit Repeal) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Stakeholder Engagement
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Waterholders
Environmental Groups
Irrigators
State Governments
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment Communications Legislation
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
26 March 2019
Appendix 15
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Legislation has only just been introduced and requires possible consideration
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Many organisations and companies in the tech and digital rights sectors
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Cons Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
2 April 2019
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move amendments (a) and (b) circulated in the name of Senator Collins.
Mr President, if I may, will you put (a) separately and (b) separately or will you put them together?
I can put (a) and (b) separately.
If the amendments could be read out or alternatively circulated, it would be appreciated.
It would read:
At the end of the motion, add:
“(a) and, in respect of the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2019;
(b) and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2019, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on 30 April 2019.”
The question now is that paragraph (a) of the amendment moved by Senator Urquhart be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that paragraph (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Urquhart to the motion on the selection of bills committee's report be agreed to.
Senator Farrell did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bushby
I will now put the motion that the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended with paragraph (a) moved by Senator Urquhart but not paragraph (b) of the circulated amendment, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That, if by 2 pm on Thursday, 14 February 2019, the following bills have not been finally considered:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No.1) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018
Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No.5) Bill 2018
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018
(a) the routine of business following consideration of the Prime Minister's annual report on Closing the Gap shall be government business only;
(b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;
(c) if, by 7.30 pm, the bills have not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate;
(d) paragraph (c) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after it has completed consideration of the bills listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
I propose, by leave, a minor amendment to list on the list of bills the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 first up but for the motion to be put consistent with what's circulated in the chamber. The question of the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after the Senate has completed consideration of the bills listed above or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
Leave is granted. I will now put the motion, as amended:
That, if by 2 pm on Thursday, 14 February 2019, the following bills have not been finally considered:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No.1) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018
Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No.5) Bill 2018
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018
(a) the routine of business following consideration of the Prime Minister's annual report on Closing the Gap shall be government business only;
(b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;
(c) if, by 7.30 pm, the bills have not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate;
(d) paragraph (c) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after it has completed consideration of the bills listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
Question agreed to.
Senator Ruston. I move—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! We'll be having divisions soon, Senators, so you might want to remain in the chamber quietly.
I move:
That—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Non-controversial government business—
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
4—Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2018
Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2018
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to notice given on 13 February 2019, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2, standing in the name of Senator Williams for 6 June 2019, proposing the disallowance of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Amendment Regulations 2018 and the Industry Research and Development (Artificial Intelligence Capability Program) Instrument 2018.
I have a further matter. Pursuant to notice given on 13 February 2019, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2, standing in the name of Senator Williams for 14 May 2019, proposing the disallowance of the CASA EX111/18—English Language Proficiency Assessments Exemption 2018 and the CASA 66/18—Number of Cabin Attendants (Alliance Airlines) Direction 2018.
I remind senators that the question may be put on the proposal at the request of any senator.
by leave—at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I move:
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
Question agreed to.
I advise that we will be withdrawing notice of motion No. 1378.
by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the decision of the University of Melbourne Council to change the focus of Melbourne University Press away from its current 70% academic, 30% trade model, to a more narrow academic publisher of research in approved areas, and
(ii) with concern, that this will result in Melbourne University Press no longer continuing to publish serious, topical and popular books of political, social and cultural significance, from both the academy and public thinkers and writers; and
(b) calls upon Australian universities to consider a contribution to a national, non-partisan publishing endeavour so the nation continues to have a strong, independent voice with a mandate to publish books in the public interest, through consortia similar to a funding model like that behind The Conversation.
Question agreed to.
At the request Senator Pratt and Senator Storer, of I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 8 April 2019:
The ability of consumers and small businesses to exercise their legal rights through the justice system, and whether there are fair, affordable and appropriate resolution processes to resolve disputes with financial service providers, in particular the big four banks considering:
(a) whether the way in which banks and other financial service providers have used the legal system to resolve disputes with consumers and small businesses has reflected fairness and proportionality, including:
(i) whether banks and other financial service providers have used the legal system to pressure customers into accepting settlements that did not reflect their legal rights,
(ii) whether banks and other financial service providers have pursued legal claims against customers despite being aware of misconduct by their own officers or employees that may mitigate those claims, and
(iii) whether banks generally have behaved in a way that meets community standards when dealing with consumers trying to exercise their legal rights;
(b) the accessibility and appropriateness of the court system as a forum to resolve these disputes fairly, including:
(i) the ability of people in conflict with a large financial institution to attain affordable, quality legal advice and representation,
(ii) the cost of legal representation and court fees,
(iii) costs risks of unsuccessful litigation, and
(iv) the experience of participants in a court process who appear unrepresented;
(c) the accessibility and appropriateness of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) as an alternative forum for resolving disputes including:
(i) whether the eligibility criteria and compensation thresholds for AFCA warrant change,
(ii) whether AFCA has the powers and resources it needs,
(iii) whether AFCA faces proper accountability measures, and
(iv) whether enhancement to their test case procedures, or other expansions to AFCA’s role in law reform, is warranted;
(d) the accessibility of community legal centre advice relating to financial matters; and
(e) any other related matters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
It was this government that called the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. It was this government which responded within four days of receiving the final report and committed to taking action on all 76 recommendations. In a number of important areas we're going further. We have committed to expanding the remit of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority for a period of 12 months to accept applications for disputes dating back to 1 January 2008, the period covered by the royal commission, for disputes that fall within AFCA's threshold. The government will also establish a compensation scheme of last resort to ensure that consumers have their cases heard and can be confident that where compensation is owed it will be paid. This will be a scheme paid for by industry, reflecting their obligation to right their wrongs. In addition, we are strengthening oversight and transparency of financial entities' remediation activities by enhancing AFCA's role in the establishment and public reporting of firm remediation activities. Rather than calling for another inquiry to distract from the fact that the Labor Party is yet to provide— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Australian Government strongly supports a fair, safe and healthy environment for all athletes from all nations and is committed to clean sport. Not only is doping a serious risk to an athlete's health and wellbeing, at its foundation it cheats and debases all that is good about sport and that we hold close to our hearts - from improved health through physical endeavour to the pursuit of athletic excellence and the values it teaches.
Doping is a pronounced and current threat to sport, with successive national and international doping scandals over recent years undermining public confidence in the legitimacy of the sporting contest.
International cooperation and coordination of efforts in the fight against doping continue to improve. But even as the anti-doping effort becomes more sophisticated, making it harder for dopers and those who facilitate doping ' to get away with it', doping among athletes at all levels continues.
As part of the Review of Australia' s Sports Integrity Arrangements (the Wood Review), it was found that increasingly sophisticated doping is harder to detect by urine and blood sample analysis alone, with intelligence and investigations now indispensable in the detection of doping incidents and programs.
Accordingly, the Wood Review found that a detection program involving both sample analysis and intelligence-led investigations is required for the enforcement of anti-doping rules, as a foundation for preventive measures and for the pursuit of non-analytical doping cases. The Wood Review also found that the current Australian anti-doping legislative framework requires reform to enable national anti-doping capability to effectively address modem doping threats.
This Bill to amend the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Act 2006 is the first step in implementing the Wood Review recommendation that Australia's anti doping legislative framework be strengthened to ensure that it is robust, efficient and responsive to the contemporary threat environment.
Turning now to the key provisions of the Bill.
Streamlining of the administrative phase of the statutory Anti-Doping Rule Violation process
The current anti-doping rule violation process is bureaucratic, inefficient and cumbersome. Past casework has also shown the process can prove confusing, repetitive and lengthy for those persons subject to anti-doping rule violation assertions. Failure to provide prompt and efficient resolution of anti-doping matters can be a significant issue for athletes in particular, who have time- . limited sporting careers. This Bill will remove the unnecessary steps and delays in the pre-hearing process and therefore assist to ensure matters may be heard in a timely and efficient manner. Participants will retain their rights to have the assertion heard by a tribunal (including the proposed independent National Sports Tribunal), which will act as the final arbiter of whether an anti-doping rule violation has been committed.
Facilitating better information-sharing between ASADA and National Sporting Organisations
ASADA collects information for the purposes of administering the ASADA Act and Regulations and when this information relates to the affairs of a person and is capable of identifying that person, the information is considered to be protected information. Quite properly, the ASADA Act currently restricts the on-disclosure of protected information. While the information is held by an 'entrusted person' (essentially, an employee or agent of ASADA), the entrusted person can resist the production or disclosure of protected information, even under subpoena.
Protected information may also be disclosed by ASADA to a national sporting organisation for the purposes of the ASADA Act, including information relating to possible anti-doping rule violations. This is a clear intention of the Act, given the role of sports in the anti-doping framework. However, under current arrangement this risks exposure of sensitive personal information.
These amendments will facilitate this required information sharing between ASADA and sporting organisations by extending statutory protections in the ASADA Act so that, in addition to applying to 'entrusted persons', they also apply to a sporting administration body or person that has received the protected information in confidence from ASADA.
Strengthening ASADA ' s disclosure notice regime
In a complex doping environment, ASADA's investigation capability is crucial in uncovering non-analytical anti-doping rule violations (those which do not involve a positive blood or urine test). Critical to ASADA's investigative capacity is the power of the ASADA CEO to issue a disclosure notice requiring an individual or entity to assist with an investigation.
Disclosure notices can require a person to attend an interview to answer questions, give information, or produce documents or things. The Wood Review found that there were areas of this disclosure notice framework that required strengthening to support this investigative capability.
The ASADA CEO can only issue a disclosure notice if they reasonably believe that the person has information, documents or things that may be relevant to the administration of the National Anti-Doping scheme. The threshold of 'reasonable belief means that disclosure notices are generally only sought, and granted (currently by members of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel), in circumstances where ASADA already has evidence that might suggest that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has taken place - for instance, in connection with an Adverse Analytical Finding. In circumstances where ASADA suspects an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has taken place but lacks evidence, disclosure notices would not be available to ASADA to progress the matter. These amendments provide for a statutory threshold for the issue of a disclosure notice to be that of 'reasonable suspicion'. A 'reasonable suspicion' threshold for the exercise of similar powers is relatively commonplace in comparable statutory schemes.
There are also limits to ASADA 's coercive powers once a disclosure notice has been granted. Section 13D (1) of the ASADA Act allows a person to claim privilege against self-incrimination when answering a question or providing information to ASADA. A person cannot claim privilege against self incrimination in relation to a requirement to produce a document or thing. The Wood Review found that to enable ASADA to effectively execute its intelligence and investigative functions, the right to claim privilege against
self-incrimination , when answering a question or providing information to ASADA, should be excluded. These amendments provide for these changes and include the same protections against non-direct or derivative use in criminal prosecution would exist as they currently do under 13D(2) of the ASADA Act, in respect of providing a document or thing.
In effect, this amendment harmonises the exercise of ASADA's powers across the provision of information whether at an interview or by provision of a 'document or thing'. It also brings ASADA's powers to compel evidence from a witness into line with the powers of investigators acting on behalf of many sports (as a result of clauses in player contracts).
Extending statutory protection against civil actions to cover National Sporting Organisations in their exercise of Anti-Doping Rule Violation functions.
Provided that the ASADA CEO, staff and engaged personnel act in good faith, the ASADA Act establishes a suite of statutory protections for them against civil actions relating to:
This protects ASADA in its role when presenting evidence or material against an athlete or support person at a hearing, the issuing of an infraction notice, or in making recommendations about a provisional suspension. However, under the sporting administration body rules (in the National Anti-Doping Scheme), sporting administration bodies and other persons are also required to perform these functions (to the extent that they have not ceded this responsibility back to ASADA).
These amendments extend this statutory protection to protect sporting administration bodies and other persons when bringing anti-doping allegations against an athlete or support person (which is often done after the recommendation of ASADA). As anti-doping cases become more complicated (particularly non-analytical violations) it is beneficial and in the interests of integrity in sport to provide this protection.
Conclusion
To the extent that these reforms are directed to the functions of ASADA, under this proposal such functions would be performed by the proposed new sports integrity agency, Sport Integrity Australia, from 1 July 2020.
The amendments to the ASADA Act are the necessary step in developing a more robust, coordinated and effective anti-doping response. They mark an important development in Australia's anti-doping efforts and will enhance ASADA's ability to combat the mounting sophisticated doping threats.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 2 April 2019 be from midday to 6pm and 8pm to adjournment and that the routine of business from 8pm shall be:
(a) Budget statement and documents 2019-20; and
(b) adjournment.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the remarkable life and achievements of Captain James Cook FRS, who:
(i) was commissioned in 1768 as Commander of the Endeavour for the first of three globe spanning Pacific voyages,
(ii) of particular note, and on his first voyage, observed the 1769 transit of Venus across the Sun, sailed to and mapped the coastline of New Zealand, and on 19 April 1770 reached the south eastern coast of what was to be later known as Australia – the first recorded encounter of a European on the eastern Australian coastline,
(iii) proceeded to map the eastern coastline of Australia, which was vital for the expeditions that followed, and
(iv) was renowned for his superior seamanship, his navigation and cartography skills, his modesty, and for the loyalty he elicited from his crew;
(b) notes that on his third voyage, Captain Cook was killed at Kealakekua Bay, in the Hawaiian Islands, on 14 February 1779;
(c) further notes that, in an era of great explorers and navigators, Captain Cook was first amongst equals; and
(d) commemorates on this day, the 240th anniversary of Captain James Cook's death, the life of Captain Cook, the significant legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge that he left following his passing, and the significant role he played laying the groundwork for the establishment of our great nation.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
While this motion outlines some of the work and some of the life of Captain James Cook, it doesn't outline other areas of his activities and, in particular, those activities that caused distress and continue to cause distress to a number of people. For that reason we cannot support a motion that includes the line 'the significant role he played laying the groundwork for the establishment of our great nation', because that is contested by a large number of particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to prevent higher education providers charging a mandatory student services and amenities fee, and for related purposes. Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Voluntary Student Services and Amenities Fee) Bill 2019
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
In my maiden speech, I made a commitment to introduce a private senator's bill to abolish the student services and amenities fee.
This bill would deliver on that commitment by repealing the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Act 2011, thereby abolishing the compulsory student services and amenities fee (SSAF) and amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to abolish the Student Amenities (SA-HELP) loans.
The SSAF is a $303 compulsory tax, levied on over one million university students annually.
The SSAF is one of the few forcibly collected taxes, which is neither administered by the Commonwealth nor subject to thorough government oversight.
But it should be called out for what it really is: a Labor-Greens Trojan Horse on the way back to compulsory student unionism.
It flies in the face of the fundamental principles that we fight for: the liberty of the individual, a free market, small government and low taxes.
$303 may not seem like much money to politicians in this building, but it is for students. For example, with $303 a typical university student could buy: two weeks of rent; 505 packets of noodles; 3,060 pens; 161 cans of Red Bull energy drink; 121 stubbies of beer; or 4.7 litres of Bundaberg Rum.
The SSAF is unfair, unpopular, undemocratic, unnecessary, burdensome, politicised and wasteful.
It is unfair because it is levied on all students, regardless of their need, willingness and ability to access the services and activities they are paying for.
It is unpopular because students don't believe they are getting value for money and they want SSAF either abolished or given a say in the matter.
It is undemocratic because students don't have a say in how their money is spent.
It is unnecessary because, as student-run organisations in Queensland have shown, you don't need compulsory student fees to run a successful student association that provides a wide range of services and activities.
It is burdensome because it further increases an already significant burden of student debt.
It is politicised because it continues to provide left-wing student politicians and activists an opportunity to misuse students' money on political causes and campaigns that most of students don't support.
It is wasteful because there is a long and ignoble history of compulsory fees being wasted by student politicians who can't help themselves when given a big bucket of someone else's money.
If this bill passes, higher education providers will remain free to levy fees for student services and amenities, should they wish to, but the payment of such a fee will no longer be compulsory.
The amendments contained within this bill are straightforward, and allows for any outstanding transitional matters to be dealt with by the relevant Minister.
It is an important reform long overdue. I commend the bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1360 standing in my name for today relating to foreign aid to be redirected back in the 2019-20 budget for drought, fire and flooding victims to be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
There is, Senator Hanson. Formality has been denied.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I wish to speak to that.
Senator Hanson, we have a provision now in operation that you can seek to suspend standing orders, but that is put without debate, or you can seek leave to make a short statement. Leave is not granted for that, Senator Hanson. I heard a voice denying leave.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
It wasn't me that denied—
This might illustrate why some issues shouldn't be dealt with in this part of the Senate day.
Before asking that the motion is taken as formal, I wish to inform the chamber that Senators Brown and Griff have been added to the motion. I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1364 standing in my name and the name of Senators Brown and Griff, for today relating to the establishment of a royal commission to investigate the violence, abuse and neglect of disabled people.
Leave is granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Brown and Griff, move the motion as amended:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) despite the hard-won progress of the disability rights movement, disabled Australians continue to be subjected to discrimination and are routinely denied the right guaranteed them under international law,
(ii) this discrimination creates and sustains the barriers to employment, education, transport, social and political participation experienced by disabled Australians and, most concerning, manifests itself in horrific violence, abuse and neglect to which they are subjected, and
(iii) from July to September 2018, over 184 incidents of abuse and neglect were reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission) – the Commission has also released data that shows in the same three months it received 62 reports of expected and unexpected deaths, 91 reports of injuries, 34 complaints against individual staff or service providers and 75 cases of unauthorised restrictive practices; and
(b) calls on the Government to request His Excellency the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia issue Letter Patent to establish a royal commission to inquire into violence, abuse and neglect of people with a disability.
(2) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government continues to support and recognise the significant contribution of Australians with disability. The government is also engaging in real, immediate and substantial reform to prevent the abuse and neglect of people with disabilities as we roll out the NDIS, the most significant social reform to improve choice and control for people with disabilities in the service that they receive. The government is providing $209 million over four years to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which will address issues raised in recent inquiries, replacing a complex and fragmented system of quality and safeguards in each state and territory with a single national consistent approach under the NDIS.
The question is that motion No. 1364 be agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and for other purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Environment Legislation Amendment (Protecting Dugongs and Turtles) Bill 2019 makes amendments to several key Acts that protect dugong and turtle populations throughout Australian waters.
Dugongs and sea turtles play an extremely important role in the ecological balance of Australia's marine life and, in particular, in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. However, their populations have declined significantly over the last 15 years. This decline is due to an array of environmental pressures like pollution and habitat destruction, but also human impacts that include indigenous hunting and illegal poaching. While environmental impacts have been measured and certainly need to be addressed, there is little information regarding the number of dugongs and sea turtles killed or injured by human harvesting, which is carried out with a cruel disregard for animal welfare.
Positive steps have been made to deter offenders from illegally poaching, injuring and killing dugongs and sea turtles, such as the tripling of financial penalties for poaching, illegal commercial trade and illegal transportation of listed threatened species in 2015. Despite these changes however, local communities in Queensland and the Northern Territory continue to raise credible allegations of animal cruelty committed by those hunting dugongs and turtles. Such allegations include the use of high-power motorboats, machetes and other cruel methods which maim animals and leave them suffering for hours before dying. It is clear that offenders have not been deterred by the threat of mere financial penalties. This Bill builds upon the measures introduced in 2015 and creates further transparency and accountability for the agencies that seek to conserve these precious animals.
Schedule 1 amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to require that agreements between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and community groups include consideration of the protection and conservation of turtles and dugong species. These amendments will ensure that any agreement or arrangement made between the Authority and community groups directly considers the impact such an agreement or arrangement may have on dugong and turtle populations.
The Bill also amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 to make key changes to the rules governing the accreditation and funding process for traditional use of marine resource agreement or TUMRAs. TUMRAs are formal agreements developed by Traditional Owner groups and accredited by the Authority. These agreements describe how Traditional Owner groups intend to manage their take
Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations to of natural resources and their role in monitoring the condition of species that live in the Marine Park. Many Traditional Owner groups choose to incorporate limitations on the hunting of turtles and dugong into TUMRAs. TUMRAs are an important and effective way to enable traditional owner groups to assist in conservation efforts while exercising their right to harvest culturally significant species under the Native Title Act.
require Traditional Owners to describe the method or methods by which the harvesting of protected species is proposed to be undertaken, as well how such information will be monitored and reported under the TUMRA. Additionally, the Authority would be required to consider whether the methods by which a protected species will be harvested proposed by a Traditional Owner group are humane. In accrediting and/or funding a TUMRA, the Authority must be satisfied that the relevant population of each protected species will be able to sustain any proposed harvesting, and that the proposed harvesting of each protected species will be undertaken in a humane manner.
The amendments in Schedule 2 to the Bill increase the custodial penalties for aggravated offences in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act that relate to the protection of listed marine species (including dugong and turtles) to five years' imprisonment. These amendments will build upon the previous increased penalties introduced in 2015 and will deter people from committing offences by imposing increased custodial sentences in respect of the illegal killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving of listed marine species.
Schedule 3 amends various Acts to require the Australian Border Force, Australian Federal Police, Department of Environment and Energy and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—all of which are responsible for investigating and enforcing existing offence provisions within the EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act—to report annually on the actions they have taken in respect of those provisions that relate to dugongs and turtles. These amendments will assist conservation efforts for dugong and turtle populations by providing additional accountability for responsible agencies to actively enforce existing offence provisions, and will provide consistent data on how such offences are threatening dugong and turtle populations, as well as any relevant factors that may be impacting on the enforcement of these provisions.
Australia is renowned globally for its unique and vibrant marine life. However, continued human disregard for the environments of these species, and in the case of dugongs and sea turtles, wilful destruction of their populations, will see this reputation disappear. It is clear that more needs to be done now to measure the impact human harvesting is having on dugongs and sea turtles, and more needs to be done deter those who would seek to illegally harm or kill crucial species such as these.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1370 standing in my name for today and relating to climate change in the Pacific region be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
A government senator: Yes.
There is an objection. The motion has had formality denied.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1374 relating to the Murray-Darling Basin and standing in my name for today by replacing the word 'adopt' in paragraph (b)(i) with the words 'immediately respond' and adding the words 'and the Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan' to the end of the sentence.
Leave granted.
I move the motion ad amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival, the latest evidence of this being the fish-kills at Menindee Lakes,
(ii) the management of the Murray-Darling Basin requires urgent reform,
(iii) the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission delivered its findings on 29 January 2019, including recommendations to:
(A) improve transparency by "requiring real-time data sharing and publication on water extractions",
(B) abolish the water buybacks cap of 1,500 gigalitres, and
(C) undertake further research into return flows so that we know the effects of irrigation efficiency projects, and
(iv) the Productivity Commission delivered its findings to the Federal Government on 19 December 2018, pointing out that:
(A) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's twin roles as overseer of the Plan and its regulator are "conflicted and the conflicts will intensity in the next five years", and
(B) structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into a Basin Plan Regulator and Murray-Darling Basin Agency is required to ensure effective implementation of the Plan; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) immediately respond to each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and
(ii) proceed with the structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, as proposed by the Productivity Commission.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is considering carefully the South Australian royal commission and notes the report was commissioned by the South Australian government. The government has already indicated it will develop a response to the Productivity Commission's five-year assessment of the Basin Plan. It is appropriate that the response to the Productivity Commission report be developed in close consultation with the basin state and territory jurisdictions and communities.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation is in support of most parts of this notice of motion. However, I do not support paragraph (b)(i) of the motion, which, in effect, calls for water plans to be subject to climate change predictions. The Murray-Darling river flows have always been highly variable. Flows have been recorded as high as 117,907 gigalitres in 1956 and as low as 6,740 gigalitres in 2006. Instead of playing the zero-sum game, where farmers have to lose water in order for the environment to gain it, it is time to think differently about the problem. We need to look seriously at a revised hybrid Bradfield Scheme to bring water from the north and south to Lake Eyre and to the Murray-Darling. The Murray-Darling cannot be turned into a natural river system, but we can increase the river flows.
Are you asking for the question to be put separately, Senator Hanson?
Yes, if it could be—paragraph (b)(i).
The question is that paragraph (a)(i) to (iv) of motion No. 1374 be agreed to.
Senator Kitching did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bushby
The question is that paragraph (b)(i) of motion No. 1374 be agreed to.
The question is that paragraph (b)(ii) of motion No. 1374 be agreed to.
I seek leave to move notice of motion No. 1401 out of order.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) the German-based Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots (ACTP) received permission to export 232 birds between 2015 and November 2018 for exhibition purposes,
(ii) among the birds exported were endangered Carnaby's black cockatoos, vulnerable Baudin's black cockatoos, naretha bluebonnets, gang-gang cockatoos and mutation varieties of king parrots and galahs,
(iii) the legal import and export of rare and endangered birds is governed by the 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), of which Australia and Germany are signatories, and
(iv) the ACTP has no facilities freely open to the public; and
(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by 15 February 2019, all documents and correspondence, including meeting minutes, that set out the owners of parrots that were supplied for the ACTP prior to the consignments being collated for export.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Department of the Environment and Energy's office of compliance is reviewing the allegations made by the German association to determine whether to launch a formal investigation under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Releasing the names of the previous owners of the birds that were not directly involved in the export process would be a contravention of their privacy. This could discourage people from engaging in good faith with the regulatory process in the future.
The question is that motion No. 1381 be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That—
(a) the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be extended to 2 April 2019; and
(b) a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in this variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1385 to substitute '18 February' for '14 February'.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 9am on 18 February 2019: draft advice issued to states and territories by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in relation to proposed amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations 2001, discussed at the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology meeting in October 2018.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
As outlined in the communique of the 11 October 2018 meeting of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology, representing all Australian governments, forum ministers welcomed the technical review and requested further advice in relation to amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations 2001, recommended by the Gene Technology Regulator. Following this meeting, further work was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. This matter is yet to be finalised by the forum.
The question is that motion No. 1385 as amended be agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1388 standing in my name for today, relating to Queensland Nickel, be taken as formal.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
There is. Senator Hanson, the motion has been denied formality.
In lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Pursuant to the order adopted, that motion will now be put, without debate, immediately. The question is that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow motion No. 1388 to be dealt with as a formal motion.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I refer to the previous motion, general business notice of motion No. 1388. As the matter is currently before the courts, it is not appropriate for the Senate to deal with these issues by formal motion. The FEG scheme is intended to be a safety net and it remains the responsibility of all employers to properly pay their workers' entitlements. We note that the Fair Entitlement Guarantee scheme paid over $66 million to 759 employees retrenched from Queensland Nickel, the largest FEG payment ever made. The Department of Jobs and Small Business is funding a special purpose liquidator to pursue legal claims against Mr Palmer and others, seeking to recover more than $200 million, with a trial set for July this year. The government has recently introduced important legislation to strengthen the recovery of FEG payments and deter improper reliance on FEG and the Australian taxpayers to meet the obligations owed to employees.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill implements measures announced as part of the Liberal National Government's 2018-19 Budget to enhance the standard of living of older Australians by giving retirees greater choice and flexibility when it comes to managing their finances in retirement.
This Bill provides for three changes to support Australians in retirement including new means test rules to encourage the development and take-up of lifetime retirement income products, an expansion of the Pension Loans Scheme, and an increase and expansion of the Pension Work Bonus.
In 2017 the Government introduced changes to the superannuation regulations facilitating the development of innovative retirement products in Australia. This Bill outlines how these products will be assessed under the social security means test. These new rules pave the way for the development of retirement income products in Australia that support greater choice and flexibility for Australians in retirement.
Currently, innovative products that are already on the market, and any new products that may be developed in the future, are not being appropriately means tested. The current rules do not take into account the unique characteristics of these innovative income streams. The new rules make sure retirees who purchase these products in the future are fairly and appropriately assessed.
The new means test rules will take effect from 1 July 2019. They fairly assess pooled lifetime income stream products. A pooled lifetime income stream is a product that involves grouping a number of people's savings together. Those who contribute then receive a regular payment for the rest of their life. These products can help manage the risk of a person running out of savings in retirement.
The new means test rules will apply to all pooled lifetime income products held by social security or Veterans' Affairs income support recipients that are acquired or purchased on or after 1 July 2019. Products purchased before 1 July 2019 will not be affected by these new rules. The rules will not change for account-based income streams, the most common retirement income product.
Under the income test, the new means test rules will assess 60 per cent of payments from a pooled lifetime income stream as income. This reflects that part of the payments made by the income stream are a return of a person's initial investment amount, and therefore not income.
Under the assets test, the new means test rules will assess a proportion of the total purchase amount for the pooled lifetime income stream. At the time of purchase, 60 per cent of the purchase amount will be assessed. This will continue for a minimum of five years, or until the person reaches the life expectancy of a 65 year old male (currently age 84), whichever is longer. After this point, 30 per cent of the purchase amount will be assessed.
This treatment takes into account the restrictions placed on these products by the superannuation regulations. When someone invests in a pooled lifetime income stream, they have limited access to their initial capital investment. By assessing only 60 per cent, we recognise the limited ability for these income streams to be 'cashed in' for self-support. By assessing 30 per cent in later life, the rules also recognise that the pooled lifetime income stream continues to have some value to the person, but avoids unfair outcomes when there is no ability to 'cash in' the income stream.
An income stream can be sold outside of superannuation, where it is not bound by the new superannuation regulations. In these situations, the new rules have some additional provisions to make sure that this is factored into the means test assessment.
The Bill also amends the rules that apply to investment-type life insurance products. These products function similarly to additional benefits that can be attached to pooled lifetime income streams. The rules for investment-type life insurance products have been amended to make sure they are consistent with the new rules for pooled lifetime income streams. This stops two pensioners buying products with very similar features, but that would result in very different means test outcomes.
Stakeholders in the financial product and retirement income industries have been consulted throughout the development of the new means test rules. Stakeholders have been broadly supportive of this means testing approach, and the new rules take into account their feedback.
Whilst it is expected that the take up of these new products will be modest in the near future, because of these new means test rules it is expected that more products will be able to come to market, giving pensioners more choice and flexibility around how they manage their retirement savings.
The Government is committed to making sure that trustees and retirement income product providers continue to act in the best interests of retirees, and that retirees have choice, flexibility and security in how they manage their retirement savings. These new means test rules simply mean that pensioners will now be able to invest in innovative retirement income streams, confident in how their pension will be impacted by their purchase.
The introduction of these new means test rules does not in any way limit the advice and disclosure people considering innovative income stream products will receive. In fact, making the rules clearer will help people make informed decisions about the products that are right for them.
The Government has also agreed to those recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry that will improve protections for consumers of financial advice, giving consumers, including retirees, more confidence when they seek financial advice. The Government will strengthen the financial advice framework by ending the grandfathering of conflicted financial advice remuneration from 1 January 2021, providing for annual renewal of ongoing financial advice arrangements, and will require financial advisers to disclose to clients where they are not independent, impartial or unbiased.
The Government has also announced that it will ensure trustees' obligations are effectively enforced as part of its response to the Royal Commission by imposing civil penalties on trustees for breaches of certain obligations, including the obligation to act in members' best interests.
Additionally, these new means test rules are only a part of the Government's larger retirement income policy. Government and industry will continue to work together on a Retirement Income Framework and Retirement Income Covenant. In developing that framework, it is important that there is certainty as to how these products are assessed for social security purposes. These new means test rules provide that certainty.
The new means test rules are estimated to cost $20.2 million over four years.
Secondly, this Bill increases and expands the Pension Work Bonus. The Work Bonus encourages pensioners of pension age to undertake employment to supplement their pension. Presently, under the Work Bonus the first $250 of employment income a fortnight is not counted in the pension income test. This works in addition to the standard income free area (currently $172 per fortnight for a single pensioner). This allows, for example, a single age pensioner, with no other income, to earn up to $422 a fortnight from employment and still receive the maximum rate of Age Pension.
Pensioners are also able to build up any unused amount of the $250 fortnightly exemption to a total of $6,500. This amount can be used to exempt future earnings from the pension income test, so a pensioner could earn up to $6,500 a year extra without it affecting their pension. Any unused amount of the Work Bonus is held in a Work Bonus income bank. The income bank amount is not time-limited – if unused it carries forward, even across years.
The changes to the Work Bonus in this Bill will commence from 1 July 2019. These changes will allow pensioners of pension age to earn more from working without reducing their pension payments. Social security pensioners of pension age, and Veterans' Affairs pensioners of service pension age, will be able to earn up to $300 per fortnight from work before this income is assessed under the pension income test. Additionally, the Work Bonus maximum accrual amount will increase to $7,800.
The Work Bonus was set at $250 per fortnight when the current scheme was introduced in 2011 and has not been increased since. Increasing the Work Bonus amount will allow pensioners to retain more of their pension when they receive income from work.
For example, consider Rohan, a single age pensioner working two days a week and earning $500 a fortnight. He has no other income and his assets are below the asset test free area. His pension is currently reduced because of his earnings. Under the changes, the first $300 of Rohan's earnings will not be assessed and only $200 will count for the pension income test. His pension will increase by $25 per fortnight.
This Bill also expands the Work Bonus to the self-employed. Earnings from self-employment are currently excluded from the Work Bonus. By expanding the Work Bonus, this Bill will reward all work done by pensioners, including work done by the self-employed.
To understand how the changes to the Work Bonus may impact a self-employed person, consider Nisha. Nisha is a single part rate age pensioner who runs a small business. She earns an average of $1,000 a fortnight. Her assets are below the pension asset test free area. As Nisha's income from self-employment is now eligible for the Work Bonus, the first $300 of her income will be excluded from the pension income test, and Nisha will receive a higher part-rate Age Pension. Her pension will increase by $150 per fortnight.
A Personal Exertion test will apply to ensure that the Work Bonus is only available to self-employed people who earn income from an engagement in gainful work—not those who receive income through financial or real estate investment businesses.
Overall, the changes to the Work Bonus will increase the payments of about 88,750 social security pensioners and 1,000 allowance recipients from 1 July 2019. Approximately 1,150 people will become eligible for a social security pension for the first time. Approximately 3,000 Veterans' Affairs pensioners will also benefit.
The changes to the Work Bonus are estimated to cost $227.4 million over four years.
This Bill also expands the Pension Loans Scheme. The Pension Loans Scheme is currently available through Centrelink to part-rate pensioners and some self-funded retirees who own real estate. Under this scheme, a person of Age Pension age can nominate an amount up to the equivalent of the full rate of pension, with the payments accruing as a debt secured against real estate owned by the person. The debt accrues interest at a low market-related interest rate (currently 5.25 per cent). Safeguards ensure the amount of the maximum loan that can accrue is limited. The debt is either repaid if the property securing the loan is sold or recovered from the person's estate. The scheme is voluntary and can be withdrawn from at any time.
From 1 July 2019 the Pension Loans Scheme will be expanded. The available Pension Loans Scheme fortnightly loan plus pension amount will increase to 150 per cent of the maximum rate of fortnightly Age Pension (including the pension and energy supplements, and rent assistance where applicable). This will allow, for the first time, maximum rate pensioners with securable real estate in Australia to receive a loan. Previous rules preventing some self-funded retirees from participating in the Scheme will also be removed.
The change will also allow existing Pension Loans Scheme recipients to increase their existing pension plus loan amount up to the new threshold of 150 per cent of maximum fortnightly rate of pension. As with the existing scheme, the debt is either repaid when the secured property is sold or recovered from the estate. Existing safeguards limiting the maximum loan amount will also remain.
These changes will give older Australians more choice to draw on the equity in their homes to support their standard of living in retirement. Full rate pensioners will be able to increase their income by up to $11,912 (singles) or $17,958 (couples combined) per year (based on current rates of pension) by unlocking the equity in their home.
Currently, there are around 1.8 million Age Pension recipients who own their own home. This includes around 1.1 million maximum rate age pensioners, who are unable to access the existing Pension Loans Scheme. Around 6,000 eligible pensioners of Age Pension age are expected take up a loan under the expanded Scheme over the next three years.
For example, consider Bob and Sue, a 70 year old maximum rate pensioner couple, with a house valued at $850,000. Their combined Age Pension income is currently $1,381.40 per fortnight ($35,916 per year).
Under the expanded Pension Loans Scheme, Bob and Sue are now able to access some of the value in their home. They choose to receive $2,072.10 per fortnight ($53,875 per year), the full amount of 150 per cent of the maximum rate of the Age Pension. This means Bob and Sue receive an additional $690.70 per fortnight ($17,958.20 per year) in income. The value of the additional pension increases over time in line with pension indexation.
Over the next 20 years, Bob and Sue receive additional pension under the Pension Loans Scheme at an interest rate of 5.25 per cent. After 20 years, Bob and Sue sell the house for $1.6 million. While the balance of the Pension Loans Scheme loan owed to the Government has grown to around $900,000, Bob and Sue pay out this balance from the sale proceeds and retain $700,000.
Over the 20 years, Bob and Sue receive around $500,000 in additional income to support their standard of living in retirement.
The changes to the Pension Loans Scheme are estimated to cost $11 million over the forward estimates.
Key stakeholders across the retirement income sector and peak bodies representing seniors have supported these three measures. COTA Australia strongly supports all three measures, noting that they are a "welcome range of measure to improve the standard of living of older Australians".
The Bill also includes technical amendments to confirm that income support recipients of Age Pension age qualify for the employment nil rate period.
The 'employment nil rate period' arrangements play an important role in encouraging age pensioners to engage in the workforce. They enable a person whose pension payment is not payable due to employment income to remain connected to the pension system for a 12 week period. During this period, the person retains their concession cards and can immediately return to pension if their work ceases without needing to submit a new claim or be subject to applicable waiting periods.
Overall, this Bill affirms the Morrison Government's commitment to older Australians by giving retirees greater choice and flexibility when it comes to managing their finances in retirement. It will support home-owning retirees to receive more income in the form of a loan. And it will allow older Australians to keep more of their pension when they work.
Labor supports this bill and commends it to the Senate.
I thank senators for their contribution, and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018 amends the Parliamentary Service Act /999 in relation to the timing for the release of the post-election report of election commitments, prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
The Parliamentary Service Act 1999 requires the
Parliamentary Budget Office to prepare and publicly release a post-election report on election commitments, following a general election. The report presents the budget impacts of election commitments that would have a material impact on the Commonwealth Budget, and provides an indication of the total impact a party's election platform would have on the Commonwealth Budget for the current and next three financial years, if those election commitments were enacted as announced.
An independent review (the review) was established in November 2016 to examine how the Parliamentary Budget Office could continue to build on its foundations. The review was undertaken by Dr Ian Watt and Mr Barry Anderson, and the report of recommendations was published in March 2017.
The review recommended allowing more time to prepare the report, noting that other recommendations of the review were to increase the scope of the report by including the medium-term financial impacts of election commitments and including the policies of parties with less than five members where those parties elect to be included. The Parliamentary Budget Office is already working to implement these changes to the scope of the report, which does not require legislative change.
Only the proposal to change the timing of the post-election report requires change to legislation. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Presiding Officers have agreed to the change in timing for the publication of the report. The delayed publication is not only intended to accommodate the changed scope of these reports by the Parliamentary Budget Office, but is also expected to enhance the visibility of the post-election report by moving the timing closer to the resumption of parliamentary sittings.
It is important for all Australians that there is transparency when it comes to identifying the Budget impacts of election commitments. It is important the post-election report is accessible, informative and still available in time to inform
deliberations of parliament. And it is desirable that the new arrangements to enhance the visibility of the report are in place before the next post-election report is published.
Labor supports this bill and commends it to the Senate.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I am pleased to introduce the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018.
The Bill is designed to enhance the selection process and independence of Judge Advocates under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, and the general operation of the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001.
Schedule 1 of the Bill will amend the Defence Force Discipline Act to ensure greater transparency in the selection of Judge Advocates and to enhance their independence. Schedule 3 will also amend the Defence Force Discipline Act, making minor and technical amendments without affecting the operation of the Act.
Judge Advocates are senior military legal officers appointed by the Chief of the Defence Force or a service chief, who assist court martial members with the application of military law, or sit as Defence Force Magistrates in the trial of accused persons. Judge Advocates are central to the proper operation of the superior tribunals.
The amendments proposed in this Bill will allow the Chief of the Defence Force to determine selection criteria and a selection process for appointment to the Judge Advocates' Panel in a notifiable instrument. This will provide for a more open and transparent selection process, including public advertisement.
The amendments will include mechanisms for termination and resignation of appointments to the Judge Advocates' Panel, extend the maximum length of appointment from three years to five years, and set remuneration in an equivalent manner to the
Registrar of Military Justice and the Chief Judge Advocate.
The amendments will also make changes to the provisions dealing with the Chief Judge Advocate, who is appointed from the Judge Advocates' Panel by the Judge Advocate General, to provide him or her with administrative assistance. The amendments will:
Together, these measures will modernise the relevant provisions in the Defence Force Discipline Act, and help to attract a wider pool of suitable candidates, separate the Judge Advocates from potential command influence, and maintain the Judge Advocate capability in the military justice system.
Schedule 2 of the Bill will move the complaints and mediation scheme from the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Regulations 2001 to the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001. Other amendments will operate to repeal the existing regulations. Their content will either be moved into the Act or included in rules made by a Defence Minister.
The Defence Reserve Service Protection Act provides for the protection of Reservists in their civilian employment and education, to facilitate their return to civilian life after rendering Defence service, and for other related purposes.
It sets out entitlements and prohibitions that apply in relation to people, who at any time, render service as Reservists. The Act mitigates some of the employment and financial disadvantages Reservists may face when rendering Defence service, and facilitates their availability to undertake Defence service, thereby enhancing Defence capability.
An important feature of the management of the Reserve workforce is the scheme for receiving and investigating complaints relating to matters arising under the Act, and for facilitating mediation of such matters. This scheme is currently set out in the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Regulations 2001, and vests the Office of Reserve Service Protection with various powers to receive and investigate such complaints.
In the course of amending the Act last year, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee recommended that the complaints and mediation scheme, which contain significant matters, should be moved from the regulations into the Act. This recommendation was subsequently accepted by the Government, and will be implemented by Schedule 2 of the Bill.
While the new scheme in the current Bill is based on the regulations, some changes have been made to simplify and modernise the complaint and mediation process. The most significant change is to vest the relevant complaint-handling powers in the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF). Previously, the Office of Reserve Service Protection received and handled complaints.
While that Office will continue to operate on an administrative basis within the Department of Defence, it is appropriate for powers relating to complaints and investigations to reside with the CDF as the head of the Australian Defence Force, to ensure clear line of accountability. There is a new requirement for CDF to prepare a report in relation to the administration and operation of the Act, for inclusion in the Defence Annual Report each year.
Under the Bill, a person may make a complaint to the CDF about an alleged contravention of the Act. An example is where a Reservist complains that his or her civilian employment has been terminated due to their military service. The Bill gives CDF the necessary flexibility to handle the complaint as he or she sees appropriate, including by conducting an investigation. Investigations may be conducted for any suspected contravention of the Act, even where there is no complaint.
In investigating a matter, the CDF may give notices to individuals to produce information or documents. For example, a notice requiring a Reservist's civilian employer to produce a termination notice or employment contract. Civil penalties may be imposed for failure to comply with a notice. This removes the former criminal offence and brings the offence in line with other civil penalty provisions in the Act.
The Bill will simplify the complaint handling and investigation process by removing unnecessarily prescriptive provisions from the existing scheme. It will also authorise the CDF to disclose an investigation report or information to specific individuals, such as a complainant or other affected persons.
The Bill will allow the CDF to provide dispute resolution services to facilitate a negotiated outcome in the event of a dispute under the Act. This simplifies the previous mediation provisions which contained unnecessary detail about the qualifications of mediators and operation of mediation services, and also allows for dispute resolution services apart from mediation.
The Bill will also provide for compulsory conferences, where the CDF can compel parties to attend a conference to advise them of their rights and obligations under the Act, identify the issues in dispute, and facilitate discussion between the parties.
For example, a compulsory conference between a Reservist and his or her former civilian employer regarding the termination of their employment.
The complaint handling function is an important feature of Reserve protection, with over 1400 enquiries relating to service protection issues received in the 2017/18 financial year – two thirds of those from Reservists and the remaining third from employers. These changes to the process will help to ensure that all complaints are dealt with swiftly, flexibly and fairly.
This Bill moves to make some small but significant changes to Defence legislation.
Labor support this bill and commends it to the Senate.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I can indicate that Labor supports this bill and commends it to the Senate.
The purpose of this bill is to protect sponsorship and licensing revenue from the International Cricket Council T20 World Cup Twenty20 from being undermined by ambush marketing, which is the unauthorised commercial use of event indicia and images. This will be achieved by including the T20 World Cup as a recognised major sporting event under the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014.
The bill also takes the opportunity to remove schedules relating to the historical sporting events that are no longer provided protection under the act, being the Asian Football Confederation, Asian Football Cup 2015 and the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015. The bill is consistent with the approach the Australian government took when it legislated to protect the indicia and images of the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games, the Asian Football Confederation Asian Cup 2015, the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015, the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games and the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. It also meets a commitment by the Australian government to provide such intellectual property rights protection of hosting the T20 World Cup.
Hosting the T20 World Cup in Australia provides a unique opportunity to showcase our country to the world from a tourism, trade and event perspective. Event owners and organisers like those for the T20 World Cup rely heavily on revenue generated by television rights, ticket sales, sponsorship and licensing to ensure their event can be delivered and continues to be an attractive and viable financial proposition to future host countries. It is this profile and these commercial realities that necessitate the sorts of protections that are proposed for the T20 World Cup in this bill.
The bill will protect the use of a range of expressions and images associated with the T20 World Cup, with the aim being to prevent an unauthorised user from applying those indicia and images to suggest a formal association with the T20 World Cup. This act, known as 'ambush marketing by association', has the capacity to diminish the value of sponsorship, reduce the incentive for organisations to enter into commercial arrangements with events, and reduce the overall event revenue. In turn, this has the ability to increase financial impacts on government to support such events. While it is important to protect the T20 World Cup sponsors from ambush marketing, the rights of the community to freedom of expression must also be respected, particularly in relation to words that have passed into common usage. A pragmatic approach has been taken, with generic words and references excluded from the list of protected expressions.
In line with the Australian government deregulation agenda, the bill is not intended to increase the burden on business or affect their everyday operations. The bill fully protects the rights of existing holders to use T20 World Cup indicia and images to carry out their business functions. The T20 World Cup schedule proposed in the bill will cease to have effect after 30 November 2021, approximately one year after completion of the T20 World Cup. This is consistent with other major sporting events protected by the act. I thank the members for their contribution to the debate and I commend the bill.
I would like to indicate that Labor supports the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill and commends it to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports the Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) 2019 Bill and commends it to the Senate.
The government recognises the important contribution the wine industry makes to the Australian economy. In 2018 Australia's total wine exports exceeded $2.8 billion, with benefits flowing to both Australian wine producers and regional wine-producing communities. The UK is Australia's top wine export market by volume and the third-largest by value. It is therefore vital that we ensure the continuity of trade with the UK regardless of Brexit arrangements. The Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019 will facilitate the continued trade in wine between Australia and the United Kingdom in the event of a Brexit transition period. Trade in wine between Australia and the UK is currently facilitated by the agreement between Australia and the European Community on trade in wine. This wine agreement will cease to apply to wine traded between Australia and the UK in the event of a no-deal Brexit or at the end of the Brexit transition period. The bill amends the definition of 'EC country' in the Wine Australia Act 2013 to include the UK during the Brexit transition period. This will ensure that the beneficial conditions for wine trade continue to apply between Australia and the UK during this period. The bill is important to Australia's wine exporters as well as the wine industry more broadly. It is important that the parliament supports continued market access and trade relationships that enable our wine industry to grow. I thank senators for their contribution to the debate, acknowledging that the wine industry is very important to our regional communities, winemakers and wine grape growers throughout Australia. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That government business order of the day relating to Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 be postponed until the next day of sitting and that intervening business be postponed until after consideration of government business order of the day No. 3, Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018.
Question agreed to.
I rise to make a contribution for the Labor Party—the party that believed in superannuation, the party that delivered superannuation for Australia and the only party that continues to prioritise protection of the benefits of superannuation for all Australians.
Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. Labor is the architect of Australia's compulsory superannuation system. The Labor movement created super, and all of the increases in the superannuation guarantee were proposed and legislated by Labor. Labor introduced the low-income superannuation tax offset. Labor set up the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House and SuperStream. Labor created MySuper.
In contrast, for the past five years the Liberal government have done nothing—nothing!—to strengthen our superannuation system. They focused on attacking industry super funds, and more recently, distracted from that purpose, they've decided to attack themselves. They failed the millions of Australians who have been denied their retirement savings. This government have no desire to show up for work; they're a part-time government. They also have no desire to crackdown on unpaid super or dodgy employers. In fact, they want to reward them with an amnesty.
According to the Productivity Commission, in the default market alone about five million members' super accounts and $270 billion in assets are in underperforming funds. One of the biggest factors in underperformance is fees. High fees matter because they reduce members' returns and, ultimately, members' retirement incomes, and that matters to Labor. We know that fees are the biggest drain on long-term net returns across funds. Even a fee of just a small number, when you look at it at face value, of 0.5 percentage points higher, can cost a typical full-time worker up to $100,000 by the time they reach retirement. The Productivity Commission has also found that funds which charge higher fees typically do not deliver better net returns to members over time. Underperforming super funds—high-fee funds with poor returns—are not protecting members' best interests.
The bill before us today implements measures announced in the 2018-19 budget to protect members' superannuation savings from erosion. It does it in a number of ways: firstly, by limiting fees so that low-balance savings can grow and are protected from disproportionately high fees. It also saves erosion of superannuation by banning exit fees to remove a barrier to account consolidation. Further, it ensures that arrangements for insurance in superannuation are appropriate so that members are not paying for insurance cover they don't know about, or premiums that inappropriately erode their retirement savings. And, further, the legislation before us today strengthens the Australian Taxation Office's role in reuniting small, inactive balances to reduce the cost to members and to consolidate the accounts of members that have accrued multiple superannuation accounts.
We support the objective of this bill, which is doing the right thing in principle in that it's seeking to protect members' superannuation savings from erosion by fees and charges, but there are significant gaps in the government's proposal, which Labor will be seeking to address through amendments to the bill. We are deeply concerned about the blunt removal of default insurance for large groups of Australians. In its current form, the bill risks leaving younger members and low-income earners, predominantly women, without adequate insurance cover. Labor is the architect of Australia's compulsory superannuation system. We will always fight to protect it and strengthen it. That is the purpose of the amendments we will move today as this bill moves through the Senate.
We are pleased to see that this bill finally got a listing, even in the extraordinary circumstances of the reordering of business that's occurred here today. We will be supporting this bill and seeking to strengthen it. The Australian Labor Party, who stood up for in the establishment of superannuation and continues to stand up for ordinary hardworking people today, commits to protecting workers' superannuation and reuniting them with their superannuation faster.
I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. It is a very special honour and pleasure for me to speak about superannuation because I do feel like I come to this place with a level of both experience and authority in this particular area. I worked in superannuation for almost all of my professional career before coming to the Senate, both in retail and industry superannuation funds, which I think gives me quite a unique perspective on superannuation and its intricacies, complexities and vagaries.
On top of that, I have another interesting circumstance, which is that I started my professional career in 1992, which, of course, is the first year that superannuation was introduced in Australia. So I have actually had superannuation throughout my entire career. Yet the superannuation industry—all $2.7 trillion of it—is not yet a mature industry, because it has had that step-up in the percentage of superannuation guarantee between 1992 and where it is now. It started at two per cent, and now it's at 9.5 per cent. But it really won't be until people who are starting work now, and are getting their 9.5 per cent superannuation guarantee now, retire in 45 or so years time that, I think, is probably when we can actually call this industry mature. That's an extraordinary assertion, because with $2.7 trillion under management, that actually makes superannuation larger than Australia's GDP. It's an extraordinary claim and one of the reasons why superannuation in Australia potentially is considered the envy of the world. Our superannuation system is often called the envy of the world. I would actually go so far as to say that that is not, in fact, the case. Yes, it is a very important industry. Yes, it is quite a successful one. But I think we need to go back to superannuation's origins to understand exactly how it came about.
I heard Senator O'Neill say that this was a Labor introduction. Absolutely, it was a Labor introduction. In fact, if you cast your mind back to 1992, it was Paul Keating who initiated compulsory superannuation in Australia. But don't think that it came from an entirely altruistic place. At that stage the budget was in terrible strife, yet the union movement was putting undue pressure on the Labor Party to give a pay rise to unions, particularly to public sector unions. There was an unholy accord, for want of a better expression, between Bill Kelty and Paul Keating back in about 1991 when they decided to introduce compulsory superannuation, rather than a pay rise, for the unionised workforces. Two per cent would be added to people's salaries, but it would be withheld until they retired. That way people could get a pay rise, but it wasn't inflationary, so it didn't necessarily have a detrimental effect on the economy. Everybody was happy. That was, everybody except for the employers who had to pay that two per cent. Of course, it was very hard for employers. They weren't going to take money out of people's salaries to withhold and quarantine for 40 years, so they had to pay an additional two per cent.
That compulsory superannuation system actually put a lot of people out of work. That's ancient history. However, we should understand that the legacies of superannuation have actually been compounded and bandaided over so many decades that what we have now is a highly imperfect system. It is certainly not the envy of the world, as we like to say, but it is compulsory. So what we say now is that essentially we are going to quarantine nearly $1 in $10 of everybody's salaries. The government say we have to. If the government say that we are going to compulsorily take away nearly $1 in $10 out of your salaries, we as a government are also then morally bound to ensure your money is invested properly. It's not just properly; it has to be invested cost-efficiently and productively.
The objective of superannuation is to save enough so that you have an income in retirement that can either supplement or substitute the age pension. That is the objective of superannuation, according to David Murray, the author of the Financial System Inquiry. So, with that objective in mind, what can we do to ensure that Australians' money is saved and invested cost-efficiently, appropriately and productively? We saw just recently the Productivity Commission come out with some extraordinarily compelling evidence about the structural flaws in our superannuation system that are costing members dearly. They are: entrenched underperforming funds; unintended multiple accounts; unreasonable free structures; and unnecessary insurance. Just by eliminating those entrenched underperformers and multiple accounts, a 55-year-old today could earn an extra $79,000 in their retirement. That's an amazing amount—$79,000. That's potentially one or two years of tax-free income for a retiree. More importantly, though, if we just got rid of the multiple accounts, someone under 25 today could earn an additional half a million dollars towards their retirement. That would certainly make for a far more comfortable retirement.
This is evidence enough that reform is absolutely imperative. However, what we have seen in commentary from both industry and Labor is that any reform is not without its ideological hurdles as we make our way through the chicanes of vested interest. Inevitably, there is vested interest in the superannuation industry, particularly from the Labor Party. The Labor Party is in an unholy alliance with the union movement and the industry superannuation movement. So it's not ever going to be something easy to reform.
However, from a government perspective, the more people that we have who can adequately fund themselves in retirement, the lower the tax burden will be on future generations. This is particularly important. If I were 25 years old today and I heard that if my money were effectively invested I could have half a million dollars towards my retirement and, if the system were more efficient, I would have a lower tax burden throughout my working life, I would think that was an absolute no-brainer. However, there is a problem. That is that it's very rare to find a 25-year-old who has their eyes on their retirement. We have something called financial myopia—a short-sightedness where we can't imagine what we will be like at that age. So it's hard to make the most optimal decision at that age for life ahead. For that reason, it is the responsibility of government to be, essentially, the custodian of future generations' standard of living. That's why we take that role particularly seriously. That's why we include a fair tax system that respects hard work and policies that create growth and opportunities in competition and choice for the future.
But we also have to have an honest discussion about who the superannuation system serves. The most important person it serves is the superannuant, the investor, the end user. It's not the providers. It's not the industry superannuation funds that I used to work for or the retail funds. It's no-one else. It is the end user we have to stand up for.
Let's have a look at this package that the government has put together on protecting our superannuation. This important package came out of considerable consultation with industry, and it also went through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, of which I am chair. I can walk you through some of the discussions and recommendations that that committee had. The most important aspects of this legislation are threefold. Before I get to that, can I say that the Protecting Your Super package will result in millions of Australians saving billions of dollars in fees and charges and a reduction of unnecessarily duplicated accounts. It will ultimately mean more money in retirement for those members. In particular, though, the package will benefit women, who on average retire with a significantly lower balance than men. Hopefully the plan of the game is to make sure that it is much easier for women to build their superannuation.
Let me take you through a couple of issues that have come up in the discussions about this particular bill. There was some concern about removing superannuation for under 25s. This is a sensible idea. The problem at the moment is that accounts for under-25s are being eaten up by insurance premiums. Poor under-25s, particularly those who have multiple accounts. They have life insurance and TPD insurance and income protection insurance, but the premiums that get charged every year eat up their low balances. So by the time they go to consolidate their balances there's hardly any superannuation. It takes longer for them to save superannuation because of the eating away by fees and charges, particularly insurance premiums.
What we've done is we've said that we will make insurance and superannuation optional—opt in—for people under 25. They don't have to have it. If they feel they need it they can have it, but on a default basis they don't get it automatically. There was some concern that there are a number of under-25s that are potentially in dangerous occupations. That was where some of the push-back came. But those individuals can always opt in if they are in a dangerous occupation. It's up to the superannuation fund to speak to their members and ask them whether they think that insurance is appropriate for them. Deciding what a dangerous occupation is is quite an interesting decision in itself. If you're a window cleaner, is that a dangerous occupation? It's not if you're only doing windows at ground level, but if you're doing windows on the 25th floor it is. If you are a construction worker, is that a dangerous occupation? Potentially it is, but it depends what type of construction work you do. Who is it up to to decide what is a dangerous occupation and what isn't? There are also some dangerous occupations that are white-collar, as well, so that does make for a level of confusion.
Senator Ruston interjecting—
For instance a politician, I hear my colleague saying. The most important thing is that it's not up to us to define what a dangerous occupation is; it's up to the individual to work out whether they need insurance or not. At the moment, though, what is happening is that young people, because it is a group insurance policy, are subsidising the insurance of older Australians. There's nothing fair about that.
The other thing this legislation does is limit fees in superannuation. At the moment, if you change superannuation funds—if you decide to move from one fund to another—there might be exit fees on the way through. More importantly, there are exorbitant administration fees charged all over superannuation. This legislation limits the extent of fees charged on superannuation, to make sure your savings are being managed cost-effectively and most productively.
Of course, the other thing—I think this is the most important part—is to get rid of those multiple accounts. We want to see consolidation of accounts throughout the entire industry. Apparently there are literally millions of inactive or duplicate accounts out there. As the Productivity Commission has pointed out, to get rid of those multiple accounts would make the industry so much more productive. There is a disincentive, however, for the funds themselves to get rid of multiple accounts. If you are charging fees on each one of those accounts, the more accounts you have as a provider, the more money you make, which is why we've had to drag the industry kicking and screaming along to the reforms to encourage them to get rid of multiple accounts. I have worked for one firm, AustralianSuper, which actually got rid of its own multiple accounts. It has so many customers. It had some of its own customers with multiple accounts. That's terrific. That's fine. But what we want to do is get rid of multiple accounts across the industry. So, if you've got an AustralianSuper account, a Hostplus account and a Colonial First State account, the ATO will do the consolidation for you. It will identify those funds that are multiple and it will consolidate them on your behalf so that you don't have any inactive funds being whittled away by unnecessary fees and charges. Those are the three main objectives of this legislation.
According to the latest data, the changes that we're making to insurance will allow an estimated five million Australians who have paid a combined $3 billion in insurance premiums an opportunity to choose whether they will be covered rather than paying for it by default. That is particularly important. You can see how many Australians this legislation affects. Why have we picked the age of 25 for insurance rather than the age of 21 or not under 21? The change to default insurance to new members under 25 was chosen as an appropriate threshold for opt-in insurance based on the claims data. We went to the insurers and found out who was claiming for what. It showed that only one per cent of members aged 25 or under claimed on their insurance within a given year—one per cent. There is an actuarial firm called Rice Warner, and they have done some analysis on this as well. Their analysis has shown that some members under the age of 25 are paying over 300 per cent of their true premium for death, life insurance and TPD cover. In addition, the Productivity Commission has noted in its superannuation report that people under 25 generally have far less need for insurance. This is reflected in the decision, as I think I've told you, of AustralianSuper's superannuation fund—my old employer, who have got rid of their own multiple accounts—to make insurance opt-in for under 25s from November last year.
Accounts that aren't receiving superannuation contributions are at the most risk of erosion from insurance premiums. These are called 'inactive accounts'. Inactive accounts can be eroded all the way down to zero at the moment simply for premiums for cover that members don't know they have or can't actually claim on. Not receiving the contributions suggests that the member has either a duplicate account or isn't, in fact, working, which has implications for insurance eligibility. So you can find that, even though you've been paying for this insurance all this time, if something goes wrong, you can't claim on it anyway. What an extraordinary waste of money, particularly for the young. Why should members continue to pay indefinitely for insurance that they can't use? Moreover, the insurance measures for inactive accounts ensure that the consolidation regime that we have planned for the ATO is more effective and can be realised immediately.
When money is held by the ATO, it doesn't necessarily accrue interest. There has been some criticism that, potentially throughout the consolidation process, members might be worse off as opposed to keeping it in their superannuation funds where they would earn a return. That's not necessarily so. The ATO is quite clearly the best body placed to protect and consolidate loss in unplanned superannuation, because, unlike other industry participants, it has absolutely no vested interest in the process. It has no interest other than to ensure that people are reunited with their own money as quickly as possible. It should be quite a quick process. The ATO estimates that once it receives an amount for which its data matching has identified an inactive account that can receive the amount, it would take less than a month to transfer it from one inactive superannuation fund to an active one. In addition to that, the government has amended the bill to require the ATO to reunite amounts where possible within 28 days—so, under a month. While the money is held with the ATO, the important issue is that it's not charged fees and it will also receive indexation at CPI levels. That's a safeguard that wouldn't be bestowed on an amount that was in a fund, where, in fact, it could go backwards. The Productivity Commission's report into superannuation found that fees and insurance premiums charged by funds on unintended multiple accounts are the key driver to the erosion of funds and of retirement incomes.
I should also mention the inactivity period. What is the definition of inactivity? It is in fact 16 months. We originally said it was going to be 13 months. The original period of 13 months was chosen to provide a balance between the amount of time that account balances are subject to erosion through fees while held up in multiple rather than consolidated accounts. The Productivity Commission's recommendation and the Superannuation Voluntary Code of Practice both feature 13 months of inactivity; however, the government has heard concerns that 13 months might not help women on maternity leave, in particular. Multiple accounts are a widespread problem; many Australians are shocked to find their nest-egg eroded. This bill will most of all benefit young members, members with low balances, low income earners and members with multiple accounts. That is in the best interests of so many Australians. We must never forget that the most important foundation stone of superannuation is that your superannuation is in fact your money.
I'm pleased to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. The bill contains a number of measures designed to ensure members do not have their superannuation balances unnecessarily eroded. These are measures that Centre Alliance supports. The bill prevents trustees of superannuation funds charging certain fees and costs exceeding three per cent of the balance of MySuper or choice products annually, where the balance of the account is below $6,000. It also prevents trustees from providing opt-out insurance to new members aged under 25, members with balances below $6,000 and members with inactive MySuper or choice accounts unless the member has directed otherwise. Importantly, the bill also requires the transfer of all superannuation savings with a balance below $6,000 to the Commissioner of Taxation if an account related to MySuper or choice product has been inactive for a continuous period of 13 months. It enables the commissioner to consolidate accounts that have been paid as unclaimed money, inactive low-balance accounts and lost-member accounts into an active superannuation account where the reunited balance would be greater than $6,000.
The erosion of super accounts is a significant problem with long-term consequences. Multiple accounts and default measures are a structural problem and a problem that this bill intends to address. According to the Productivity Commission's report, over a third of all super accounts are unintended multiples, an unintended but problematic consequence of the current default arrangement. The Productivity Commission estimated that there are approximately 10 million unintended multiple accounts, which cost members $1.9 billion a year in excess insurance premiums and $690 million in excess administration fees. These are staggering numbers.
I note the bill has in-principle support from various stakeholders, with most criticism being levelled at the scope and application of the changes to the default insurance. The Bills Digest sets out some of the concerns raised by stakeholders, including Industry Super Australia, the ACTU, AIAA, TAL and Rice Warner. Some of these concerns include potential negative unintended consequences such as young people being underinsured, given people under the age of 25 are not likely to opt in; low-balance account holders who are still making insurance contributions and still have insurance needs being opted out; and people who work in high-risk occupations finding it difficult to obtain appropriate measures of insurance, because superannuation funds may be the only option for these people. Whilst I acknowledge these concerns, the bigger concern for me is the impact that the current default insurance arrangement has on people's retirement savings.
The erosion of members' balances through unnecessary fees, insurance premiums, delayed and unpaid superannuation, trailing commissions and suboptimal tax management was examined in detail by the Productivity Commission. As I mentioned earlier, the Productivity Commission found that unintended multiple accounts cost members $2.6 billion a year—that's what it costs the members. This is made up of $1.9 billion in excess insurance premiums and, as I said before, $690 million in excess administration fees. That's around $7 million a day being siphoned from workers' accounts to banks, super funds and insurance companies for pretty much nothing, certainly no benefit to the worker.
I would like to place on record my disappointment at the obstacles the Senate has had to overcome in order to pass this bill. It is clear that the status quo is indefensible. While the crossbench battle with amendments and intense lobbying in relation to the opt-out insurance charges—changes that are beneficial for the bulk of young workers—insurance companies are quite happily skimming millions of dollars in premiums.
Superannuation funds aren't innocent bystanders in all of this. They are raking in administration fees from unintended multiple accounts. Ironically, the funds are prohibited from charging different fees based on the account balance of the members, demonstrating why this bill needs to pass. I've seen analysis that shows that the 30 biggest superannuation funds in Australia are raking in $587 million in administration and investment fees from around 6.3 million accounts that have a balance of less than $6,000. That's a scandal. The figures are worth repeating: over six million accounts that have a balance of less than $6,000 are being charged over $587 million a year in fees. But wait—there's more! Of this, $405 million in fees is being deducted from the 4.6 million accounts that have a balance of less than $1,000 every year. That's an effective fee rate of over eight per cent across the 30 funds.
Not surprisingly, some of the worst offenders are retail funds. IOOF has around 77,000 accounts with a balance below $1,000 and collects approximately $10 million in fees from those accounts each year. With administration fees of $117 and 0.35 per cent of the account balance per annum, plus indirect costs of 0.74 per cent, you are left with an effective fee rate of over 12 per cent for an account with a balance of $1,000. Then we have AMP, which has around 1.1 million accounts with a balance below $1,000 and collects approximately $111 million in fees from those accounts each year. With administration fees of $90.84 and 0.29 per cent per annum, plus investment fees and indirect costs of 0.72 per cent, you are left with an effective rate of around 10 per cent for an account with a balance of less than $1,000.
Industry and not-for-profit funds aren't immune to collecting exorbitant administration fees from low-balance accounts either. Rest holds around 400,000 accounts with a balance below $1,000 and collects approximately $30 million in fees from those accounts each year. That's $30 million that could be in workers' superannuation funds. With administration fees of $67.60 and 0.1 per cent per annum, plus investment fees and indirect costs of 0.76 per cent, you are left with an effective rate of around 7.5 per cent for an account balance of $1,000. Hostplus holds around 278,000 workers' accounts with a balance below $1,000 and collects approximately $24 million in fees from those accounts each year—for some pleasure, I guess. With administration fees of $78 per annum, plus investment fees and indirect costs of 0.1 per cent, you are left with an effective rate of around 8.8 per cent for an account with a balance of $1,000.
I note the schedule relating to fee caps has the broad support of the industry, but I think it's most important to highlight just how much has been gouged from members' accounts that have low balances, and how much will continue to be gouged if this bill does not pass. Delaying this bill sends a message that it's okay for members to have their accounts raided with exorbitant fees and unnecessary insurance premiums. The reason for the delay is a change to the default opt-out insurance arrangements, arrangements that insurance companies and superannuation companies have been benefitting from quite comfortably since 2013. Schedule 2 is the most contentious part of the bill, but in my view it is not so contentious that it should be holding up the passage of the bill.
Insurance and superannuation dates back to the 1950s and has gradually changed to the arrangements we now have. The current default arrangements were introduced by the Labor government in 2013 following the Cooper review in 2010. The end result was a mandatory requirement for funds to provide life and TPD insurance on an opt-out basis in all MySuper products. The Productivity Commissioner found that these arrangements have led to 'a litany of problems, which is in part evidenced by insurance matters accounting for over a third of member complaints against superannuation funds'. Issues include a lack of awareness that insurance is included in superannuation—the kind of stealth operation I used to conduct on submarines; you do things and no-one knows what you're doing, except, unfortunately, the worker loses. Issues also include complexity and lack of comparability of insurance products, excessive balance erosion, and account proliferation resulting in many members holding multiple insurance policies, some of which they would be ineligible to claim against
I want to put on the record that I recognise the benefit of having insurance inside of superannuation, including on a default opt-out basis. However, default opt-out insurance must provide value for money for all members; not just a particular cohort. Inappropriate cross-subsidisation, not enough funds tailoring their insurance and multiple accounts are some of the factors that contribute to workers, especially young and low-income workers, not getting value for money from their insurance. Claims that the proposed changes to default insurance would lead to large increases in insurance premiums strongly suggest that young workers and those who have inactive accounts or small balances are cross-subsidising everyone else. I'm not convinced that a healthy, non-smoking 23-year-old female worker should be cross-subsidising a 53-year-old overweight male who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, but apparently that's how insurance is meant to work.
As the Productivity Commissioner correctly pointed out, automatic life insurance cover for young members without dependants is difficult to justify. The Productivity Commissioner also made a draft finding that the younger members and those with intermittent labour force attachment—groups which commonly have lower incomes—are more likely to have policies of low or no value to them. I acknowledge that the Insurance in Superannuation Working Group has been proactive in developing a code of practice, and I welcome this as a first step, but it falls short of what is needed to effectively deal with deficiencies in the current arrangements for insurance in superannuation. The draft that was released for consultation in 2017 was substantially watered down and is no longer intended to be binding and enforceable. The code does not go far enough, and I'm sceptical that it ever will.
This is why legislative intervention is necessary. While the funds and insurance companies point to case studies where a worker aged under the age of 25 was injured and would not have been covered were it not for their insurance, it is important to remember that this is not a common occurrence. Default opt-out insurance should be designed with the majority, not the minority, in mind. This is exactly what AustralianSuper have done. And I think they sum it up best on their website:
We're changing the starting age that basic cover is automatically provided because we believe members under the age of 25 are at greater risk of super balance erosion—and generally have lesser insurance needs.
That's because younger members are less likely to have children or other dependants or significant debt. They generally have lower super balances and working patterns may be casual or part time. There is also the likelihood that younger members will earn significantly lower salaries than older members.
We believe that younger members may be better served by devoting all of their super savings to their retirement and having the option to apply for cover if they need it.
I think that sums it up well.
I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 put forward by the government. Senator Patrick talked about a certain aged, overweight man. I don't smoke a pack a day, mate. I don't think you do either. But it is true that, when we, as a society, as a succession of governments, force people into a compulsory savings scheme, we need to be very cautious that we do so in such a way and under such preconditions that ensure a maximum level of transparency and accountability. We also need to ensure people have an ability to make choices about their superannuation and take control of their superannuation. We should do nothing in this space that removes from people the desire, the inclination, the incentive to actively take control of their finances into retirement. That is what we want people to do. That is my starting point for how we should always think about superannuation.
People should be engaged with their retirement, particularly as society asks them, through a compulsory savings vehicle, to place a large part of their money—again, in a compulsory fashion—into that savings vehicle, which is controlled, as Senator Patrick pointed out, by a very small number of entities, some of them private companies, some of them industry superannuation funds, some of them sectorial superannuation funds, and a limited number of people in the older government-run schemes. We force people to hand their money over to a very small number of people who have an extraordinary amount of market power, particularly within the equities market and also the property market. As we give the power over people's retirement savings to those entities, we must ensure that the protections we put in place for those people are adequate.
I must admit, like probably most people in this room, over the course of my life I've had more than one superannuation account floating around. I probably shouldn't admit it but I think I still may have two in action, so I'm paying two sets of fees, one of which I don't need to pay. For someone fortunate enough to be in my position, that's a choice. I could take the time to clean that situation up relatively quickly. It's probably not making a huge difference over the course of my savings history. But for someone who is young, for someone who is not in a high-earning position, for someone who loses track of their superannuation, for someone who moves between relatively insecure employment for the first few working years of their life, it is not inconceivable—and I've certainly seen this in relation to the industry I grew up with, agriculture, where people do seasonal work and bounce between employment opportunities and are not necessarily in stable employment for the beginning of their career—that they can end up with a number of superannuation funds, all with very low balances and, as Senator Patrick pointed out, all being charged fees and cross-subsidising those in superannuation funds with higher balances. This is the situation that this bill sets out to address, and I think that is a very important reform. There is $2.6 trillion in the superannuation sector now. That is an extraordinary amount of market weight in our economy. As I have said, we need to ensure that we do as much as we can to protect those who are part of that system with very low balances.
I will go to some of the provisions of the bill before returning to a few more-general remarks. The key point of this bill is that it's about putting in place fee protection. It's putting the members of super funds first. In a compulsory superannuation system the government does have an obligation to protect members against account erosion. We force people to put their money in, so at the very least we need to prevent those funds being eroded, particularly low-balance funds. Those low-balance funds currently face disproportionately high fees, which are eroding away their balances and can result in a significant negative outcome for those people over the course of a long period of time. Flat fees, in particular, which are imposed on accounts where there are very small or no contributions, obviously have a significant impact on account balances. Accounts can be eroded to zero. There are currently no special protections to prevent low-balance accounts being eroded to zero.
In 2013, as part of the MySuper changes, Labor, those opposite, through a decision made by the now Leader of the Opposition, repealed member protection standards. These standards had protected accounts below $1,000 or accounts held in eligible rollover funds from erosion by requiring that fees not exceed investment earnings. This bill introduces new requirements to prevent trustees of superannuation funds from charging administration and investment fees and prescribed costs exceeding three per cent of the balance per annum for accounts below $6,000. Based on the most recent data available, this will mean that around seven million Australians will save around $570 million in fees in just the first year, thanks to the government's reforms. When talking about superannuation balances we often hear, particularly from those opposite, about how small changes can make a big difference over the course of somebody's working life. Well, this will make a very significant difference over the course of the working lives of millions of Australians. It will see that $570 million in fees in just one year maintained in superannuation account balances. That money will compound over time and it will be added to the next year when those fees are not allowed to be collected again, and the next year and the next year, so you will see a significant reduction in the erosion of super fund balances, particularly small super fund balances, and the commensurate improvement in national savings that will result.
The measure also prevents trustees from charging exit fees on all superannuation accounts, thus removing a disincentive to account consolidation. According to APRA data, approximately one-third of funds—that's around 79 funds—charge exit fees. At June 2017, the average exit fee disclosed by superannuation funds for MySuper products was $68, with total exit fees collected across the industry totalling $52 million. Again, that's $52 million of hardworking Australians' money that is being collected merely from consolidating or changing superannuation accounts. There might be a good reason why someone chooses to change superannuation funds, but over a number of years now we have been actively encouraging people to consolidate their funds, to move three or four small accounts together in one place to limit the amount of savings erosion that is going on and to maximise those savings that people have when they retire. Obviously this is a very important part of maintaining those balances and helping people with low-balance accounts to lower their fees and consolidate accounts. We don't want exit fees to be a disincentive for people bringing small-balance accounts together.
I will just move on to schedule 2 on the insurance arrangements. The current system requires the provision of default insurance for MySuper members. Default insurance can result in members paying for cover that they are not aware of, that goes beyond their needs or which they cannot claim on. Insurance premiums can reduce the accounts of low-income earners—this disproportionately affects women—with retirement balances by 10 per cent or more compared to having no insurance. This increases with every additional policy held by an individual. Schedule 2 of this bill prohibits trustees from providing insurance on an opt-out basis to new members under the age of 25, to members with account balances below $6,000 and to members with inactive accounts unless the member has actively directed otherwise. Changes in this package aim to better target default insurance and minimise balance erosion due to insurance premiums, particularly for individuals who have duplicate insurance cover through multiple accounts.
We've talked about the importance of account consolidation. There may be a reason why people have more than one account, but, if it's merely through inaction, if it's merely from being disengaged with their future retirement, that is something we want to work against. We want people to engage with their retirement, with their savings. This money is their money. It's not the super fund's money. It's certainly not the government's money. It's the Australian people's money. As much as possible, through reforms like this, we are protecting that money, but we also hope that people will become more engaged with their retirement savings.
These changes will not prevent anyone who wants insurance within superannuation from being able to obtain it. Low-balance, young and inactive members will still be able to opt in to insurance through superannuation if that suits their circumstances. There may be reasons why people want to make this choice. Again, this should all be about much more choice and control whilst protecting people from the erosion of their own money. It is estimated that these changes will benefit around five million Australians. They will have the opportunity to save an estimated $3 billion in insurance premiums by having the choice to opt in to this cover, rather than paying for it by default. Obviously that $3 billion may not all be taken. Some may choose to continue to buy additional insurance. That is the way the system operates. If people make an active choice to take out additional insurance, for whatever reason—if they are risk averse and believe they need to have their insurance risk spread over a couple of different pools—it might not necessarily be the best financial strategy, not that we should ever advise people on that, but that is their choice. Again we must always focus on remembering that superannuation money is the money of Australians who have worked for that money. Just because it has been compulsorily put into a retirement account does not mean that it is not their money, and they should always retain maximum choice, control and awareness.
Particularly as superannuation balances grow over time and we move to a world where many more people will be reliant on their superannuation balances rather than on an age pension, people are becoming actively engaged with the choices they make from the earliest point of their working life. People need to make active choices about what their superannuation will look like and who is in control of it. We need to make sure we put in place a system that, whilst protecting people, offers that maximum choice and flexibility of engagement for all Australians.
Funds will be required to notify individuals affected by these changes, as well as provide ongoing notification to members when their accounts have not received a contribution for six, nine and 12 months. Members who wish to maintain insurance cover on an inactive account can make a written direction to their fund to maintain their insurance cover. Insurance cover will only cease at the end of the period for which premiums have been paid.
Schedule 3 concerns the ATO's lost and unclaimed superannuation money regime. These changes substantially reduce the total of low-balance accounts. It has been a goal, as I said earlier, to encourage consolidation of accounts, to not have people with their money lost in the system somewhere, floating around from a part-time job that they did when they were 18 or 19, or from a temporary job they did while they were travelling. While there is a current regime for transferring lost superannuation balances to the Commissioner of Taxation to protect them from erosion, this regime is triggered by long periods of inactivity—up to five years—before those amounts are transferred. It's not inconceivable that a low-balance account has actually completely eroded over this period of time.
In addition to that, there are numerous exceptions which permit trustees to avoid transferring balances below $6,000 to the ATO. Again, this allows ongoing erosion of those superannuation balances. Schedule 3 of this bill means that, from 1 July this year, inactive accounts below $6,000 and without insurance cover will be protected from further fees and charges by being transferred to the ATO. For the first time, the ATO will also be empowered to return these amounts proactively, along with existing unclaimed superannuation moneys it holds, to an individual's account, provided the combined balance of the consolidated account would exceed $6,000, the member is still alive and the ATO is able to transfer the funds to an identified account.
The ATO estimates that, on average, it will be able to reunify an amount it holds to its rightful owner within months of receiving the funds. Therefore, we will see, again, a lot more money in the superannuation system. Rather than being lost—being disconnected from an individual—it will be returned to the active control of that individual. That must always be the goal of the superannuation system. We force people to make a contribution to their future savings; we ask them to contribute and we must do everything we can to minimise the erosion of those small accounts particularly, and to actively have the individuals involved engaged with their future retirement needs and with their superannuation account balances. We do not want a superannuation system which is set and forget, where people can have a superannuation fund, get disconnected from it and then have another superannuation fund and get disconnected from that as they begin their journey in life.
It's estimated that in the first year of operation, the new system will see $6 billion reunited with the active accounts of around three million Australians. These three million Australians will be recipients by being reconnected to $3 billion of their own money, which is a very important thing in them achieving a level of dignity in retirement and not being reliant on government assistance in retirement.
The reforms will also help individuals who have been forced to hold multiple accounts as a result of restrictions on superannuation choice, restrictions which we have proposed to lift and which the opposition, to date, has refused to support. Currently, lost and unclaimed accounts must be requested from the ATO in writing or through the myGov platform, so we really need to look at these unclaimed accounts and look at ways we can get money back into the pockets of the Australians who have worked very hard for it.
There have been some changes made to this legislation, and I think it's important that the government has listened to concerns that were raised by industry and by individual senators—particularly around individuals in dangerous occupations, who are likely to benefit from default insurance in superannuation as they may face barriers to accessing insurance elsewhere.
Order! It being 2.00 pm and pursuant to the order of yesterday, I call Senator Cash.
As senators would be aware, The Australian Workers' Union is currently taking legal action against the Registered Organisations Commission. The case has been brought about because the AWU is refusing to demonstrate whether a number of donations made by the AWU when Mr Bill Shorten was national secretary were properly authorised. This includes a $100,000 donation to GetUp!, of which Mr Shorten was a founding member.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order, Senator Wong! Senator Cormann is on his feet. Senator Cormann.
Interjections are disorderly at the best of times, but the minister was asked to appear in the Senate chamber to make a statement. I believe that the minister deserves the courtesy to be listened to consistent with the Senate standing orders.
On the point of order, this minister is under order of the Senate to attend 'to make a statement to explain the apparent inconsistency between the evidence of her media adviser and her statements to the senate.' It is not in order for her to use the opportunity to try to fear and smear again.
Senator Cormann on the point of order raised by Senator Wong.
Responding to the point of order raised by Senator Wong, I refer not just to our standing orders but to our constitutional arrangements. In the Westminster system, it is up to the minister to determine what a minister says in response to certain questions. It is not up to the leader of the opposition to try and answer in her biased way. I think the leader of the opposition should be reminded of the standing orders and our constitutional arrangements and listen to the minister with courtesy and consistently with the standing orders.
On the point of order, Senator Wong?
Responding on the point of order to Senator Cormann's point: there is a Westminster system. There is a thing called ministerial accountability. We're simply asking that she exercise it.
On the point of order, the first point of order—
She should be relevant.
Order on my left while I'm speaking, Senator Cameron! On the first point of order raised by Senator Cormann, the Senate has ordered the minister to attend and make an explanation. The minister is doing that. The minister has also been speaking for 21 seconds, so it's a little presumptuous to claim they are not addressing the order. The minister should be heard in silence. There is question time immediately following this. I'm going to insist the minister be heard in silence while the minister makes the statement by order of the Senate, as a courtesy to all senators. There is question time after this. There are motions to take note of answers after this, and at any time someone may seek leave to do something else. It is appropriate the minister be heard in silence.
I was referring to what the case was about. It includes a $100,000 donation to GetUp!, of which Mr Shorten was a founding member, and a $25,000 donation to Mr Bill Shorten's own election campaign.
As senators would be aware, I have been subpoenaed by the AWU to give evidence in the Federal Court proceeding. I can confirm to the Senate that, on 25 October 2017, I advised the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee that a then staff member in my office had resigned his employment. I told the Senate committee at the time:
I have just been advised that, without my knowledge, one staff member in my office, in the course of discussions with journalists, indicated that he had received information … that a raid may take place. I am advised that this information came from a media source.
The statement I made to the Senate estimates committee was based on the advice given to me.
The AWU's legal action is in the course of hearing before the Federal Court of Australia this week. As I am yet to give evidence in the case, I am subject to restrictions in relation to what I can be told about the evidence that is being given by other witnesses. Although Senator Wong and other Labor senators have provided commentary on the case during question time, I have no way to verify if what Senator Wong has said is correct.
My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. There are clear contradictions between the minister's statements to the Senate and statements made under oath in court by her former media adviser on her office's decision to leak advanced notice of independent police raids. The Statement of Ministerial Standards makes clear that ministers are accountable for the exercise of the powers and functions of their office, including their conduct as ministers, and are open to public scrutiny and explanation. Can the minister now categorically rule out that she was not the source of information to her staff that provided advance notice of the Federal Police raids on the Australian Workers' Union?
I refer to the statement that I've just given to the Senate. I have no way of verifying whether what Labor senators are putting to me is true. They are clearly getting a running commentary on the case.
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
It goes to direct relevance. The question to the minister was whether or not she would categorically rule out that she was the source of information that enabled her staff to provide advance notice to the media of the Federal Police raid. I'd ask her to return to the question.
Senator Wong, the minister has been speaking for 14 seconds. You have rightly reminded the minister of the end of the question. The minister has most of two minutes remaining to answer. I call the minister.
Thank you, Mr President. Senator Wong, you are a lawyer. I will be appearing in court tomorrow to answer questions in relation to this matter. It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment.
Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
The ministerial standards make clear it is a minister's personal responsibility to ensure that any error or misconception that misleads the parliament or public is corrected as soon as practicable. Evidence given under oath in court makes clear that multiple members of her office were involved in leaking advance notice of independent police raids. Why won't the minister uphold her ministerial obligations, correct the record and apologise for misleading the Senate?
Again, Senator Cameron, I don't accept the premise of your question because I have no way to verify if what you are saying is true.
Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister guarantee that we will be seeing her across the table at Senate estimates next week on this matter?
Senator Cameron, I will be attending Senate estimates next week in my capacity as a relevant minister.
For over a decade the parliament has consciously measured its success or otherwise of our national effort to end Indigenous disadvantage through the Closing the Gap process. With this in mind, my question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. Can the minister update the Senate on the new initiatives the Prime Minister has announced today to support our efforts to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage, particularly in terms of supporting better outcomes for Indigenous students?
Thank you very much, Senator Smith, for that question. Can I say that the Prime Minister's speech today in delivering the Closing the gap:report2019 will mark a particular turning point in the way I hope all governments do business with Aboriginal and Torres Strait and Islander Australians. As the Prime Minister said, 'Together, we can achieve anything.'
I'm pleased that in nearly every area we've seen positive trends and progress, despite that only two of the seven national targets are on track. More children are getting the benefits of an early education. More mums are accessing antenatal care, not smoking during pregnancy and getting their children immunised. More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are living longer. More Indigenous people are in work—especially, more women are employed. More Indigenous people have year 12 qualifications. But the rate of change has not been what is necessary, which is because of a number of reasons, but particularly because the basis of the original targets was flawed. They were not designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait and Islander people, and reflected a way of thinking in those days that Canberra had the answers. So when a coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies came to us asking for a different approach, I would like to commend the leadership of the Prime Minister for embracing that partnership model and for bringing that commitment to the Council of Australian Governments. Partnerships work—for example, the Empowered Communities initiative and Western Sydney Indigenous Business Hub. In fact, 100 per cent of our CDP providers are now Indigenous organisations. I'm very pleased that we are taking this partnership model and applying it right across government. As a down payment on these reforms, we've announced an additional $200 million for scholarships, Indigenous student academies and mentoring support, and we are waiving HELP debt to get more teachers into remote communities.
How is the government working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to co-design solutions and improve outcomes?
I thank the senator for the question. For the last two years, we have been working with communities across the country to refresh the Closing the Gap targets and frameworks. We know the 2008 Closing the Gap targets, as well intentioned as they were, were not developed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In fact, they were developed over a four-week period, largely by bureaucrats in Canberra. Responsible governments—Commonwealth, state and territory—were not accountable for their areas of responsibility and the targets were not based on evidence about what could be achieved in that timeframe.
We've adopted a different approach. Between November 2017 and August 2018 there were 29 roundtables across the country with 1,200 participants and 170 submissions received, and two peak body forums were held, on 5 April and 24 July. We convened a special gathering of Indigenous leaders who, for the very first time, reported to the Council of Australian Governments. We're committing to a formal partnership with a coalition of peak bodies.
What is the government doing to help more Indigenous entrepreneurs get into employment and small business?
No matter where you live in our nation, we know the best approach is one of partnership. That's why we're working with remote communities to develop solutions that ensure we can all benefit from a strong economy. From next month, we will begin reforms on the Community Development Program, which has already supported remote jobseekers into almost 30,000 jobs. We've listened to Indigenous organisations which support the CDP—Northern Land Council, Arnhem Land Progress Association, New South Wales Land Council, Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation—the list goes on.
We are giving communities greater control over how the program is administered, shifting the focus to flexible, locally led support for jobseekers by increasing partnerships with Indigenous organisations to deliver these services. We've put forward reforms to create even more jobs and to cut Centrelink out so breaches would be reduced. But unfortunately, those opposite are not interested. They say it's just too close to an election. We're listening to the people in remote communities and doing what they want. That is the difference between words and action.
My question is to Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's previous statement that she attended Prime Minister Turnbull's question time briefing to assure him that she did not leak to the media advanced notice of the independent police raid on AWU offices. Does she stand by her statement that Prime Minister Turnbull did not ask if anyone in her office had prior knowledge of that raid?
The answer to that question is yes.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.
The minister has previously confirmed that her former senior media adviser and chief of staff—the two senior staff implicated so far in the leaking of advanced notice of an independent police raid—were present at the briefing with former Prime Minister Turnbull. What steps, if any, did the minister take prior to her meeting with Prime Minister Turnbull to satisfy herself that none of her staff were involved in the leaking?
I think all senators know I have answered copious questions on this. It is a matter of public record.
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.
) ( ): Given we now know the minister's office communicated advanced knowledge of the independent police raid to Minister Keenan's office, can the minister guarantee that there was no request or direction from Prime Minister Turnbull's office to leak advanced knowledge of the independent police raid to the media?
And, again, as I've stated, the Labor Party are providing me with information that I am not privy to and I have no way of verifying. Given that I will be answering questions on this in court tomorrow, it is not appropriate for me to answer any further questions.
My question is to Senator Canavan, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The Greens forced the government to release various draft versions of the Moss review into the regulation of live export by the department of agriculture. These documents show that the department had an extensive role in influencing the final outcome, proposing edits, censoring references to the corruption, risks in the live exports branch, and the role of the government in allowing animal cruelty to occur. It is outrageous that the department was interfering in trying to doctor an independent review into its own culture and performance. Minister, why was the department allowed to interfere and weaken an independent report? Was it to continue to defend a rotten industry?
I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. But, unfortunately, like many questions from the Greens, they leave out many important facts that I'm sure they are aware of. As many in this place who are familiar with independent investigations like the one that has been conducted by Mr Philip Moss into the department of agriculture would know, it is common practice for such reports to be shared with the organisations that are being investigated before they are finalised. That, in fact, is simply due process. It's a process that the Auditor-General follows in his or her investigations, and it's the process that Mr Philip Moss has followed here. Mr Philip Moss was the inaugural integrity commissioner here at the Commonwealth level. He is a man of great integrity. He has stated on the public record that the department did not influence his report and that the report and the recommendations, in fact, got stronger as the report was finalised.
Now, these are simple facts that Senator Faruqi has left out of her question, but the implication is that she does not believe Mr Philip Moss, that she's questioning his integrity, because she seems to be suggesting that he has been influenced by the department. His independence has been called into question. I think it is a great travesty, Senator Faruqi—
Senator Faruqi, on a point of order?
Mr President, my point of order is about the statements that the minister is making.
Government senators interjecting—
Order!
This is not about the integrity of Mr Moss; it is about the integrity of this government.
Senator Faruqi, your question was quite lengthy. It contained quite a number of assertions. The minister is entirely in order to address those assertions. He is being directly relevant to the question.
We have supported an independent review into both the incident, the Awassi Express, and also the department. We have accepted all the recommendations. Senator Faruqi says it's outrageous to have this normal process to occur. You know what is outrageous, Mr President: the Greens not supporting an independent investigation into Animals Australia. That is what is outrageous. We have seen what Animals Australia are getting up to, or allegedly getting up to—offering money for people to be cruel to animals. I have not seen one thing from the Greens that would support an independent investigation into that, and that is outrageous.
Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question.
Minister, the department deleted sections from a draft version of the report that criticised your government's deregulation policy. Does the government agree that horrific animal cruelty on live export ships is a consequence of this deregulation policy, which puts the profit of live export companies ahead of animal welfare?
Once again, I restate that Mr Moss has said the department did not influence his report. So, again, Senator Faruqi is putting a misleading statement here, saying that the department deleted statements. They didn't. The report has been written by Mr Philip Moss. He is a man of great integrity and has made very critical comments and suggestions around the department and made serious recommendations around the department, including the establishment of an inspector-general of live animal exports, which we have accepted.
Once again, the Greens will not support independent investigation into the activists that they run a protection racket for, including Animals Australia. A grazier in Central Queensland summed it up for me best over the last week when he said that he pays people to look after animals and Animals Australia are paying people to be cruel to them. That's exactly what's been happening, and the Greens don't say boo about it.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister has not answered any single bit of my question and has gone off on a complete tangent.
I remind the minister of the question. Senator Canavan, you have seven seconds.
I could go on, because we are taking seriously allegations on all fronts here. Sometimes the producers need to be pulled into line, and certainly activists need to be pulled into line too. But the Greens aren't— (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?
Minister, this was blatant political interference in an independent review. How arrogant is the government to think that it can get away with this? Minister, why did the department have any role at all in interfering in or influencing an independent review into its own culture and performance? And did the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources direct them to do so?
The answer to that question is no. I've already explained how this independent investigation is of great integrity and also was critical of the department, and we've accepted that. So I believe I have answered the questions and statements that Senator Faruqi has raised. But I think it is important on this topic—
Senator Faruqi interjecting—
I have already said no, Senator.
Let's just have a look at this. The Daily Telegraph reported a couple of weeks ago on copies of emails between undisclosed sources and Animals Australia. Within those emails, the source that was communicating with Animals Australia offered to switch off the exhaust systems on a vessel to create footage of sheep in distress. Animals Australia still continued communicating with this individual and offered him potential payments. This is cash for cruelty, defended by the Greens. They are offering a protection racket for these activists, who do not care about animal welfare but are running a political campaign. Don't come in this place and say you care about animals when you support people like that. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. The minister previously stated that, following revelations her office had leaked advanced notice of a Federal Police raid on AWU officers, she instructed her chief of staff:
… to secure the electronic material and any documents in relation to this particular staff member. He advised me that he had done that.
What specific steps did the minister ask her chief of staff to undertake to secure these materials, and what assurances did she receive that he had done so? Did the minister instruct any member of her office to delete text messages or other communications in relation to the raids?
Senator Watt, I stand by all previous statements I've made. I've answered questions in relation to that matter. And, again, given the matter is before the court tomorrow and I am a witness, I don't propose to comment any further.
Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
In the Federal Court yesterday, the minister's former senior media adviser confirmed that he deleted a series of text messages sent between himself and Minister Keenan's adviser about the unauthorised leak of independent Federal Police raids on the AWU to the media. Isn't it now clear that the minister failed in her obligation to ensure electronic material and any documents were properly secured?
Again, as I advised the Senate in the statement I made before question time, the Labor Party is providing a running commentary on what is going on in court. I explained the obligations I have as a witness. I am unable to respond because I am unable to verify the information.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister just claimed she is unable to respond. I refer you, Mr President, to the statement you made, I think yesterday or possibly the day before, in relation to the sub judice rule. It is not appropriate, nor is it consistent with standing orders, for the minister to avoid all ministerial accountability in question time by seeking the umbrella cover of a sub judice rule.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
I'm on my feet and I'm making a point of order, Senator Macdonald.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Order. Senator Macdonald, let me hear the point of order.
It is not appropriate for ministerial accountability to this chamber to be set aside in an attempt to avoid questions by a constant reference to the sub judice rule, particularly in light of your statement yesterday.
Senator Cormann, on the point of order?
What is not appropriate is that Senator Wong is seeking to write the answers for Minister Cash on the basis of her own misunderstanding of what proper process is. The truth is that a range of claims have been made in the context of a legal action that was taken by the Australian Workers' Union against the Registered Organisations Commission. Senator Cash is appearing as one witness, subpoenaed by the AWU, which is pursuing legal action against the Registered Organisations Commissioner. You are seeking to assert as fact certain claims that have been made in proceedings, which for propriety reasons Senator Cash is not aware of and is not able to verify. She's made that point several times now. She is absolutely at liberty to state, accurately, that in the circumstances it wouldn't be appropriate for her to comment. She will, of course, be appearing at the relevant court tomorrow to answer all these relevant questions. Claims that have been made don't become established facts. They are claims in the context of a process.
Senator Wong, on the point of order?
With respect to my friend and colleague Senator Cormann, none of those points were relevant to the point of order.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Yes, I am on the point of order, Senator Macdonald. Thank you for your assistance. I have been called by the President, Senator Macdonald. The points made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate were not germane to the point of order that is before you. The point of order I am making is not about the issues that Senator Cormann has made. We can have a debate about what has been asserted as fact or not. The point of order I am making is that it is not open to this minister to refuse outright to answer questions about this because she's giving evidence tomorrow. That is not supported by your statement yesterday. It is not supported by Odgers'and it is not supported by the standing orders.
Senator Cormann, on the point of order?
A final point in relation to this matter: Minister Cash, in answering the question as she sees fit, is not seeking a ruling from the President. She's answering the question in the way she sees fit. The way she sees fit to answer this question is in the context of a process taking place in front of the Federal Court.
Which the President has determined is not relevant.
The President has also said that he cannot direct the minister how to answer the question. That is precisely the same matter.
Without rereading everything I read into the Hansard the other day, the point made was that the sub judice convention is a restriction on debate which the Senate imposes upon itself. The convention is interpreted and applied by the chair and by the Senate according to circumstances. On that basis, I only have the option to rule something out of order, not whether something is an appropriate answer to a question. There has been no point of order raised with respect to these questions. I don't think a point of order would be relevant to them. However, I cannot direct the minister how to answer a question. There is a time after question time and on other occasions in this parliament to debate the content of ministers' answers, but just as I am not free, Senator Wong, to assert that something is out of order when it is in order, I'm not free to force a minister to answer a question in a particular fashion. We go to a final supplementary question from Senator Watt.
I remind the minister that her former senior media adviser has admitted in court that he was motivated to leak advance notice of the police raids to damage the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition. Has the minister at any point directed members of her staff to undertake actions which utilised the statutory and other powers available to her office to damage the reputation of the alternative Prime Minister?
In relation to the first part of Senator Watt's question, I'm going to read from the statement that I made to the Senate at the commencement of question time:
The AWU's legal action is in the course of hearing before the Federal Court of Australia this week. As I'm yet to give evidence in the case, I am subject to restrictions in relation to what I can be told about the evidence that has been given by other witnesses. Although Senator Wong—
and now Senator Watt—
have provided commentary on the case during question time, I have no way to verify if what—
they have—
said is correct.
In relation to the second part of Senator Watt's question, the answer is no.
My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. King & Wood Mallesons are a top-tier multinational legal firm. They are a Chinese owned firm with their headquarters based in Hong Kong, their global chairman based in Beijing and their global chief executive based in Hong Kong, with many partners being Chinese citizens. This firm is a major supplier to the Commonwealth government, and it is concerning that, pursuant to China's national intelligence law, their citizens have an obligation to provide information to their communist government. This firm has access to very sensitive information that is relevant to this country's interests, which the Chinese communist government has access to through its citizens. They in turn have access to this information within the firm, pursuant to their obligations under their laws. My question is: what does this government intend to do about it?
I thank Senator Burston for the question and for giving me some prior notice. Senator Burston, I've managed to obtain the following information from the Attorney-General. The government is well aware of the risk of foreign influence and foreign interference in Australia. Our intelligence and security agencies have advised that it is occurring on an unprecedented scale. Under the Attorney-General's Legal Services Directions, sensitive Australian government legal work, including national security work, must only be undertaken by Australian government lawyers. Foreign ownership of companies operating in Australia, and the nature of any foreign laws or obligations that are applicable to that company, is something that the government takes account of when making relevant decisions. Foreign owned companies operating in Australia are required to abide by Australian law. If there is evidence that Australian laws are being flouted, this is obviously something that should be referred to the appropriate investigatory or regulatory bodies for consideration and appropriate action.
The government, Senator Burston, has taken a number of important steps to address the risk of foreign interference in Australia. In June 2018, you would be aware, Senator Burston, the government passed laws to strengthen Australia's espionage and foreign interference laws and to establish the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme commenced on 10 December 2018. The scheme will provide the public and government decision-makers visibility of the nature, level and extent of foreign influence on Australia's government and political processes.
Order! Senator Cash, the time for the answer has expired. Senator Burston, a supplementary question.
Have the King & Wood Mallesons lawyers breached the laws and rules for lawyers operating in Australian courts, and, if so, how can Australians be sure their confidential information is not being accessed by Chinese partners of King & Wood Mallesons?
I would refer to the information that I gave to you in answer to your primary question, but I can add: foreign owned companies operating in Australia, again, are required to abide by Australian laws. Legal firms and the legal profession must comply with Commonwealth, state and territory privacy and secrecy laws. State and territory regulatory regimes that govern law firms and legal practitioners include rules regarding use and disclosure of confidential information.
Senator Burston, you haven't a supplementary question? Senator Duniam.
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. I ask, as someone who cares and is concerned for the safety and security of Australian citizens, as I'm sure all members of this place would be for our friends, our family and our communities that we represent: why is it important to have strong laws in place that make it easier for those guilty of terrorism offences to lose their Australian citizenship?
I thank Senator Duniam for what is a very important question. The Liberal-National government's top priority is to keep Australia safe. As part of ensuring our national security, it is essential that we are tough on those terrorists who wish to do our nation and our people harm. Senators would know that the government has introduced legislation to strengthen citizenship loss provisions for dual nationals who have demonstrated repudiation of their allegiance to Australia. This helps to achieve two aims: to keep Australians safe from evolving terrorist threats and to protect the integrity of Australian citizenship and, of course, the privileges that attach to it.
The government's changes remove the requirement for a person to be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment if they've committed a relevant terrorism offence to be eligible to lose their Australian citizenship. Senator Duniam, what we are saying is that a conviction for a terrorism offence is all that will be required, and the laws will apply to any terrorist convicted after 12 December 2005. Our legislation also provides that the minister must be satisfied that the person will not become stateless if their Australian citizenship ceases.
Make no mistake, there are people who have betrayed their allegiance to Australia. These are people who have committed barbaric acts—for example, fighting for ISIS. These are people who have plotted to inflict untold harm on innocent Australian children and families in our cities and in our suburbs. I would hope that all senators would work together to support the important changes that the Australian government has put forward.
Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that answer and particularly for highlighting how important it is that we all work together for these important measures, so I ask: is the minister aware of any risks to the government implementing these important measures?
Given the information provided in my answer to the first question, one would believe that this should be a bipartisan issue, but unfortunately the Australian Labor Party, under Mr Bill Shorten, are once again being dragged to the left when it comes to Australia's national security. We have seen the Labor opposition just yesterday betraying our national interest by voting for legislation that our intelligence agencies have said could start the people smugglers' business yet again, and now we have the shadow Attorney-General bizarrely putting forward arguments supporting the legal rights of known terrorists to maintain their Australian citizenship and to be allowed back into the community. We make no excuses for our stance on border protection or our stance on national security. We will protect Australia and Australians.
Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any further risks to our nation's border security that would threaten a return to Labor's disastrous border budget blowouts?
Yes, unfortunately, I am. Again, national security should be a bipartisan issue, but yesterday we saw the Australian Labor Party and Mr Bill Shorten being willing to listen to the Australian Greens over the advice of our national security agencies. It is important to note that 12 people have lost their Australian citizenship due to terrorist conduct, and we are acting on advice to make amendments to further strengthen these provisions. All of us in this chamber should be supporting those amendments. Again, as we said yesterday, and as we re-state today, the Liberal-National government see national security and the protection of our borders as a fundamental responsibility. We will ensure that we keep Australia and Australians safe.
The topic of my question was chosen by South Australian voters and is to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Today the Senate agreed that the government should immediately respond to each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. When will the government respond to each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission?
I thank Senator Storer for his question and some advance notice of it. As I indicated this week, the government will be carefully considering the findings and recommendations of the Productivity Commission's five-year review of the basin plan and the South Australian royal commission. In respect to the royal commission, it will take time to digest the 746-page report. However, the government has made clear its view that the basin plan has been made consistently with the requirements of the Water Act 2007. The South Australian royal commission was commissioned by the South Australian government, and we would expect that they will respond in due course. The South Australian Premier has requested that the findings of the royal commission be considered at the next Council of Australian Governments meeting. A meeting of Murray-Darling Basin first ministers is expected to take place later this year.
With respect to the Productivity Commission's final report, the government has indicated it will be developing a response to it. It is appropriate that the response to the Productivity Commission is developed in close consultation with Murray-Darling Basin jurisdictions and communities, especially given that many of the recommendation go to those state and territory governments. The response will also be considered by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council.
While I've looked through the Productivity Commission report, and there are some useful suggestions that the government will consider, I think it is also important that we put on the public record other things that are often not highlighted from that report. For example, the Productivity Commission identifies that water recovery is now within five per cent of the July 2019 target. While we might not exactly get there, it is a remarkable achievement, given the ambition of the basin plan when it was set in 2012. The Productivity Commission also highlights that the arrangements for managing environmental water are working well, with evidence of improved ecological outcomes at the local and system scale. In fact I think the Productivity Commission reported that there are something like 750 environmental watering events that have occurred in the last five years targeting specific environmental outcomes linked to the long-term objectives of the plan.
Senator Storer, is there a supplementary question?
Will the government proceed with the structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, as recommended by the Productivity Commission, to prevent conflicts of interest?
As I indicated, the Australian government is yet to finalise its response to the specific recommendations of the Productivity Commission report. We will ensure that we consult with basin governments and other stakeholders about that recommendation, along with others, in particular with regard to the recommendation of splitting the regulatory and system management functions of the MDBA. We recognise any split in these functions would need to carefully consider the potential impact of such a move on key basin plan outcomes, including the assessment of water resource plans. We acknowledge that the community places a high priority on ensuring effective regulation, compliance and enforcement of the plan. The MDBA has recently established an office of compliance to manage any potential conflict arising from its different roles. This office will continue to grow and evolve as the MDBA includes more regulatory functions.
Senator Storer, a final supplementary question?
What is the point of legislating oversight of the operation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan by the Productivity Commission if the government wilfully ignores their recommendations?
With all respect to Senator Storer, I reject that view completely. The government is taking seriously these recommendations, as I indicated. It is right and proper that we do so in a considered way, particularly given that the successful implementation of any change from such recommendations will require cooperation and coordination with state and territory governments. I think it's also important, while I have this opportunity, to say that we do recognise that the basin is a diverse community of environmental, economic and social assets. As the Productivity Commission report points out, there are 30,000 wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin, 100 of which are recognised as nationally important. That's why we are doing that more environmental watering through the plan, and great achievements have been made there. However, it is of course the area which produces 41 per cent of our agriculture. Forty-one per cent of our food comes from the basin. The basin also supplies water to 2.1 million people who reside within it and 1.3 million people outside the basin as well.
My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. I refer to the Australian Federal Police investigation into the leaking of advanced notice of independent police raids of the Australian Workers' Union offices to the media. Can the minister assure the Senate that she gave a full and frank account of her knowledge and involvement in this affair to the Australian Federal Police?
Yes, I can.
Senator Collins, a supplementary question?
Given evidence given under oath by her former senior media adviser in the Federal Court directly contradicts previous public statements made by the minister, has the minister undertaken appropriate due diligence to review her statements to the Australian Federal Police, to other authorities, to Prime Minister Turnbull, to Mr Morrison and this parliament, to ensure her statements are a true and accurate record of her knowledge and involvement in this affair? (Time expired)
Any statements I made were based on the information that I held at the time. But I would also say to Senator Collins, as I've said already many times in this chamber, you are presenting me with evidence that I am not able to verify and therefore cannot comment on.
Senator Collins, a final supplementary question?
Given the minister has failed to give a full and frank account of her knowledge and involvement in this affair to the Australian Federal Police and has refused to answer questions in this parliament on the basis of ongoing legal proceedings again today, will the minister rule out relying on parliamentary privilege when she appears to give evidence to the Federal Court? And if not, is there any forum where the minister will tell the truth?
I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that Senator Collins or her advisers would have drafted the supplementary before the answer was given but that is not actually a supplementary question in the context of the answers provided by the minister because you are making the precise opposite assertion to what the minister actually said in her primary answer. And you are asserting something that is 180 degrees different to what the minister said in response to the primary question.
On the point of order, Senator Collins.
On the point of order, we have not been satisfied that a full and frank answer has been provided by the minister on this matter. I have asserted that in the supplementary question. It is directly related to the question that I asked.
I rise on a point of order and, Mr President, perhaps you could deal with both of them together. Senator Collins made an imputation against the character of another senator and she should be made to withdraw that suggestion of 'telling the truth this time'.
On the point of order, there is no use of unparliamentary language that I can immediately recall—my handwriting is pretty bad, writing it down. I will reflect to see if there is any imputation that is covered by the standing orders. I didn't hear one. However, in responding to this supplementary question, which must be relevant to a previous question or previous answer given—and I do believe it to be relevant to a previous question asked—the minister is entirely in order to challenge the assertion made in the question and that would be directly relevant. I don't believe it rules it out of order. But the minister is free to address the assertion and be entirely in order, even if it is not the answer that the asker would request. Senator Cash.
Thank you, Mr President, and, on that basis, I will reject the premise of the question.
My question is to the , Senator McKenzie. Minister, how is the Liberal-National government supporting sustainable economic growth across regional Australia?
Thank you very much, Senator Williams, and thank for your long and proud history of advocating for New South Wales and for regional Australia. The Liberal-National government knows the strength of our economy underpins our way of life. For rural and regional Australians—the 30 per cent of our population who live outside the capital cities and produce over the 70 per cent of our export opportunities—there's a lot of opportunity to capture.
We, as a government, reinforced our support of regional Australia in the response tabled to the Regions at the ready: investing in Australia's future report this week. Our regional agenda will establish an expert panel that includes business and community leaders to assess key issues in regional Australia. It will report to me as the responsible minister by the end of March with a strategic approach to regional development.
But our ability to pursue these opportunities is now under real threat, should Bill Shorten become Prime Minister and those opposite form government, because of the threat that they pose to our economy and to our borders. Let's just take a trip down memory lane. The last time they were in government, their weak border protection policies, with were also couched in language around being strong and humane, cost the Australian taxpayer $16 billion. And now this week Bill Shorten and Labor again voted to weaken our border protection policies. It's going to cost at least another $16 billion—money that can't be then spent on growing regional Australia and creating local jobs. It means we won't be able to invest in the $10 billion Inland Rail project that will revolutionise freight and market opportunities; in the Coffs Harbour bypass, reducing congestion for local businesses and residents; or in the Rockwood Weir project in Capricornia that my colleague in the House Michelle Landry has fought so hard for. Labor's reckless border policies will also effect regional economies.
Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister and I ask: what are the wider benefits of the decentralisation agenda and local job creation for the regions?
Our decentralisation agenda has seen more than 1,200 Australian government jobs moved to the regions since we came into government. These include regional jobs in the Australian Maritime Safety Organisation which, rightly, sought to be relocated to Coffs Harbour because, as the CEO said at the time, 'We're mariners; we like to wake up with the smell of salt in the air.' So it not only makes sense to grow regional economies by shifting government jobs, it makes policy sense, as those people are actually located in the communities that are affected by the decisions that they make. It also ensures that we have career pathways in regional Australia, for safe, profitable and secure regional economies. And, Senator Williams, just so you know how New South Wales has benefited, we've been able to shift the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's Indigenous Affairs Group Regional Network office, we've shifted the— (Time expired)
Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.
Given the government's strong record of economic management, what impact would a return to budget blowouts and policy recklessness have on the government's ability to support the growth of regional communities?
Because of our disciplined and strong economic management, we're delivering increased access to essential services which hardworking regional Australians expect, need and deserve. I'm asked about what impacts the financial recklessness of those opposite will have on regional Australia. We'll have less mobile phone coverage, affecting our small businesses, our health and education access and our emergency service operators. We know that our $550 million stronger rural health workforce strategy will be gone and under threat. We know that our crucial agricultural industries, where we will work with regional communities to take agriculture from a $64 billion industry to a nearly $100 billion industry by 2030, will be under threat. We've seen what they've said about the live sheep industry. We know our mining industry is under threat if they're elected, because Bill Shorten says one thing in Carlton and another thing in Capricornia and Rockhampton. We know our—
Senator Cameron, on a point of order?
I think this is now the fourth time that this minister has not used the Leader of the Opposition's proper title. She should abide by standing orders.
That is a correct point of order. Senator McKenzie, I remind you of the use of appropriate titles.
Mr Bill Shorten says one thing in Carlton and another thing in Rockhampton. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's statement to the Senate today in which she said that her statements to Senate estimates on 25 October 2017 were based on advice given to her. I ask the minister: who gave the minister that advice?
Senator Wong, I have been questioned on that at estimates extensively. I believe that if you actually read the Hansard you would see I stated that it was my then media adviser who gave me that advice.
Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Can the minister explain why the advice she apparently received from her senior media adviser, and acted upon, has now been contradicted by that person in evidence given under oath in the Federal Court?
Senator Cormann on a point of order.
Senator Wong is now asking the minister to put herself inside the mind of another person that is not the minister. I don't know that it is in order for the minister to be asked to speculate on what motivated a witness in a court proceeding—
That's not what I asked—
That is precisely what you asked—
On the point of order, Senator Wong?
On the point of order: Mr President, that is not what I asked. I asked why we have a statement from the minister and evidence in the Federal Court that are not consistent. I am offering the minister the opportunity to explain to the Senate why these two pieces of evidence are inconsistent.
I do not believe the question is out of order. It is a question the minister is free to address in the manner that she sees fit.
Again, I will need to refer to the statement that I made at the beginning of question time. The AWU's legal action against the Registered Organisations Commission, in relation to the investigation into the donations made by Mr Shorten when he was secretary of the AWU, is in the course of a hearing before the Federal Court this week. As I am yet to give evidence in the case, I am subject to restrictions in relation to what I can be told about the case and about evidence that has been given by other witnesses. Although Senator Wong is putting information to me and is providing commentary on the case, I have no way of verifying whether or not what Senator Wong has said is true.
Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister advise who is telling the truth: the minister, the minister's former senior media adviser or the minister's former chief of staff?
I stand by the statement I gave at the time.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister advise the Senate on how the new childcare package is delivering for all Australian families?
I thank Senator Gichuhi for her question in relation to the delivery of the government's new childcare reforms that came into effect on 2 July last year. Indeed, those reforms are now clearly making a substantial benefit in the lives of many hardworking Australian families. These were the most significant reforms to the way childcare support is delivered in Australia in around 40 years. They're the result of record levels of funding and investment by our Liberal-National government into the childcare system: some $8.3 billion in 2018-19, projected to increase to more than $10 billion in coming years.
But most important is the impact on hardworking families. ABS data shows that out-of-pocket childcare costs for Australian families went down by more than 10 per cent over the first six months of our reforms being in place. That's right—a 10 per cent reduction in the out-of-pocket costs for hardworking Australian families as they seek to juggle childcare services and those bills and fees in their daily lives. That's 10 per cent back into their pockets, enabling them to choose to work an extra shift or to work an extra day and know that they can afford the childcare fees that come with that.
This, of course, is the result of having a strong economy and strong budget management that enables the government to give that additional support back to families and to those who need it most. It's because of the strong economy and the strong budget that we're able to put an extra $2½ billion into early childhood education and care. It's because of that that we're able to lift the cap on support for 85 per cent of Australian families, and it's because of the strong economy and the strong budget that we're able to have implemented these reforms, saving these hardworking Australian families 10 per cent of their childcare costs and empowering them to make decisions about the work arrangements that better suit them and their circumstance.
Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question.
Minister, what are the benefits of this package for all Australians across the country?
Around one million Australian families are benefiting from these changes. As we said, costs, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, are down around 10 per cent. One million families are benefiting, and it's because of the way we've structured this. By targeting support to those who are working the longest hours and those earning the least amount, we are delivering lower costs but greater participation. The data also shows that the number of families utilising early childhood services increased by 3.6 per cent in the June quarter. So utilisation is going up because families are realising that child care is more affordable and accessible thanks to our reforms.
Despite the doomsday predictions we heard from some of those opposite, I am very pleased to note a 24 per cent increase in the number of Indigenous children accessing early childhood education and care. Those opposite predicted doom and gloom because of activity-test or other reforms. We said safeguards are in place, and the proof is there that participation has, in fact, gone up.
Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate of the alternatives to this childcare package?
We know that those opposite fought tooth and nail to stop this package coming into place, so a package that in the end has seen more Australian families and more Indigenous children accessing early childhood education and care and has seen a 10 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs for hardworking Australian families was opposed by the Labor Party and their co-conspirators in the Greens. It's remarkable, of course, that they could come in here and oppose reforms that have made life easier for so many hardworking Australians. It shows that they just never understood the failings of their policies when they were in office, because, under their six years in office, childcare fees increased by 53 per cent.
We then worked—and we had to work long and hard to get the support of this Senate—to actually put our reforms in place, but we have delivered reforms that have driven costs down for Australian families, enabled more to access that and, in doing so, made it easier for families to choose to work, work more hours and work more days to help their family circumstances. (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to Minister Cash's answer yesterday which directed questions on legal costs for her former staff involved in the AWU court proceedings to the Department of Finance. I ask the minister: can the minister advise the Senate whether the Morrison government has agreed to indemnify current or former employees of Minister Cash's office involved in the current legal proceedings or cover in any other way associated legal costs?
All applications for legal assistance, including for current and former ministers and their staff, are processed in accordance with the prescribed criteria outlined in legislation. It is, of course, not appropriate to comment on any matters currently before a court, as we have already indicated. It's also not appropriate to comment on any specific applications or approvals of legal assistance for MOP(S) Act employees, and I might just say that that answer is 100 per cent consistent with the answer that was consistently provided by the godfather of special ministers of state on the Labor side, former senator John Faulkner.
Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.
Senator Cash is a little bit confused about godfathers! I do have another question. Who is paying the costs of the minister's former adviser Mr De Garis and her former chief of staff Mr Davies? Furthermore, how much will taxpayers pay to defend Minister Cash against actions arising from the leaking of confidential police information from her office to the media?
Again, I refer Senator Farrell to the extensive comments and quotes by former Special Minister of State on the Labor side, former Senator John Faulkner, who made the point extensively—that our government agrees with—that it would not be appropriate to comment on any specific matters related to specific MOP(S) Act employees. We stick to that practice, and we think it's an appropriate practice.
Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Does the minister and his government continue to have full confidence in Minister Cash?
As I've said on many occasions this week, the Prime Minister has full confidence in the outstanding Minister Michaelia Cash, and, of course, so do all of us.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I inform senators that at 4 pm I'll be making a statement regarding the incident in the foyer last night between a senator and someone else.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education (Senator Cash) and the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the execution of a search warrant on Australian Workers' Union premises.
Let me start where Senator Cormann finished. He indicated that the Prime Minister had confidence in Senator Cash, and then he went on to say that she was an outstanding minister. Let me say that if the Prime Minister has confidence in this failed minister, it's another demonstration that the Prime Minister we have in office now is not up to the job—not up to the job! As far as Senator Cash being an outstanding minister goes, let me remind you, Madam Deputy President, of some of the positions that have developed under Senator Cash in her various ministerial portfolios.
Firstly, she was the minister responsible for the ABCC when the Commissioner of the ABCC, Nigel Hadgkiss—another disgraced public servant—was forced to resign because he breached the laws that he was supposed to uphold. Senator Cash defended this disgraced public servant. This minister allowed a position to continue where, after it became public knowledge that he had breached the act that he was overseeing, she allowed him to continue in that position. And then when he was finally forced to resign, what did she do? She authorised, basically, a golden handshake for him to go away. That's the outstanding position that we heard from Senator Cormann in talking about Senator Cash.
Senator Cash is a disgraced minister. She is an incompetent minister—
What, like Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald—your mates?
Senator Macdonald, you can intervene all you like, but this is a minister who has just got no idea about how she should operate and what the position is that she should be undertaking to tell the truth in this place. On at least seven occasions before question time she clearly refused to answer questions about her behaviour when it comes to her ministerial responsibilities. That went on again and again during this question time.
Here we have a minister where two of her senior staff are now clearly implicated—clearly indicating that they breached criminal law in this country—and yet Senator Cash comes in here and tries to wave it all away, based on public interest immunity. It is an absolute nonsense. This minister needs to tell the truth. She needs to tell the truth and come clean in this place. She needs to go to court tomorrow and tell the truth, because she has continually refused to do that in this place. She's not bad when she's up there haranguing union officials for breaching right-of-entry provisions, yet her staff are engaged in criminal activity on her watch. She is hopeless, she is incompetent and she should resign. That's what Senator Cash should do. She should resign. She is a disgrace to the ministry of any government. She is a disgrace even in this disgraceful government—a government that is an absolute rabble.
Government senators interjecting—
This minister epitomises the rabble that this government is—a government that is on its knees, a government that's on its way out. This is a government that is incompetent, a government that would cover up. It's spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money covering up for Senator Cash's incompetence and deceitful approach on this issue. If she won't go, then the Prime Minister should grow a backbone and sack her.
Before I call you, Senator Macdonald, I do remind all senators that the acoustics in here are very clear and so just be mindful of the comments that you make. Please make your contribution, Senator Macdonald.
Senator Cameron would be an expert on this subject being a former friend and protector of former New South Wales Labor ministers Eddie Obeid and the bad Ian Macdonald.
Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron.
A point of order. He is reflecting on a senator. What he is saying is untruthful. It's an absolute lie. I do not know Eddie Obeid. I have never had any engagement with the man. So he should withdraw.
On the point of order—
Senator Macdonald, I hadn't called you and you kept interrupting, so I wasn't able to call you. I'll call you now, Senator Macdonald.
Thank you, Deputy President. Senator Cameron says that I have maligned a senator when he has just finished five minutes of deliberately and personally attacking and telling untruths about a senior minister in this government.
Senator Macdonald, thank you. I would remind all senators in here that debate needs to be respectful and in a spirit of cooperation. Senator Macdonald, I would ask you to withdraw those comments regarding Senator Cameron.
If you are ordering me to, I will.
I'm asking you in a spirit of cooperation to keep the debate orderly.
Senator Cameron had five minutes to personally attack this minister and you didn't raise a finger!
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. I'm not taking any more points of order, thank you, Senator Watt. I asked for respectful debate. I also reminded the chamber to be mindful of the comments made when other senators were speaking. I didn't name anyone when I made that request. And I am respectfully asking you to withdraw the comments that you made directly to Senator Cameron, Senator Macdonald.
Madam Deputy President, if you are directing me to, I will. If you are asking me to in the spirit of whatever you're talking about and you didn't apply the same standard to Senator Cameron's attack, then I won't. I need your guidance. Are you directing me?
Senator Macdonald, you know full well I'm not directing you. I'm simply asking you in a spirit of respectful debate. So please continue your remarks.
Senator Cameron's disgraceful attack is on a female minister—a female minister. You'll notice the style of the attack of the Labor Party. Two of the—I would call them bullyboys, although I know that's out of action—hard men of the union movement in the Labor Party, Senator Cameron and Senator Watt, are continually attacking a female minister. They're followed up by Senator Wong, who is an advocate for the ACTU and was involved in an incident at the front door of this parliament when the parliamentary front doors were knocked down before she was in this parliament. These are the people that are attacking Senator Cash—without, I might say, any interruption from the chair. Senator Cameron can give it out, but he can't take it back.
Let me be very clear on what this is all about. This is an attack by the Labor Party on one of the most effective ministers, who continually exposed the graft and corruption within the Labor Party, and they don't like it. She continually exposes the graft and corruption in the union movement, and their mates over there don't like it. If you look at this carefully, this is an action taken by the AWU against the Registered Organisations Commission, who made a decision to investigate the donations by the AWU to GetUp! of $100,000 when Mr Bill Shorten was involved in GetUp! and looking at a further donation from the AWU of $40,000 to Mr Bill Shorten's campaign. That's what this is all about. This isn't about a police raid. This has nothing to do with Senator Cash. This investigation was started by the independent Registered Organisations Commission against the AWU. The leaking that is the subject of the Labor Party's disdain happened three or four days after the decision had been made by the independent organisation to investigate the AWU. It had nothing to do with the leak, but the Labor Party are determined to muddy the waters, to make sure that nobody understands the real purpose of this whole action, which was to investigate Mr Bill Shorten and the $100,000 given to GetUp! when he was involved as a director of GetUp! and to also look at what's alleged to be the improper gift by the AWU of some $40,000 to Mr Shorten's campaign when he first was elected to this chamber.
This is a disgraceful attack by the Labor Party on a female minister, one who has the courage and fortitude to expose the graft and corruption that happens within the Labor Party and the union movement. They don't like it. They will do anything to challenge it. I'm surprised that the judge has even heard the evidence in this case before the court at the moment. I can only look with some wonder at what Senator Kimberley Kitching said. She said in relation to the Bolt case that she knew this same judge, Bromberg, through the Labor Party. He unsuccessfully ran for Labor preselection. He's an active ALP person. He was active enough that he was in a faction. He ran for preselection.
Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Is it appropriate for a senator to be reflecting on an independent judge? I would have thought that's a fairly unusual and probably unwise step for a senator to take. Can I get your ruling on that?
He's not reflecting personally. He's quoting another senator.
Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I appreciate your protection, because this is Senator Kimberley Kitching, a Labor senator, who said that she was surprised that Justice Bromberg would hear the Bolt case because she knew that he had certain views on Mr Bolt and on the subject that he was talking about. She was surprised that Justice Bromberg didn't excuse himself from that case. One wonders why he's dealing with this case.
Some days in this parliament it's hard to believe the nonsense that we're asked to swallow by those on other side. This is a divided, dysfunctional, deceptive government—and we saw that in full strength today here in the parliament—with a minister, who's usually pretty free and flowing with her language, who today did everything she could to continue to avoid answering any questions about her responsibility as a minister in this government. We see this party across the chamber from us fighting amongst themselves, but they seem to be united in a class action of support for Minister Cash and her web, which I can only describe as 'a web of fiction', around what really went on as many as, I think, 480 days ago—
Four hundred and seventy eight.
Four hundred and seventy-eight days ago, Minister Cash was forced to come in to the Senate, to a committee, and say: 'Whoops, I made a pretty big mistake'—she didn't call it a lie—'I made a bit of a mistake. Somebody in my staff didn't tell me the truth.' Well, you know what's been going on for the last 480 days? This minister has not been telling us the truth. Ordinary Australians out there, who aren't like this government, who don't have intimate relations with the top end of town, need great unions to look after them, and, for this government, it sticks in their craw. This is all happening in here today because this divided, out-of-touch, dysfunctional government sought to use the power of government to set up the ROC and, through the ROC, exercise a raid on a union.
But it wasn't good enough that they could abuse the power of government; they decided that they needed some pretty good pictures as well. So what we're seeing now is a court that's actually revealing some of the truth that Minister Cash has been attempting to hide from this parliament. But ordinary people around the country know that there's no way that she wouldn't have known what was going on. She was in on it—everybody knows that. This has been going on for 480 days, and, despite the number of questions that have been put to her today, she just keeps going back to statements she made in the past. One thing I learnt when I was growing up is that, if you tell lies all the time, you'll never remember the truth; you'll never be able to remember what really went on. She cannot tell the truth. She cannot tell the truth, so she's relying on written records of the construction that she's attempted to put before the Senate today.
I've been listening carefully, and I'm loath to interrupt the Senator's contribution, but this is just a litany of aspersions on another senator.
What's your point of order, Senator O'Sullivan?
That she should withdraw any remarks that suggest Senator Cash has lied or misled the Senate. They're very, very serious allegations. They haven't been established, and they need to be withdrawn.
Senator O'Neill has not made that direct assertion. Please continue, Senator O'Neill.
I thank the senator for his comment, even though it wasn't a valid point of order, because the reality is that it gives me the chance to put on the record that we went to extraordinary lengths on multiple occasions, through committees and in this chamber, to give Senator Cash the opportunity to tell the truth. We've given her the opportunity. We voted here yesterday to give her five special minutes of question time to come in and put a straight statement to this chamber.
Which she did.
She gave us a statement all right, but it wasn't very straight, and there was certainly very little truth in it.
Senator Scullion, on a point of order?
If that last comment wasn't a reflection on the senator's honesty, I don't know what is. I ask that you, Deputy President, ask the senator to withdraw that last comment.
Again, Minister—
The term 'straight', by the way, is truthful. It's in the Australian vernacular.
That's not an unparliamentary comment. Please resume your seat.
I'm just translating for you.
Minister, please resume your seat. Senator O'Neill, please continue.
What we know is that, as a cabinet minister, Senator Cash has to make choices around probity and the right thing to do. For 480 days she's been avoiding coming clean and telling the whole story about what's been going on with her office. We've had a suspicion—Australians aren't stupid; they understand like we do—that there's something not right about what she's been saying.
She gave evidence in a committee that she'd had a one-sentence conversation with the Prime Minister when he called her to his office to brief him before he went into parliament about this matter. One sentence from Senator Cash to the Prime Minister? You've got to be joking! She told us that it was a media source that gave the information. We've found out in the last couple of days that that is not the truth. In terms of what we've been finding out as the week's gone on, pretty well everything the senator has been saying is not the truth. We knew, and this week is confirming, that it's a long way between what the minister has decided to tell this parliament and what really went on in her office. I believe it will be proven very, very soon that she has undertaken the most egregious dereliction of her responsibilities as a minister of the Crown. (Time expired)
I rise to contribute to this waste of taxpayers' money, this political game that is being played here. We learnt years ago that the best form of defence is to attack. That's an old saying and probably a very good one. Those opposite are defending the inquiry into the money from AustralianSuper. Quite amazingly, I got an email from AustralianSuper just last week. They're upping their fees. I'm with AustralianSuper. I didn't have any super before I came to this place. They've done a pretty good job, but I've managed most of it myself—thank goodness. But where does their money go? The inquiry is into $100,000 that went from AustralianSuper to GetUp!. What is GetUp!? What actually is the organisation GetUp!? We know what GetUp! is. It's a not-for-profit, left-wing, Labor-supporting, union-supporting publicity group. Their political agenda is to promote the Left of politics in this nation and, what's more, they do it very well. They're well-funded, and we want to know why this $100,000 went from AustralianSuper to GetUp!. Who was the originator? Who set up GetUp!? What did Mr Bill Shorten have to do with setting up GetUp!?
You're just showing it's politically motivated.
Senator Watt says that I'm showing it's politically motivated—'politically motivated' or just prepared to get anyone you can, with anyone's money, to team up behind your political campaign?
Senator Watt is obviously paying attention. Perhaps he might be able to answer this question for me—through you, Madam Deputy President. In 2007, AustralianSuper donated $27,500 to the Australian Workers' Union. Who were the directors of AustralianSuper at that time? Senator Watt might not be aware who the directors of AustralianSuper were at that time. Let me give him some names. Does 'Greg Combet' refresh Senator Watt's memory? He was a minister in a Labor government. He was a director of AustralianSuper. Mr Bill Shorten, the current opposition leader, was a director, in 2007, of AustralianSuper. Another name, someone I referred to in my valedictory yesterday, is one Senator Doug Cameron. He was a director of AustralianSuper.
What did AustralianSuper do? They donated $27,500 to the Australian Workers' Union. What did the union do? The union registered it on the Electoral Commission website as a donation. Why would an industry super fund be donating to the Australian Workers' Union? They registered it as a donation and, within weeks, the Australian Workers' Union made a donation of $25,000. To who? Senator Brown's listening very carefully. I wonder who they donated $25,000 to? They donated it to the election campaign of Mr Bill Shorten. That's very odd, isn't it? A cynic would say, 'What's going on here?' We have an industry super fund donating money to the AWU, which Mr Bill Shorten is very much a part of. He was a director of AustralianSuper, along with Greg Combet and Senator Cameron. Twenty-seven and a half thousand dollars goes to the Australian Workers' Union, listed as a donation, and, within weeks, $25,000 from the Australian Workers' Union goes off to the campaign fund for Mr Bill Shorten to come into parliament.
Sheer coincidence!
Sheer coincidence. Exactly, Senator Molan.
When this came out in the media 10 years later—remember that this was 2007—the Australian Workers' Union changed it on the website from 'donation' to 'other'. What is 'other'? Other what? So this is why this is being investigated. Should it be investigated? Of course it should be investigated. Those opposite with their huge ties to GetUp! and the union movement are probably very embarrassed by what I've been saying now. So what are they doing? They've decided: 'We'll attack the minister. We'll go with this line of attack on the minister.' It's to blanket out and cover up what the Registered Organisations Commission is actually doing. What a good way to attack and defend. The best way to defend is to attack. That's what they're doing to Minister Cash. I can tell you now, Madam Deputy President, it will not work.
I also rise to take note of the answers to questions from Senators Cameron, Keneally and me this afternoon. We've seen yet another display of desperation and fear and smear from this government. We see it day in and day out. They've tried it in the House of Representatives and the Senate by whipping up this fear campaign about asylum seekers and boats. I just had a look at a great cartoon in my own state's Courier-Mail today where the cartoonist has drawn the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, out on the beach with a big sign about boats, saying, 'Where the bloody hell are you?', encouraging asylum seekers and encouraging people smugglers to put people onto boats. They have the big fear campaign going on about boats and are inventing all sorts of stories about that. Then, in here, with Senator Cash, we have the continual cover-up of what she and her office were up to in seeking to denigrate the reputation of the opposition leader, even if that required illegal tactics.
I was reflecting on the day that this whole sorry scandal with Senator Cash first blew up back in estimates 478 days ago. I remember that, heading into that week of estimates, on the opposition side we were preparing to ask Senator Cash lots of questions about the latest scandal involving her hand-picked head of the ABCC, Nigel Hadgkiss. Then—what do you know?—along came a police raid to try to distract attention from the trouble she was in. Hasn't that blown up in her face? Another smear campaign from Senator Cash and another desperate attempt to distract from her problems with the ABCC has actually extended to being a 478-day scandal which has enveloped this government and her office.
What we've learned from question time and Minister Cash's statement today is that, yet again, she wants to rely on this argument that she doesn't know anything about the evidence that has been given in the court case this week by her former staffer. She has her eyes covered. She is apparently not reading any newspapers or any of the media reports about it. Apparently none of her media advisers are telling her about the reports, which are all through the media, about the evidence being given by a former staffer of hers which puts her in a very bad light. But she doesn't know about that, just like she apparently didn't know about the leak in the first place.
In answer to a number of questions, she has refused to comment on various propositions that have been put to her by the opposition today, which only makes you wonder why. Senator Cameron asked whether she was the source of the leak. The answer from Senator Cash was: 'I can't possibly comment on that. I'm not going to confirm that.' In answer to a question from Senator Keneally about whether then-Prime Minister Turnbull's office asked her office to leak this information to the media, she said, 'I can't comment on that. It's too sensitive. I've got to claim privilege. I'm going to claim an immunity. I'm not going to give an answer on that.' In answer to a question from me about the shocking evidence which came out yesterday in court where her former senior media adviser admitted that he had deleted text messages sent between him and a staff member in Minister Keenan's office where they conspired to leak this police information and whether she directed her staff to delete text messages, what did Senator Cash do? She said, 'I'm not going to talk about that. I can't possibly talk about that.'
So we have all sorts of legitimate questions here based on evidence that has been given to a court this week by members of Senator Cash's own staff that she is re fusing to answer, clearly leaving open the possibility that she has directed her staff to delete text messages, that she did get a direction from then-Prime Minister Turnbull's office to leak this information and that, in fact, she was the very source of this leak in the first place.
But, as I say, if we've got to a point where staff members are deleting text messages between themselves that involve leaking police information to the media, potentially at the direction of a minister, that just shows you the level of desperation that this government has come to. It was also very revealing today that Senator Cash on multiple occasions clearly tried to put distance between herself and her former staff. She is clearly throwing her former staff under the bus and expecting them to take the fall for this whole sorry saga. It's like a scene of criminals pointing the finger at each other, splitting off, trying to save their own skin. That's what we have happening here between Senator Cash and her former staff members. All are blaming each other, and she is chief among them in trying to put her own former staff fairly and squarely in the middle of this and to make sure it has nothing to do with her. Again, this is just the latest example from a government that has run out of ideas, a desperate government that only has fear and smear. Bring on the election.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to report of the review of the regulatory capability and culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the regulation of live animal exports.
'The department has failed as a regulator.' This is the beginning of the draft report provided to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources on 17 December 2018. Ten days later, when the final version was released by the minister, those words had been removed. Let's remember that the independent Review of the Regulatory Capability and Culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the Regulation of Live Animal Exports, known as the Moss review, was set up in response to the horrific abuse we saw on five separate voyages of the Awassi Express.
But what we now know, thanks to the papers that my motion passed by the Senate released, is that the department of agriculture's fingerprints are all over draft versions of the so-called independent report. They were shown at least four draft versions of the report, provided extensive editing and were allowed to influence and even propose deletion of whole sections of the report. We see the department suggesting that wide-ranging criticisms of the government and its contribution to animal cruelty be removed, and these criticisms never made it into the final report. We saw that the agriculture department wanted to remove statements about any involvement or praise of animal welfare groups—the very groups that exposed the animal cruelty in the first place.
The Moss review put much of the blame for extreme cruelty for live export at the government's feet—and rightly so—in the 17 September draft version of the report. It blamed them for the departure of experienced staff members, some of whom predicted this disaster. The report blamed the government's deregulation policy. The review stated that the science that suggested that the stocking densities and heat stress in the live export standards were incorrect would probably apply to other animals who suffer live export, but, 10 days later, those criticisms were gone.
This government's integrity is seriously under question. It really beggars belief that the department was able to have any influence whatsoever over an independent review of their own culture and their own performance. It is blatantly obvious that the department did everything in its power to try to weaken the report's recommendations. This is not a regulator interested in animal welfare. It is a regulator solely interested in defending the cruel live exports industry. It really begs the question: did Minister Littleproud instruct his department to interfere and influence the report to save the live export industry? It is really sickening so see the Liberal-National government side with animal cruelty time and time again. Let's face it: this is a government that will run interference and cover up for the live export industry no matter the animal cruelty, no matter the complete lack of integrity and no matter how many animals have to suffer.
Despite all of the PR spin of stage-managed visits to live export ships, it is clear that not much has changed. Just recently, the RSPCA revealed independent inspectors' reports of live export ships that continue to be allowed to sail. In these reports we see photo after photo of sick, dead and dying sheep—sheep in extreme heat stress, cows standing in 10 centimetres of their own faeces, animals standing over each other because there is not enough space for them to sit down. There were 1,500 sheep dead, which is considered to be acceptable by this government. The government fought tooth and nail to stop these photos going out. Do you know what the independent observers say on almost all of these pictures? 'No issues identified.' What a farce! What a load of crock.
What we have heard from the minister today confirms that the government just wants to do the absolute minimum to look like they're doing something and hopes that this whole thing goes away. Well, I have news for you. We're not going away. We have been fighting to stop live exports for 30 years, and we will keep fighting because the live export industry is inherently cruel. The reality is that it cannot be regulated to meet community expectations or animal welfare. The only solution is to shut it down.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on the mental health of first responders, emergency workers and volunteers, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to make some remarks on the report of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee on its inquiry into mental health conditions experienced by first responders.
First responders are the professionals the rest of us turn to and rely upon in our times of greatest urgency and distress. They are the highly trained officers who attend our medical emergencies, who go into burning houses, who stand between us and danger. They protect us and our families. Their presence and skills when we call 000 can mean the difference between life and death. Their working lives are spent navigating extreme circumstances the rest of us—if we are lucky—will rarely encounter. They perform a vital role in the community, and they are training to make critical decisions which will determine the course of people's lives.
But they are also people. They are men and women who are not, and cannot be, inoculated against the known risk of psychological injury caused by repeat exposure to significant trauma. Over the course of the inquiry the committee heard from many first responders and got a glimpse into their world, the things they see and experience. And those things they see and experience are remarkable both in scale and in substance. As put by one first responder, it is not a normal job. It is a job in which you engage with people having the worst, and sometimes last, days of their life, and you do so day in, day out, over many years. It is a job in which you may be required to place yourself in danger or be assaulted whilst trying to save lives. A job in which you witness catastrophic injuries up close, and in which you appear out of the blue to deliver the worst news imaginable to people's families.
Mental ill health is not like a broken arm, or like influenza. It does not announce its presence suddenly one day. The committee heard time and time again that it is hard to pinpoint a moment when a person's mental wellbeing begins to unravel. Instead, many witnesses told the committee that mental health is like a bucket which slowly fills, bit by bit, until it overflows, and it is impossible to say whether it was the first drop or the last which did the most damage. Even in the wider community, the conversation around mental health has only recently started to shift.
The committee had the opportunity to engage with a wide range of professionals in the mental health field, and the evidence they presented was unambiguous: first responders' work places them at an increased risk of developing serious mental health conditions—not least depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as an increased risk of suicide. Cumulative exposure to trauma—a core feature of first responders' work—can have a profound effect on mental health. This being the case, it is reasonable to expect that first response organisations should mitigate that risk by prioritising the health and wellbeing of their workers.
Unfortunately, first responders' lived experiences—related to the committee in both public and confidential submissions—tell a different story. They speak of an entrenched stigma around mental health and of a widely-held fear of reporting psychological injury to management. They speak of a culture of intimidation and bullying in some organisations, where those who report mental health conditions are treated like liabilities to be disposed of rather than helped. They speak of an adversarial culture which sees mental health injury as a weakness, rather than recognising the strength and self-awareness required in seeking help. And they tell of a system which treats them with indifference when they can no longer work and confronts them with an almost impenetrable wall of bureaucracy and endless hoops to jump through if they turn to workers compensation to get by. Perhaps the most striking thing to emerge from this inquiry is how much poor management can exacerbate mental health conditions and cripple rather than assist an individual's recovery.
The committee noted the commendable efforts underway in some first-response organisations, which are implementing evidence based programs and initiatives to protect the wellbeing of their staff. We were heartened to hear several organisations admit the mistakes of the past and recognise that genuine cultural change takes time. There is a long way to go—however, we must as a community seize the momentum generated by this inquiry and demand that the mental health and wellbeing of first responders be taken seriously. Initiatives, guidelines and strategies are merely words on paper if they do not translate down the management chain into something palpable for workers. The committee therefore urges federal, state and territory governments and stakeholders at all levels to accept and implement the recommendations of this report without delay.
In presenting this report to the Senate, I would like to recognise the service of first responders around the country, and to thank each and every one of them. I would particularly like to thank the individuals who participated in this inquiry—those who told us of their darkest hours, and those who have suffered the incalculable grief of losing loved ones to suicide—many retelling and reliving their trauma in the knowledge that what happened to them in the past cannot be undone, but that sharing their experiences may help their colleagues and other families in the future. These are people who are hardwired to protect others and we, as a community, have a moral obligation to help them. As the committee concludes in its report: 'The human cost of inaction is too high.'
I put on the record my thanks to the ever professional committee secretariat in conducting at times what was quite a difficult inquiry but a very rewarding one. I also want to put on record my thanks to the other committee members, in particular to Senator Urquhart, who did much of the very heavy lifting in relation to this inquiry and really got down to some of the hard detail analysis of what was required. So my thanks particularly go to Senator Urquhart for this inquiry. I recommend and commend this inquiry and its report to the Senate.
I am conscious that a lot of my colleagues wish to speak on a large number of reports, so I will speak very briefly on the report The people behind 000: mental health of our first responders. I also want to absolutely acknowledge on behalf of coalition members the work that first responders do and the pressure it places upon them. It is an extraordinarily difficult, demanding and stressful area of work. Whether it be our ambulance personnel, our paramedics, our firefighters or our police officers, all first responders and all volunteers who work in that environment are doing something that society asks of them. We need people who are willing to step up and do those jobs, but it is an extraordinarily stressful and demanding environment in which they work. It places pressures on individuals. It places pressures on families. That came out very clearly in the report and in the evidence given to the committee.
Coalition members of the Education and Employment References Committee did put in some additional comments to the report; however, I wish to make it very clear that that does not mean that we disagreed with the majority report. It's an area where attention does need to be paid into the future. However, it needs to be recognised that this does fall across our federation to different levels of government, with different responsibilities. Whilst the Commonwealth can play a coordinating role, we must acknowledge the right and responsibility of the states and territories to play their correct part as well.
I also wish to acknowledge, as the chair did, the work of the secretariat. It was a challenging and confronting inquiry at times. I also acknowledge the work done by Senator Urquhart. It was, at times, a difficult inquiry, but I think one in which the very good work of the committee system does shine through. I will end just by thanking all our first responders.
It was in December 2017 over a Christmas drink that a Tasmanian intensive care paramedic and the Vice-President of Paramedics Australasia, Simone Haigh, asked me, 'How do you get a Senate inquiry into an issue?' I responded, 'You talk to a senator,' and away we went. Simone had brought her dog, Oscar, a Weimaraner, to the office that day. Oscar is a wonderful dog, calm for his size—because they are quite a big dog—and very good at finishing his snacks. Simone had inherited another one of her Weimaraners about two years before in the worst of circumstances: Simone's friend and colleague Damian Crump had taken his own life, leaving Linc behind and shattering friends, family and colleagues. Simone explained me that while Damian's passing was a tragedy, he wasn't alone and that too many paramedics and responders have died by suicide or ended their career early because of mental health injury.
I went away determined to look at the incidence of mental health conditions amongst first responders—what support was being provided and what are the key gaps. I found that while there was a significant amount of work underway in terms of research and to improve policies and culture of first responder organisations, quite frankly, it was too slow and too fragmented. Australians who dedicate their lives to the service of our community, who answer us in our time of need, are not being adequately supported when they need it most, and greater national coordination is needed.
The inquiry received 161 submissions from all corners of the country and from Canada. We held hearings in all state capitals and here in Canberra. I want to thank personally all those first responders, their families, their representatives as well as the many, many health professionals, researchers and academics who made compelling submissions and gave evidence at hearings. Most of the submissions were highly personal in nature, sharing intimate details of trauma and bullying and of difficulties with broken systems.
I thank those first responder organisations that made submissions and sent representatives to hearings, in particular those senior leaders who recognised that there is still much more work to be done. I thank the staff of the secretariat—Stephen, Natasha, Kate, Ariane, Matt and Jade—for their work throughout this inquiry. I thank the other senators who participated in this inquiry, in particular Senator Marshall and Senator Brockman.
In policy making, data is the key. The inquiry was privileged to be able to include evidence from the epic Beyond Blue research project Answering the Call that captured the personal experience of over 21,000 current and former employees and volunteers. Beyond Blue found that 10 per cent of first responders have probable PTSD. The figure for the general population is four per cent. Similarly, incidents of high psychological distress and mental health conditions were around double the general population. There is a clear need for greater specialist interventions to support these people who give so much to our communities. The report makes 14 recommendations that seek to: drive greater focus across the country, collect more information on first responder mental health and suicide, increase national coordination and oversight, improve training and support services, and change workers' compensation processes. I trust that the federal government will quickly move with the states and territories to begin implementing these important recommendations. Our first responders can't wait.
I want to pay particular tribute to those first responders and their representatives who provided evidence on their experiences with bullying and maladministration. The committee heard your evidence loud and clear. We elected to focus on positive recommendations to improve workplace culture and support services. We heard time and again that, while first responder organisations have sought to update policies and procedures around mental health and workplace culture, such modern practices are not filtering down through the ranks. In fact, managers may be affected by the nature of their work and environment. Our first responder organisations must work harder to improve the workplace culture. Our first responder organisations and all levels of government must collaborate more—for example, through a comprehensive national action plan on first responder mental health.
I want to touch on the flawed workers compensation processes experienced by many first responders. We heard time and again from first responders and health professionals that the management of workers compensation is just too adversarial, that the cumulative nature of first responder trauma means that it is extremely difficult to prove their trauma is work related and that the current system further traumatises an individual rather than helps them to stabilise let alone get better. I congratulate the Tasmanian government for announcing late last year that it will move to a presumptive framework for PTSD for first responders. This is an important step, and I urge all jurisdictions to follow Tasmania's lead in this space.
We must ensure our first responders can access medical and psychological support, that their workplace helps and supports them and that in that process of getting help first responders are not re-traumatised. We must not let this report gather dust. Too many of our first responders need urgent help and support. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present an interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the support for Australia's thalidomide survivors. I move:
That the Senate adopt the recommendation contained in the interim report to extend the time for the presentation of the report of the committee to 22 March 2019.
I want to make a few brief comments. I recognise that we have so many reports today that I can't do justice to this report and to thalidomide survivors. This report contains seven substantive recommendations around actions that can be taken now to support thalidomide survivors. One is to extend the date for the committee to report, as I just moved.
We all know the tragedy from the fifties and early sixties that has struck so many Australians. We found that the health of thalidomide survivors is still suffering, that the effects of thalidomide are still being felt, that there are ongoing health issues and that people have early onset ageing. There is absolutely a need for more supports. The committee has made seven recommendations around what can be done now. We've also found substantial evidence around the need to revisit the issue of compensation. We are asking for an extension so that we can investigate those issues, because we have a lot of unanswered questions that we need to address. So I urge the chamber to accept the recommendation.
Please read this report. This is an absolutely vital issue. Before finishing, I would like to give a shout-out to the Thalidomide Group Australia, who have done so much to raise this issue. I really thank them hugely for the work they've put in to date. I'm sorry that we can't table the final report, but we want to do justice to the issues that have been raised with us, because they are so important. To all thalidomide survivors, I say thank you for the work that you have put into this committee to show us and demonstrate the need for further work. Of course, as always, thank you to our secretariat who, as always, have gone above and beyond. I urge all in this chamber to consider these recommendations and work with government.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the report of the committee on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
For candidates, political parties and the voting public, elections are a contest of ideas of values and of the future we want to see in Australia. The role of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in assessing elections is part of reassuring parliament and the public that they may have faith in the conduct of elections. Above all, fair and free democratic elections symbolise the liberties we enjoy as Australian citizens and the freedom of all of us in determining the government of Australia. These are liberties which generations of men and women have fought to protect, and they should not be taken for granted.
It is a regrettable omission that there is currently no requirement for voters to produce identification to vote in federal elections. Many democracies around the world, including India and Canada, require voters to show ID. Every surf or bowls club in Australia requires a person to show ID to enter. And yet in Australia we do not treat elections with the same gravitas as a visit to the surf club or entering a Brisbane pub after 10 pm on a Friday night.
Rectifying this considerable lapse in legislation is a key recommendation of the committee's government members and one that should be implemented properly. This is especially important in light of the current mistrust of politicians and the democratic process by the voting public, both domestically and abroad. As such, the recommendations of this committee have been made in a way that maintains and, where possible, enhances the integrity of the Commonwealth electoral system.
As trust in politicians and the democratic process starts to deteriorate and political views fragment, it is vital that the importance of political parties in halting this decline not be understated. There is no comparable avenue open to all Australian citizens which allows for direct participation in formulating policy than voting for or running as political candidates and thereby having a direct influence on Australia's political system.
Disappointingly, a narrative has evolved where political parties and Australians who are involved in political parties are 'bad', whereas other political participants are 'good', due to their antiparty virtue signalling. This is both wrong and dangerous. There is no higher cause within civil society than for citizens to be engaged in, to support and to join a party of the like-minded. Any party which contests elections in order to win and implement their beliefs in government should be commended and encouraged. It is sad that we have allowed such idealism to be tainted.
Over the course of this inquiry, the committee has enhanced its oversight role in relation to the AEC, not because of particular concerns about its performance—a number of this report's recommendations are about better resourcing the AEC—but because electoral management bodies are an essential part of our democracy. They ensure the system integrity that underpins our democracy.
The report concludes with an assessment of cyberinterference in elections. While there is no suggestion that this occurred significantly during the 2016 election, an election is the right prism through which to view the issues which have risen both in Britain and the United States in recent years. The excellent submissions and evidence given by the many hundreds of witnesses that appeared before the committee for this inquiry should be noted. However, the committee considers that GetUp! provided misleading information to the committee in the course of its inquiry, and that the provision of false and misleading information substantially obstructed the committee in the performance of its functions in relation to the inquiry. Government members of the committee believe that these are very serious matters, because the pattern of deliberate misleading and obstruction substantially interfered with the committee in undertaking and completing its work on the inquiry. I'd also like to note my personal frustration with this issue. No member of this or any committee should feel they are being misled by an organisation or an individual. However, I believe that applies doubly when referring to GetUp!, an organisation that continually advocates for transparency and honesty as part of its mission statement.
I would like to acknowledge the years of work that the previous committee chair, Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds, put into making the report of the conduct of the 2016 federal election the substantive and authoritative document that it is today. I would also like to thank the deputy chair, Mr Andrew Giles MP, other committee members and participating members for their continued engagement and genuine commitment. On behalf of the committee, I give our most sincere thanks to the committee secretariat for their hard work, professionalism and engagement with both the committee and the subject matter. It is shown in the quality of this report.
Finally, thank you to all those who voted, stood for election, volunteered or worked on campaigns back in 2016. Elections matter because of you. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
As I indicated at the end of question time, I have a statement to make regarding the incident last night that was reported.
As noted about the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice at page 100:
Section 15 of the 1987 Act declares, for the avoidance of doubt, that, subject to the law relating to parliamentary powers and immunities, a law in force in the Australian Capital Territory applies in the parliamentary precincts according to its tenor.
That law is modified to a degree by the law protecting parliamentary proceedings and the exercise by the houses of their powers. Otherwise, ACT law applies within this building, as it would anywhere else in the territory. In short, the ordinary law of the land applies in respect of the investigation and prosecution of any alleged offence. Setting aside the ordinary law, the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 makes it clear that the Presiding Officers jointly have management and control of the precincts, subject to any relevant order of either house. It is through this power to manage and control the precincts that the Presiding Officers are jointly responsible for the security arrangements which apply to Parliament House and, moreover, responsible for the safety and security of those who work in or visit this place. Under those arrangements, it is appropriate that I investigate any incident which affects the safety and security of people in Parliament House. Our security arrangements and policies also provide for appropriate assistance to be provided to the AFP and other agencies investigating any alleged breaches of the law.
While this provides the legal framework to act, as President of the Senate I have a wider obligation. Senators must be free to go about their work in this building. This privilege and protection is not limited to simple proceedings in the chamber. Passholders are granted access to the building upon certain conditions around behaviour, amongst others. These conditions are in place to protect all occupants of this building and facilitate the work of senators and members.
The video footage that I have reviewed records the reported incident between Senator Burston and Mr James Ashby last night. It shows inappropriate behaviour by a passholder towards a senator. Accordingly, I have exercised my authority to revoke Mr James Ashby of his pass to access the building and prohibit him from re-entering the building for the time being. This does not affect his employment, which is not a matter for the Presiding Officers.
As I outlined earlier, this action does not in any way prejudice any other legal or other proceedings that may be undertaken or initiated by the parties involved. Given the seriousness of the incident and the evidence immediately available to me, I believe immediate action is necessary and warranted. If further information comes to my attention, this decision can be revisited and any subsequent legal action will be taken into account. I have sought the concurrence of the Speaker, and the Speaker has agreed to this course of action.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted.
Whilst I do not recall the incident of blood on the door, I now have come to the conclusion that it was myself, and I sincerely apologise for that action.
Mr President, is it appropriate to take note of your statement to the Senate?
It's possible for anyone to seek leave to take note. That's at the discretion of the Senate.
I seek leave to take note of your statement, briefly.
Is leave granted?
Just for a few minutes.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Mr President, I want to put on the record how grateful I am for your expedient investigation of this and your determination to revoke the pass of Mr James Ashby under these circumstances. I say that not because I have any malice towards Mr Ashby or anyone else but because I think those who are entrusted with a pass in this place, just as senators are entrusted with free rein across Parliament House, have a special privilege. I think that for any chief of staff or any staff member who accosts a senator in the manner in which it was alleged, there is only one appropriate course of action. I have to say, Mr President, it filled me with dread that this would be referred off to another committee or an investigation or somewhere else, so I want to go on the record and say congratulations to you for your prompt action. The term 'for the time being' concerns me because, unfortunately, Mr Ashby has quite a track record in this place. I hope that 'time being' is a very long time.
I seek leave for about 15 seconds to make a short statement.
Leave granted for one minute.
Following up on Senator Bernardi, the other aspect of this which I hope you'll be looking into is that video has been taken, by somebody with a pass, of a senator walking through the Great Hall. I think that is a prohibited area, as other corridors are as well. That would seem to have been an impingement, without going into details of the case at this stage. It's almost separate to the later incident.
As I outlined this morning, there are a number of issues here. The application of the media and photography rules was one of them. I reviewed the CCTV footage of this particular incident. I outlined then why I thought immediate action was warranted. The reason I used the term 'for the time being', Senator Bernardi, is it is clear that in the course of less than a working day there may be other facts that come to mind that would lead to me revisit the decision. I am open-minded with respect to that. I thank senators.
I present the report of the Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents present to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
We will soon enter the third decade of the 21st century. While the last 20 years have seen a rapid change in the way people interact with each other and the organisations and causes that they care about and support, our patchwork of state and territory laws require charities to seek permission from six states plus the Australian Capital Territory to raise funds for charity. With increasing levels of fundraising being conducted online and at a national level, it is an anachronism that charities seeking to give their fundraising efforts nationwide reach have to jump through seven regulatory hoops. Outdated and fragmented regulations hurt charities, donors and the people and the causes that charities and not-for-profits are there to help. Change is needed.
The inquiry arose from the hard work and efforts of stakeholders in the sector, in particular the Fix Fundraising campaign, which put the spotlight on the need for urgent, long overdue reform. The vast majority of submissions and evidence received by the committee agreed that the current regulatory environment is broken and a new and nationally consistent legislative scheme is needed. Numerous witnesses expressed their frustration that, despite reform being on the agenda for 23 years, it has not received the action it deserves. Over the years numerous parliamentary inquiries and government reviews have been undertaken into the regulatory framework governing fundraising activities in Australia. The most recent review has been the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission legislation review of 2018. The review of the ACNC Act, which was undertaken by an independent panel, made several recommendations relevant to fundraising regulation, including the recommendation that the Australian Consumer Law be amended to make clear that it applies to charitable and not-for-profit fundraising activities. The panel's recommendations to use the ACL, which is enforced jointly by the ACCC and state and territory consumer affairs agencies, to regulate misconduct by charitable and not-for-profit fundraisers has the support of many stakeholders within the sector.
Witnesses appearing before the committee described their experience of the current regulatory system as chaotic, appalling, ridiculous, anachronistic and having no policy basis. An extreme case of outdated regulation was mentioned by several witnesses, who referred to the Street Collections (Regulation) Act 1940 in Western Australia, which makes it illegal to collect money with a tin on the end of a long pole. This law was inherited from London's 1903 Metropolitan Streets Act and is still on the books in Western Australia.
Given the unanimous calls for reform, the only remaining question is how that reform should best be delivered. Some key issues identified during the inquiry that underscore the unnecessary regulatory burden that charities and not-for-profits face under the current system include complexity, high compliance costs, inefficient allocation of resources and non-compliance and enforcement issues. The committee heard from a significant number of submitters describing the complexity of the current fragmented framework and its impact on their organisations. The committee heard that, with up to seven layers of regulations to comply with, no consistency in the interpretation of regulations and no agreed definitions of common terms such as 'charity' and 'fundraising', some organisations simply chose to give up and not undertake fundraising campaigns due to the complexity and costs they are faced with.
Deloitte Access Economics have reported that the regulatory burden associated with fundraising is estimated to cost the charity sector $15.1 million each year, and millions more when other not-for-profits are included. That figure is considered a gross understatement by some stakeholders in the sector. The committee heard that the time and resources diverted by charities towards meeting their compliance obligations was not productive and could be more effectively directed towards actually achieving their charitable objectives.
The committee came up with two recommendations. There are only two, but they're very important recommendations. Firstly, the government must as a matter of priority turn its mind to the ACNC legislation review panel's recommendations and table a formal response to the panel's recommendations urgently. This will provide the foundation for future action. And, secondly, the Australian government must commit to work with state and territory governments in the sector to develop a consistent national model for regulating charitable and not-for-profit fundraising activities within a time limit of two years. Committing to a clear time frame with the Commonwealth and taking the lead in negotiations with the states will provide assurances to the sector that their long-overdue request for a truly national scheme that is simple, modern and universally applicable will be released.
Quickly, in the last couple of seconds, I'd like to thank my fellow committee members for their work on this report, which I'm happy to say is a unanimous report. On behalf of the committee I'd like to thank the secretariat, in particular committee secretary Bonnie Allan and Leonie Lam, for their hard work supporting the committee through this inquiry. I'd also, finally, like to thank the witnesses who fronted the committee hearings or made written submissions. Your evidence gave the real, concrete examples of challenges charities and not-for-profit organisations face on the ground each day from this fragmented, outdated and ineffective regulation.
The first calls for reform were made over two decades ago. This inquiry is the best opportunity to effect real and tangible change for the sector. I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the 173rd report of the committee of privileges, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Mr Danny Eid.
Ordered that the report be adopted.
I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the Great Barrier Reef 2050 partnership program together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This inquiry was the Australian Senate at its best, acting swiftly and working cooperatively to scrutinise in full government policy of significant public importance. This grant, this $444 million grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, was a desperate attempt to cover-up this government's legacy of reef mismanagement: years of chronic underfunding and disregard for climate change in the context of an imminent World Heritage in Danger listing for the greatest living organism on this planet, the Great Barrier Reef. This grant was clearly a political decision made with no consultation, no due diligence and no regard for proper process. It's a textbook case of how not to implement public policy and a perfect example of why we shouldn't trust the future of a dying reef to a government intent on outsourcing public policy. This report and its recommendations are a good opportunity now to press reset and build the best blueprint possible for future reef management in full consultation with all stakeholders.
There are a number of key recommendations in this committee report. The most startling recommendations and conclusions were that the granting of this $444 million grant to the reef foundation was a highly irresponsible decision hastily concocted by relevant ministers without proper consideration of risks and potential effectiveness. It was an off-the-cuff decision and it fell flat. The first recommendation was:
… that all unspent Foundation Partnership funds be returned to the Commonwealth immediately; and that these funds be earmarked for expenditure on projects to protect and preserve the Reef …
The second recommendation was that the Commonwealth government:
… undertake a review, to be completed by 1 July 2019, of the structure of Commonwealth funding to protect and preserve the Great Barrier Reef. The committee further recommends that the expenditure of unspent Foundation Partnership funds be guided by the outcome of this review.
The third recommendation was:
… that the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments publish an updated Reef 2050 Plan Investment Framework that provides current figures on established funding by source and priority area.
There are five or six other recommendations there that, should that money not be returned to the government, would follow for any future government.
I'd like to thank the Senate staff. It has been a huge privilege to chair this committee. I'd like to thank, especially, Senator Keneally for her passion and her work on this issue, and all other senators who made quorum through a number of hearings. There's absolutely no room for error with the Great Barrier Reef, given it's nearly half dead through back-to-back bleachings. Its future is significantly under threat. This is something we have to get right. I trust that what will come out of this farcical process is a renewed effort to get the right blueprint in place to get the best possible funding to give the reef the best possible chance. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present two reports of the committee as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business. I move:
That the Senate take note of the reports.
I seek leave to have my tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement s read as follows—
The statement s were unavailable at the time of publishing.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present two reports of the committee, as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business, as well as the executive minutes and responses to various reports. I move:
That the Senate take note of the reports.
I present two reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The first is entitled Report 475: Defence First principles review, naval construction and mental health in the AFP. Chapter 2 of the report, based on audit report No. 34, outlines the Department of Defence's implementation of the First principles review. The First principles review was 'designed to ensure Defence is fit for purpose and able to promptly respond to future challenges'. The Australian National Audit Office assessed the effectiveness of Defence's implementation of the First principles review, finding that it had implemented a substantial number of the most important recommendations. However, a number remain a work in progress and have yet to be implemented.
The committee's recommendations included that Defence maintain momentum to implement recommendations of the First principles review and work to improve its forecasting of financial expenditure. The committee also noted various aspects in regard to the Australian Federal Police and the work of the Department of Health, and acknowledged the Australian National Audit Office finding that the quality of the IAHP primary health care value-for-money assessments is in need of improvement. Their advice to the committee is that it is currently working to address this. The committee's recommendations included that Health continue to prioritise the implementation of the planned funding model of the IAHP, which was four years behind schedule, and develop a revised national key performance indicator.
The committee thanks officials from all agencies involved for assisting the committee in its inquiries. I'd like to extend my appreciation and thanks to all members of the committee for their continued deliberations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on jobactive, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiries into the impact of defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities and the use of the quinoline anti-malarial drugs mefloquine and tafenoquine in the Australian Defence Force.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I present the report of the committee Options for greater involvement by private sector life insurers in worker rehabilitation, together with the Hansard of the proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
I present a dissenting report to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018.
On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, Senator Siewert, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the accessibility and quality of mental health services in rural and remote Australia.
On behalf of Senator Bilyk, I present the Annual report—2018 of the Senate Standing Committee Of Senators' Interests.
) ( ): On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 1 of 2019 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 13 February 2019.
) ( ): On behalf of Senator Polley I present the Annual report—2018 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
I present corrigenda to reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
I present corrigenda to reports of the Senate Standing Committee of Senators' Interests.
by leave—On behalf of Senator Kitching, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Mexico and Peru, which took place from 22 September to 1 October 2018. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, which took place from 28 October to 1 November 2018. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand and Canada, which took place from 24 September to 4 October 2018. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Question agreed to.
( I present: (a) all remaining reports and documents as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business standing in the name of government senators, (b) two additional reports and (c), on behalf of the minister, two government responses. I move:
That the Senate take note of reports.
I seek leave continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I table particulars of proposed additional expenditure for 2018-19 and seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the documents, together with the final budget outcome 2017-18, the advances under the annual appropriation acts for 2017-18, be referred to committees for examination and report, and consideration of the advances provided under the annual appropriation acts be made a order for the day for the day on which the committees report on their examination of the additional estimates.
Question agreed to.
I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 2018-19 for portfolios and executive departments as listed on the Dynamic Red. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.
by leave—I table the documents that were prepared for Senator Gallacher on the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I table the annual report on Closing the Gap and accompanying ministerial statement. I move:
That the Senate take note of the documents.
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate 10 minutes to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and I would like to pay my respect to their elders past, present and future. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many local Aboriginal elders who I have got to know during this role—Tyrone and Wally Bell, Matilda House, Paul House, Tina Brown—who take on the role of welcoming us to their country. I have learnt so much from you and I thank you for your generosity in welcoming us to your land. I want to acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have welcomed me onto their country and into their communities and families. I have been privileged to serve in the past five years as Minister for Indigenous Affairs. I would like to acknowledge Senators Dodson and McCarthy. I acknowledge your leadership, both as senators and as Aboriginal people. We may not agree on a range of matters, but I certainly value the contribution you make and I do listen closely.
I am pleased that the annual Closing the Gap report brings Indigenous affairs to the forefront of our parliament. It is an opportunity to highlight the issues Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have told me matter to them most—getting a job, getting kids to school and keeping communities safe. Unfortunately, many in our nation will limit their discussion to a snapshot of progress, or lack thereof, against the targets—an assessment of failure in Indigenous Australia. But, as Roy Ah-See, Chair of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, said, 'We need to move from a deficit discussion to one that acknowledges where more work is needed but celebrates the outstanding contribution Indigenous people make and the success of Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders in every community.'
I for one would like to stand here and declare that all of the targets are on track, and to stand before the chamber and declare there is no longer a gap between outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. However, these are long-term intergenerational issues and, as such, change will take time. The Prime Minister's statement this morning outlined that only two of the seven targets are on track—that we are on track in early childhood enrolment and high-school completion. If you take a closer look at the targets you can see these are areas where the Commonwealth had a direct leaver to change. We made getting children enrolled in early-childhood education a key focus across the Indigenous enhancement strategy. We provide direct funding to organisations that provide scholarships, mentoring and support for Indigenous students to get to school and stay in school, like the Australian Indigenous Australian Foundation, the Clontarf Foundation, the Stars Foundation, Role Models and Leaders Australia, the Bronco Academy—who I met with today—and AFL House.
It was so exciting to work with the Prime Minister and the member for Warringah to secure a historic $200 million Indigenous youth education package that will secure the future of the next generation of Indigenous Australians. In addition, we've announced today that we will waive the HELP debt for teachers who work—and, importantly, stay working—in very remote Indigenous communities for four years. This is important because, as we know, building relationships and working together takes time. It's no good having a teacher fly in for six months and then leave. It's absolutely essential to build trust and relationships in community to deliver change.
We've extended the Indigenous Procurement Policy to boost the Indigenous business sector even further. Through the Indigenous Procurement Policy we've supercharged growth in the Indigenous business sector. Since its establishment in 2015, Indigenous businesses have delivered 11,933 contracts worth over $1.83 billion—not a bad hop and a leap from $6.2 million in 2013. It's proof of what happens when we get the targets right. From 1 July 2019, part 2 of the Indigenous procurement process will introduce a target of three per cent of the value of the Commonwealth contracts to be awarded to Indigenous businesses within a decade. This is adding to the existing IPP target of three per cent of the number of Commonwealth contracts going to Indigenous businesses.
What I am pleased about and what I want to share with the chamber is that we are seeing change. We are seeing positive signs of success on the ground in many areas. More children are getting the benefits of an early education. More mums are accessing antenatal care, not smoking during pregnancy and getting their children immunised. More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are living longer. More Indigenous people are in work, and, especially, more women are employed. More Indigenous people have year 12 qualifications.
To lose hope based solely on the achievement of targets fails to recognise all of the achievements of the hardworking leaders in communities across Australia. Djambawa Marawili and the Baniyala traditional owners—I think Djambawa is in the chamber today; I recognise you, wala—have established a corporation to take on, for the first time ever, the responsibilities of a delegation of land council functions. Andrea Mason, who is also in the gallery today, has worked tirelessly to improve health and wellbeing and to tackle the tough issues like domestic violence in the NPY lands.
I ask that you remember to listen to the voice and wisdom of elders like these. It is in working together in genuine partnership that success is possible. We as members of parliament, as policymakers here in Canberra, must genuinely listen to communities about what works and partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. When we get it right, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander are empowered to take charge of their own destinies, we see enormous success. So listen to the 1,473 Indigenous businesses that have grown and seized opportunity under the IPP. Listen to the 60 per cent of Indigenous organisations tackling some of the most difficult social issues under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. Listen to the empowered community leaders who are leading the way on working together with government to drive change on local community priorities. Listen to the traditional owner groups who have worked hard to have 220,000-odd hectares of Aboriginal land handed back in the Northern Territory since 2013.
When we work together success is possible. We hear stories of local achievements. Fishermen in Nardilmuk in the Northern Territory are working together to turn their tradition and hobby into a thriving business across the territory. The Nantawarrina rangers are removing and selling 9,000 feral goats from their country in South Australia. Young shearers are going to the Merriman Shearing School in Brewarrina in New South Wales. It's clear from these examples that when we support the economic prosperity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people there is a whole-of-community benefit.
From next month we will begin reforms on the Community Development Program, which has already supported remote jobseekers into almost 30,000 jobs. I have listened to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations which support the CDP. Just to name a few of them: the Northern Land Council; Arnhem Land Progress Association; Winun Ngari from the Kimberley; Rainbow Gateway from Queensland; New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, which has 23,000 members; Koonibba Aboriginal Corporation; and Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation—the list goes on and on. We are giving the communities greater control over CDP and shifting the focus to flexible, locally led support for jobseekers.
We are listening to people in remote communities and doing what they want, not what special interest units want. This is the difference between words and actions. We have seen huge advances in Indigenous control over land, which provides a strong foundation for building economic activity and intergenerational wealth. Native title has now been determined to exist over around 37 per cent of Australia's land mass. There are nine Northern Territory communities now with township leases, and I am really excited to see even more progress on township leasing, with communities like Gunyangara now holding township leases over their own community with their own leases. I listened to my good friend Galarrwuy Yunupingu some five years ago. We were sitting under the tamarind tree out there at Ski Beach. I heard his call to control his land. This is the difference between words and action.
In school attendances, as a parent I have said time and time again that a good education provides the best start in life. Getting kids to school in remote communities is an intrinsic but not an intractable problem. I am proud of what we have been able to do on remote school attendance. When we came to government I couldn't stand here and tell you the extent of the problem. The data simply didn't exist. We didn't measure students by indigeneity. I was told that school attendance is primarily a function of state governments, but what I have seen and heard was that getting kids to school out in communities was a huge challenge. It was something that needed to be done. The parents wanted their children to get an education. That's why we have made this a national priority. We have persisted with state governments. We have built a workforce, with unrelenting shifting social norms. This change is going to take time, but I believe it is one of critical importance. It is a generation of kids that go to school, then send their own children the school. We have got to continue to shift the dial on this. I know my colleague the member for Warringah has been very impressed by the passion and persistence of these workers as he visits the remote schools across Australia as a special envoy on Indigenous Affairs.
These are the sorts of community led solutions I have been lucky to watch grow over my time as minister. But I have also seen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities go through heartbreakingly tough challenges, challenges driven by entrenched problems, problems for which there is no silver bullet. I am proud to have been able to support communities in tackling these issues, like the National Indigenous Critical Response Service, supporting families and communities after tragedies like suicide; like the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, which provide support through the custody notification service for Indigenous people taken into police custody; like the services providing therapeutic, trauma informed care to survivors of family violence to help keep them and their families safe; like the dedicated through-care workers, who work with prisoners to turn their lives around and stop offending.
I am deeply passionate about these issues and the work we have done to address them. I entrust the next generation of leaders with the task of keeping this work to tackle these difficult issues going. We need more Indigenous leaders to continue to challenge the behaviours and norms in their own communities which lead to poor outcomes. When we have brave leaders like Noel Pearson, Jacinta Price and June Oscar, we need to back them in. We need to see more existing and emerging leaders stand up and have a say, to join the coalition of peaks in working with government on the next decade of reform through Closing the Gap Refresh; to get the targets right; to put words into action.
My five years as Minister for Indigenous Affairs have been challenging. They have been more rewarding than I could have hoped. Do I wish we had seen faster progress? Of course I do, but meeting, working and speaking with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from all walks of life has reminded me time and time again of the tremendous wisdom and resilience of Aboriginal communities, families and individuals. I want to head bush and leave the mob with a clear message: the future is in your hands; keep fighting for it. To paraphrase the Prime Minister's striking and determined words this morning, there is nothing we can't do when we work together. I can't wait to see the bright potential of Australia's next chapter, the chapter of our First Australians, unfold.
I acknowledge the contribution of the minister on this Closing the Gap debate. This parliament meets on the traditional lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and we pay our respects to their elders past and present. We recognise and honour the culture and heritage of all our First Nations. We mourn the indignity and suffering that First Nations peoples have endured since the colonisation of this ancient land—the arrival of disease, the expulsion of people from their lands, the separation of children from parents, the loss of identity and the marginalisation of an entire culture. Recognition of these past wrongs is the essential first step for non-Indigenous Australia on our journey towards reconciliation.
Eleven years ago Prime Minister Rudd ensured we took a huge step on this journey when he rose in the House of Representatives to deliver the long-overdue apology to the stolen generations. In delivering that apology, he honestly and bluntly declared to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parties, 'I say sorry.' The apology to the stolen generations was a day of remembrance, a day of sadness and a day of reconciliation but, perhaps above all, a day of extraordinary nobility and of grace. I will always remember—and I remain profoundly moved and inspired by it—the grace that was shown by First Nations peoples on that day, who, despite all the hardship and indignity forced upon them, found it in their hearts to accept an apology offered by a government on behalf of those who had brought that suffering. In the spirit of our collective journey towards reconciliation and in the spirit of healing, our First Nations people rose above grievance and resentment and accepted sorrow.
But, recognising that sorrow is not enough. Prime Minister Rudd, with Jenny Macklin, instituted the Closing the Gap program to redress disadvantage and inequality through targeted action to tackle key areas of disadvantage faced by Indigenous Australians. Ten years ago, on the first anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations, Prime Minister Rudd delivered the first Closing the gap report to the parliament. It wasn't a partisan report. It wasn't designed to ascribe blame or responsibility to a single government. It wasn't designed to ascribe blame or responsibility to a single level of government. Like the apology, it recognised that the plight of our first peoples is the result of 'the actions of successive governments under success parliaments'. The report was an attempt aimed at focusing our collective efforts to ensure that we do not continue to fail in the way that successive governments under successive parliaments have.
The Closing the gap report set seven targets and they were: to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018; to have 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025; to close the gap in school attendance by 2018; to halve the gap in reading and numeracy by 2018; to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020; to halve the gap in employment by 2018; and to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031. Actually, only two of these targets are truly about closing the gap—those on life expectancy and school attendance. The one on early education specifies a 95 per cent participation rate and the other three are soft targets—that is, to halve the gap rather than close it.
Last year, when I stood at this table, only three of the seven Closing the Gap targets were on track. They were those on child mortality rates, early education and year 12 attainment. This year, only two are on track—early education and year 12 attainment—and the target to halve the gap in child mortality has been revised as no longer being on track and we continue to fail to meet the remaining four. A decade ago this report made for sobering reading, and each year since governments of both political persuasions have tabled the report in this parliament to ensure that our collective attention is drawn to our progress towards the targets now set a decade ago and every year the report has continued to make for ever-more sobering reading. That fact is a responsibility for all of us. It is the responsibility of this parliament and it is a responsibility of all governments of all political persuasions and at all levels.
As I said, the indignity and hardship faced by Indigenous Australians is the responsibility of successive parliaments and governments, but I would say there is no doubt this task has been made unnecessarily harder by the coalition government's cuts of $500 million from Aboriginal programs. Today Mr Morrison suggested that the targets set a decade ago were too ambitious and that, instead, we need to 'strike the balance between ambition and what is achievable'. Well, I say it isn't our job to limit the ambition of Indigenous peoples and lower our targets simply so we can reclassify our own failures as achievements. It is clear that the Closing the Gap targets require updating. Four have expired. But we cannot and, indeed, must not lower our ambition, because we have a duty to truly close the gap. Australia cannot continue to accept that our First Nations people will die younger, lose more of their children, be less educated and receive poorer health care than their fellow Australians. We would not accept this for any other group of Australians and we certainly cannot accept it for our First Australians.
Our failure to achieve five of the seven targets requires greater, not lesser, ambition. Our failure also makes clear that a step change is needed in the way that all governments work with First Nations communities. It requires a step change in our efforts to progress our journey towards reconciliation. Achieving reconciliation with First Nations peoples and closing the gap requires us to empower. It requires us to facilitate self-determination and ensure that First Nations communities are at the table having a real say in the decisions that affect them. Labor does welcome the new partnership between the Commonwealth, the states and the coalition of Aboriginal peak bodies. It does represent an essential change in the way governments seek to address Closing the Gap targets and deliver services to First Nations communities. It is an important step in ensuring that our First Nations peoples are at the heart of policymaking and decision-making.
Working in partnership also requires that we listen, yet already this parliament has failed to accept the Statement from the Heart delivered at Uluru. Who are we to ignore the 1,200 delegates from 12 regional dialogues? Who are we to tell them we want to work in partnership but just not in the way they want? If we're truly to work in partnership, we must give First Nations peoples direct say in the decisions that affect their lives through a voice to the parliament. That is why enshrining a voice for First Australians will be Labor's first priority for constitutional change. We intend to hold a referendum on this question in our first term, as they have asked us to do. Our commitment is about recognising the importance of taking commitment to partnership seriously, about embedding in our nation's founding document the importance of self-determination for First Nations peoples. It is the step change our partnership needs. It is a step change that honours and takes forward the hope, courage and resilience that has been demonstrated through our history. The bark petitions at Yirrkala, the tent embassy, Clinton Pryor's walk for justice and Michael Long's a decade ago, the Gurindji walk-off at Wave Hill, the grand campaigners of 1967, the extraordinary victory against the odds of Eddie and Bonita Mabo and, of course, the apology—this is our history, this is their history, and together we can take it forward.
I also say that this is the same hope, courage and resilience that is demonstrated by those members of our First Nations communities who are in this parliament: the member for Barton; Mr Wyatt;, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy; and, of course, Senator Dodson. Their presence here demonstrates and reminds us again that we can walk forward. We learn from our history and we listen to our First Nations peoples. So, as we reflect on the 11th Closing the gap report, let us not lower our ambition. Let us instead redouble our efforts to work in partnership to close the gap and to continue our journey towards reconciliation.
I too rise to make a contribution to this debate on the 11th Closing the gap report. I would first like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunawal-Ngambri people, and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I also acknowledge that this land was never ceded, that sovereignty was never ceded and that we have a lot of unfinished business in this country.
This morning I was in the chamber to listen to the Prime Minister deliver the latest report on closing the gap, and I heard the distressing news that we had, in fact, gone backwards from last year—that this year we were only on track to meet two of our targets: early education enrolment and year 12 attainment. I'll come back to early childhood enrolment shortly. That means we're not meeting our targets on life expectancy. They're not on track. Child mortality has in fact gone backwards slightly. Last year we met that target. We're not meeting our target on school attendance. We're not meeting our targets on reading, writing and numeracy achievement or on employment outcomes.
I am going to be controversial here. I found a lot of the Prime Minister's speech this morning paternalistic and patronising. I felt very strongly lectured to about his new-found commitment to co-design and his understanding of co-design and of community control of Aboriginal decision-making and Aboriginal delivery of programs. Let's be honest here. We started a refreshed approach on the Closing the Gap targets. I clearly remember standing in this place—in fact, in the Mural Hall—and having Aboriginal people coming up to me and complaining about being excluded from the refreshed process. Let's face it: this government has been dragged kicking and screaming to the table for co-design. That is why the refreshed process has been delayed. I'll name it here. It has taken a long time for this government, despite the words that we hear, to actually commit to co-design. There had to be a great deal of lobbying to ensure that that happened. It was repeated and repeated.
If the government is so committed to co-design, why are we still seeing legislation before this parliament on the Community Development Program that does not adequately acknowledge the flaws of the program? The government brought that legislation to this place without presenting the review of the CDP. That review was released last week. The government's own report shows the flaws in that program and finally admits there is a cohort of people that have actually dropped out of the system—they are not in employment and they are not involved in the income support system. The program overwhelmingly penalises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The stats clearly show that Aboriginal people are being overwhelmingly targeted by that program. The cashless welfare card is another program that is not—as much as the government likes to say it is—a co-designed program, and there are many in the community that reject that card. There are many other programs where, if the government is committed to co-design—and I hear that it is now committed—it will take a new approach.
I was extremely disappointed that I didn't hear this morning a commitment by the government to the Uluru Statement from the Heart that is so overwhelmingly supported by First Nations peoples and that is gaining more and more support in the broader community. I argue very strongly that it was a more participatory process than has been undertaken for any of the programs that are being delivered in this country for First Nations peoples—and it was very clearly and strongly delivered. I didn't hear a commitment to that. I didn't hear a commitment to an Indigenous voice to parliament. I'll commit here that the Greens will do everything that we can to ensure that there is a voice of First Nations peoples to this parliament. I heard very strongly what Senator Wong just said, and we will also commit to making sure that Labor keep their word, because what I clearly heard when I was on the latest constitutional recognition committee was that people want a voice to the parliament. There is still discussion about what that should look like, but that is not irresolvable. There are lots of discussions going on—in fact, probably as we speak—about what the voice should look like and how to progress it.
I didn't hear a lot of discussion about the intergenerational trauma that we still need to address. I welcome a commitment to education and improving education, but you can't keep education separate from all the other things: a child goes to school in a context. If a child lives in an overcrowded house, or a house that's falling down around their ears, or if they can't get to sleep, or if they've got other vulnerabilities then just getting them to school is, in fact, not going to deliver an outcome. And they find it hard to get to school. If a child has poor health it cannot learn properly. So you can't take education out without fixing all these other things, and intergenerational trauma is one of those things that needs to be addressed. I didn't hear a commitment to that this morning. These are the things that we look for when we look to a commitment by government on those issues.
The government didn't commit to putting back in over half a billion dollars worth of funding that was taken out in 2014. That had a devastating impact on the ability of Aboriginal communities to deliver programs on the ground. I've heard very little about the Indigenous Advancement Strategy that is so detested in Aboriginal communities. These are the sorts of programs that are top-down, not co-designed, and arbitrary in their funding.
We have a long way to go in this country, but we can start a better relationship by getting a unanimous commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a unanimous commitment to implementing the voice and a unanimous commitment to truth telling—to establishing a process to enable the sort of regional truth telling that was articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Addressing issues around sovereignty and treaties is also key for this country to truly move forward. There are comments made around what I and many others call 'invasion day'—others who accept the definition of invasion day—about whether we need to change this nation, to change Australia. I genuinely believe that we need to change this nation in the way that we treat our First Nations peoples if we are going to genuinely and finally close the gap.
I also rise today to make some comments on the 11th anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations. The Prime Minister handed down his Closing the gap report. Eleven years is a long time, but I remember the time of the apology vividly: I was sitting up in the House with a mother who had been taken away from a community on the Trans-continental Railway line and sent to the infamous Roelands Mission in Western Australia.
Throughout Australia, First Nations peoples were using art, music, stories and songs to tell stories of First Nation's society and to share stories with non-Indigenous Australians. Musicians, led by people like Yothu Yindi and Archie Roach, were travelling around the country singing the songs of First Nations peoples. People were beginning to understand what Richard Flanagan meant when he said, 'What Black Australia offers to the nation is not guilt about our history but an invitation to our future.'
Everything that Aboriginal people, First Nations people, have done or benefited by has mainly been through their own efforts and their hard fight to achieve it. The largesse of governments is very seldom something that we experience. Through Prime Minister Rudd, some ten years after the Bringing them home report, the nation apologised to the thousands of Indigenous people who over many generations were stolen or forcibly removed from their families, their countries, their languages and their cultures. This historic process had been found to be genocidal by the late Sir Ronald Wilson, a former High Court judge and commissioner of the Bringing them home report. It reminds me of what Bill Stanner wrote when he said, 'The white man's got no dreaming. He goes another way.'
The movement for a better and more equal society led to the establishment of the Closing the Gap framework, the first national framework to tackle entrenched Indigenous disadvantage in our nation's history. The new framework was accompanied by record investment in Indigenous affairs. Eleven years have now passed. Today, after much delay and dysfunction, this Prime Minister handed down his Closing the Gap report. It was a poignant reminder of the failure of his national leadership and that of his predecessors Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull. Over the last few years commentary has rightly focused on the languishing Closing the Gap framework, with targets not being met and some targets expiring last year. It is clear that the thinking that informed the Closing the Gap strategy has unravelled. The soaring rhetoric here in the parliament has not resulted in changes on the ground.
Today I'd like to draw your attention to a key question: who actually closes the gap? In my travels around Western Australia I visit many Aboriginal community controlled organisations. Recently I drove to Fitzroy Crossing. I went to Marninwarntikura, the women's resource centre in the Fitzroy Valley. Marninwarntikura is a Walmajarri word. They call themselves 'women who belong in this region, these countries and each other have come together'. They are a team of competent, powerful, First Nations women, experts in the needs of their communities and the social and economic determinants that shape their lives. These women are not fly-in, fly-out workers. They know the families that face these challenges. They know the families that care for those struggling in their communities. They know the effects of the intergenerational trauma on their community. They know it too well. They know that an inconsistent, paternalistic government can only wreak havoc on their communities.
In my home town of Broome I see community workers daily putting in long hours to close the gap. I today offer them my respect. I respect the teachers at the Broome school, teaching Yawuru, my language. I respect the coaches on Friday night basketball at community centres. I respect the health workers of the Aboriginal medical services, running programs to support fathers and grandfathers to foster happy, loving relationships with their children and grandchildren. I respect the four-wheel-drive bus driver covering hundreds of kilometres on corrugated roads to make sure kids in remote communities get to schools. I call out to the mob at the Kullarri Patrol, ensuring First Nations people get home safely at night and off the streets; to the women of Nagula Jarndu, creating real jobs through textiles and design; to the housing workers at Marra Worra Worra, providing ground-up, community led housing services at Fitzroy Crossing; to the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre, working tirelessly with elders and anthropologists to respect the remains from the eroded banks of the Fitzroy River and put them to rest. Most of these people are at the coalface. They very rarely come to Canberra. Who actually closes the gap? It's the people working at the grassroots, led by First Nations peoples, with a deep understanding and lived experience of the needs of their communities.
I acknowledge the strong and assertive work being done by peak bodies and representatives in dragging the government to a historical national partnership agreement. These peak representative bodies have a vital role to play assisting frontline organisations to deliver their services and collate national data. Their national leadership is essential and worthwhile. But there is a deeper challenge here, and that is to properly recognise that we can only close the gap in the communities of Australia if the communities of First Nations people have direct ownership, authority and control over the impact of their lives. Building self-determination and practice is going to come from empowering Aboriginal controlled organisations on the ground and making sure that they are resourced to service their communities. Self-determination is going to come from bureaucracies moving away from their entrenched institutional racism and starting to move towards respectful co-design processes with First Nation leaders to develop culturally and socially sound programs and policies.
After 11 years it is clear that we need to build and shift in the way we think about these issues. It is a paradigm shift that's required. Vision and leadership are required to understand it. When considering our pathway forward, we must remember that there was a time not long ago when every decision of every Indigenous person was determined by officialdom—which school you went to, which partner you could have, which child you could keep, which house you could live in, what time you had to be out of town and which boss you were indentured to. Through the long lens of history it is easy to understand why First Nations people are weary of centralised government decision-making. These policies and practices entrench our disadvantage and frustrate our hopes for jobs and economic development. The call for self-determination is not some new abstract concept. It's deeply informed by history. Our vision for the future must recognise this call and respond in kind. This is the simple reason why organisations like Marninwarntikura, the women's resource centre, work well. The answer is in their name, as I've said. These women belong to the region, their country and each other. They've come together to fix their communities.
The call for self-determination must not go unheard. It is unfinished business. Today's report shows that the Australian nation has made little or no progress. In fact, we've gone backwards on the number of targets that are on track.
Senator Dodson, I'm so sorry. Your time has expired. I'd like to give you another 20 minutes. Is there agreement from the chamber?
Yes.
Thank you very much, Minister. Senator Dodson, please carry on.
I've only got a few more—
You take as long as you like. You've got free rein.
Don't give me that permission! In the years since the apology we've not managed to change the social, economic and political framework for First Nations people. I acknowledge what the minister has said about the progress that is being made and the work that he diligently tries to achieve. We just disagree on processes sometimes. It's fundamentally because the mainstream—and it's the bureaucratic functions—refuse to acknowledge that they are a major part of the problem. I accept and respect what Senator Siewert has said. If there is a collective of the parties of this parliament and if we commit to giving local communities and regions the power and authority they need to get the job done on closing the gap, then we will see progress. We must keep in our minds those who actually close the gap and give them the capacity to take it forward. We must empower those who directly service their communities and deliver the changes that will lead us together, across Australia, to bring economic, social and health indicators for First Nations peoples closer to the norms of the mainstream of Australia. Whilst we do that, we should always allow for the unique genius of the First Nations peoples to shine through, to help our nation find a path and honour.
I would like to first acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, and I would also like to pay my respects to elders past and present. Once again, the latest Closing the gap report is no cause for optimism. Only two of the seven targets are on track nationally and in my home state of South Australia, and they are the target to enrol 95 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds in early childhood education and the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment. These are both important to the long-term outcomes of Indigenous children, because education is one of the pillars on which to build a solid future, but so is good health. Unfortunately, Indigenous life expectancy remains lower than that of non-Indigenous people, and child mortality rates, while lower than they were a decade ago, are still too high at 164 Indigenous babies and children for each 100,000 people—representing 96 more Indigenous children than non-Indigenous children and babies.
On the jobs front, the employment rate has not improved in the past decade at all. Just over half of the Indigenous Australians of working age living in major cities were employed, while in remote areas the figure dropped to a staggeringly low 31 per cent. The aim of this program is to progress key areas vital for meaningful lives for Indigenous people. With these results, is it any wonder Indigenous communities and organisations feel let down?
I welcome the Prime Minister's speech earlier today, in which he recognised that, despite our lofty ambitions, not enough real progress has been made in the last decade. As often as not, the annual update on Closing the Gap has not been a progress report, as we have seen frustratingly slow or no progress. It has been more of a status quo report. It is really difficult to comprehend how the collective funding and effort by federal and state governments over so many years has achieved very little progress. This tells us how entrenched some of these issues are, but it also tells us that we need to go back to the drawing board. As the old adage says: if you keep doing what you've always done, you're always going to get what you've always got. The top-down tick-a-box approach has failed. So I applaud the moves by COAG to refresh the Closing the Gap agenda and include more accountability and to work more closely with Indigenous people.
A true solution cannot be imposed on the people it is designed to help. It must be done in genuine partnership with Indigenous communities and with a willingness to listen and be responsive. Indigenous people understand better than bureaucrats what will work in their community to unlock the potential of their people now, and particularly for future generations. In saying that, I would also hope that we get more ambitious about what we're trying to achieve. I don't believe that we should have targets to halve the gap, as we do for four of the target outcomes. This always struck me as very much being a low bar. We should commit to genuinely closing the gap in all areas.
As a nation, our ambition and expectation should be that there be no difference in life expectancy, educational outcomes, health and employment of Indigenous people. If we don't strive and aim for absolute equality, if we don't have that as a benchmark, we will never close the gap.
I rise in response to the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap address delivered today. I begin with an acknowledgement of the traditional owners of this country, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present and also to all First Nations people across the country, but in particular here in the parliament—both my colleagues, those in the gallery and those who have been present here on this important day. I'd also like to really say to the Australian parliament: thank you. This is the one day of the year that has meant so much to myself and others that I know in terms of the importance of raising the issues for First Nations people before Australians.
Senators and members may wonder when they listen to the Close the Gap targets and despair at the frustration of the inability to close the gap, knowing that those targets are still yet to be reached, but I like to think of it from a really personal point of view. As a Yanyuwa-Garrwa woman in the Gulf Country, where my families are in the Borroloola region, I think of it on a very personal level to remind myself of why this day is important. Even with the very dissatisfying results of the targets, we just cannot give up. When I say 'we', I mean all of us—all parliamentarians, all Australians. We must dig deeper. We must walk further. We must engage on such a level as to empower the First Nations people of this country.
This week, coming to parliament, I received news that my ten-year-old nephew died. Our families are devastated. His mother took him to the shower and put him to bed, to find only a few hours later that he'd died. The families of Borroloola are asking why. The schoolteachers and students of Borroloola are asking why. They smoked the school and the classroom and no-one can answer why.
It's too common a story. With the recent stories of the coronial hearings in the Kimberley over the suicides, we have to ask ourselves as a nation: why do we not really care? That's what today is about. It's the one day of the year when the Australian parliament says to the Australian people: 'We care about First Nations people in this country. We care that they are dying and that their children are dying. They are Australians too. We care and provide hope.' That is what today is about. That's what closing the gap is about.
When I came to talk about it this morning in front of the Senate, standing before the cameras to talk about closing the gap, there was only one person there. The rest of their media had turned their backs. Where were they looking? Who were they waiting for? They were waiting for another incident—another issue that has nothing to do with the importance of governance in this country. They were waiting for people who had had an incident in the parliament. And yet First Nations people were waiting for the stories of this parliament to be the main stories of this day. When I say that this day is about Australians caring, that means these guys who sit up here as well, the media, paying attention. You missed the biggest story of today. The biggest story was the fact that First Nations people in this country need you to pay attention.
It's not just about education, which is warmly welcomed on a deep level. It's about housing. It's about our roads and infrastructure. It's about the access that people need to get to hospitals and get to schools. Those things are what the parliament of Australia needs to focus on. If we want teachers in our schools, we want to make sure that they are jobs for our First Nations people—that they have the jobs. We want to make sure that First Nations people can be the nurses and the doctors and lawyers; that they have a vision for their children in this country and that they can, equally with any Australian of any colour and background, share it. That's what today is about.
We do fail as a parliament and we do fail as a country when we do not take the time to share in the disgrace and hang our heads in shame that an important part of our population suffers so deeply—when we get so distracted by things that do not matter. That's what the shame of today has been about. Closing the Gap, my fellow senators, must be the most critical day in our calendar, not just for us to stand here and speak about measurements but to stand here with feeling and to care, to have compassion and to know that we are failing the First Nations people. And we must do it collectively as the parliament of this country. The First Nations people need a voice to this parliament to speak about their issues and to engage on an equal level in governance, in the economy—on every playing field available to any Australian who is born in this country or who chooses to come to live in this country. So, Senators, Closing the Gap is a responsibility for all of us, just as much as it is for the First Nations families of this country.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the Ngunawal people, as the traditional owners of the land upon which we stand, and the Kaurna people, as the traditional owners of the land on which my office in Adelaide sits, and pay respect to their elders past and present. I also acknowledge all First Nations people in this and the other place.
Eleven statements, and yet on some of the most important indicators we are not even close to meeting the targets adopted more than a decade ago. On the current trajectory, for example, we cannot expect Indigenous Australians to live as long as the rest of the community, nor that child mortality rates will fall to the level the rest of us can expect. Just two of the seven goals are now on track, one less than last year. How are we going backwards despite pledges from all sides of politics to make sure that the people who have inhabited this continent for at least 60,000 years enjoy the same quality of life as the rest of us? In 21st-century Australia, after more than a quarter of a century of unbroken economic growth and increased prosperity, this is simply a disgrace. As both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged, it is simply not good enough. Words are one thing, as are intentions, but it is actions that count. We have made the pledges but failed to produce the results. I agree with the Prime Minister that this is unforgiveable and appreciate his honesty in admitting that he does not know when Indigenous children will have the same opportunity as any other child in this community, but it is an indictment of us all.
I'm pleased the report acknowledges that a top-down approach was set up to fail and that a strength based, community led approach will form a critical foundation for future work. I'm also pleased that the government has endorsed the expansion of small, family and medium-sized Indigenous businesses to tackle the Indigenous employment gap. More must be done on this score. As I noted in my first speech, the Commonwealth's Indigenous procurement policy should be adopted by all levels of government and by more companies to drive demand for Indigenous goods and services and grow the Indigenous business sector.
I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to waive the HECS debts of teachers who spend more than four years working in remote Australia. This is a practical step which may encourage more teachers to spend more time with their Indigenous pupils. This initiative is essential but not sufficient, given that most Indigenous students live outside remote Australia, in the cities and towns of our nation. Education, knowledge and skills are the keys to a better life. They may not be the sole determinants, but, without them, it is that much harder.
A good start would be to commit to the suggestion of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples that we start to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents, carers, elders and leaders at the local level to create an education system which is culturally safe, inclusive and relevant. If some of the nation's most eminent Indigenous leaders think they are not being listened to, what hope have we got? As I said in my first speech last year, it is shameful that, by percentage, more of our First Nations people are in jail than any other indigenous group in the world. I agree with the opposition leader that it remains true that men and women are being arrested and jailed not because of the gravity of their offence but because of the colour of their skin. As Martin Luther King Jr put it all of those years ago: he dreamed of a nation where his children would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I also applaud the opposition leader for his candid challenge. As he put it, 'If this parliament cannot acknowledge that racism exists in 2019, we are just wasting the time of the First Australians today.'
I pledge to redouble my efforts to do all I can to ensure that the aspirations of the First Australians for a referendum are realised. As I said in my first speech, the historic hand of reconciliation extended to our parliament through the Uluru Statement from the Heart remains unmet. I support calls for a First Nations voice in parliament enshrined in our Constitution and for a makarrata commission to supervise a process of truth telling and agreement making. We further need to officially acknowledge the Frontier Wars, as well as incorporate them as a central element of our school curricular, and to review the Frontier Wars being formally acknowledged at the Australian War Memorial. We must recognise that the First Nations people fought gallantly to defend their lands in the face of European invasion. I also believe that true reconciliation requires becoming a republic and a review on changing our flag.
Importantly, this year's Closing the Gap report is yet another reminder that we are failing our First Nations people and that we must redouble our efforts to address the root causes of persistent inequality. It is time to take a stand and succeed where previously we have failed.
I am also pleased to be able to stand up this afternoon and make a contribution to the Closing the Gap statement that was made by the Prime Minister today, but also, importantly, to acknowledge the contribution most particularly of Senator Scullion, Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy.
As a Western Australian senator, I am someone who is greatly interested in tackling inequity wherever I see it. As a Western Australian senator, I am privileged enough to travel across the great breadth of Western Australia, but particularly across the Pilbara and the Kimberley regions. When you travel across the Kimberley, you are struck by three things. You are struck by its vast beauty, and part of that beauty is its sparseness. You are struck, as Senator Dodson reflected, by the graciousness, the generosity and the warmth of the many Australians who live up there. But, if you are honest with yourself, you are also struck by the very serious, very obvious levels of disadvantage that we see being experienced by Indigenous Australians.
I don't think for a moment that I have the same depth of understanding—certainly not the lived experience—as Senators Dodson and McCarthy or my Liberal Western Australian colleague Mr Ken Wyatt, who's the member for Hasluck. But, like them, and I think like many other people in this place and other Australians, I do care about trying to understand why it is that, when we have Closing the Gap statements like this annually—and we've been doing it now for over a decade—the great ambition that was there in the first Closing the Gap statement, the great optimism that was there for others and that is still around for ending Indigenous disadvantage, is constantly being eroded, as has been my observation over the last few years. Why is it that we're not able to break the back of these very, very big issues for not only Indigenous people but also our country? As someone who puts a lot of faith in conservative—and I mean small 'c' conservative—principles of free markets and governance and our parliamentary institution, I look to those values first when trying to find solutions to these very, very important struggles.
I make a couple of observations. The first observation is that, when we talk about the Indigenous community in Australia, I think we do Indigenous people a disservice. That's because I'd argue that there's not just one Indigenous community but many Indigenous communities. They are fashioned and influenced by where they live, the levels of acceptance amongst their own communities and the sorts of unique challenges that they might face. So that's the first observation I would make. The second observation—and Senator Scullion reflected on this—is that, in a place like the Australian parliament, while it is important to predominantly give our focus to those things that haven't been done or have been done poorly, at the same time we must pause to celebrate, reward and acknowledge where things are being made better for people. There's no shortage of examples of instances where we see the quality of someone's individual life and their family life being improved. But that's not to diminish or in any way take away from the urgency or the enormity of this task.
These are clearly very, very big questions. I think Senator Storer spoke about this, if I heard him correctly in his contribution. Something I'm particularly alert to is: over the next few years as the conversation, the debate, about Indigenous recognition continues, how do we make sure that the energy needed on these issues is not displaced by the energy that might be put into other issues? I'm someone who's got an open mind about how important the reconciliation process is to ending some of this Indigenous disadvantage. I'm someone—Senator Dodson and others will know this—that has a very, very conservative approach as to how we might adjust or change our institutional or constitutional arrangements as a means of better addressing some of these issues. I'm not convinced that that is a way that will solve these issues, but I am convinced that, as Senator McCarthy reflected on, it is important to have a statement like this in our national parliament so that people in the parliament and also people in the community are constantly reminded that this disadvantage is real, despite the very large sums of money being put into tackling this disadvantage and despite the level of attention being given to these issues, whether it be parliamentary and political attention or media attention.
Senator Dodson and others will know that one issue that I have been particularly interested in championing and better understanding is: why is it that in a first-world country like ours, with a modern and very effective system of publicly funded health care, we're seeing such a great disparity—a very alarming disparity—in STIs and HIV infection rates in Indigenous communities at a time when non-Indigenous Australians are benefiting from access to health care and access to modern medicines? I don't have an answer.
Absolutely, governments can be doing more. Personally, I think that we should expect more, Senator Dodson, from Indigenous organisations. I say that cautiously, because I'm not an Indigenous person. But I am someone who is interested in making sure that everyone is doing everything that they possibly can. We can't allow ourselves to make excuses for people, or organisations or institutions that may not be doing the best that they can possibly do. So that is an issue that I am particularly alert to and which, in my own way, I try to bring attention to. Along with Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy, we on the Senate Community Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee have been putting our minds to that. Clearly, there are some very big issues.
But I do want to reflect on the comments that the Prime Minister made today, because I think that in a debate like this we should recognise when our national leaders make honest statements—when they accept their own or their own government's shortcomings, or when they draw out the shortcomings of governments that have gone before them. What Prime Minister Morrison said today in his speech I think is worthy of repeating. He said:
In 2008 we began this process of closing the gap. Successive Prime Ministers have reported since on our progress on meeting these national goals. It was born out of the National Apology. That was one of the first acts that I was involved in, in this place, coming in as a member of parliament, and I was pleased to do so. Closing the Gap was a recognition that words without deeds are fruitless, and Prime Minister Rudd should forever be commended for that apology and the process he began. That process that began in 2008 was born of a very good heart.
We shouldn't lose sight of that. He continued:
It recognised that accountability is vital if we are to bring about a change and meaningful process that has eluded our nation for more than two centuries.
But I must say that, while it was guided by the best of intentions, the process has reflected something of what I believe is the hubris of this place: it did not truly seek to partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It believed that a top-down approach could achieve that change that was, rightly, desired—that Canberra could change it all with lofty goals and bureaucratic targets. That's not true. It was set up to fail—and has, on its own tests. And today I'm calling that out.
It might have been set up to fail, but we can't allow it to fail. It's totally natural, I argue, and the normal way of things, that after a decade, programs, ideas and aspirations might be constantly recalibrated to better reflect the new challenges or progress.
But there are some things that I am particularly interested in when I think about the mammoth task that is trying to challenge and tackle the issue of Indigenous disadvantage. One is: aren't native title arrangements in our country still effective? Are they working for the best interests of native title holders? The Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia is about to do some work in regard to that.
I'm also interested in making sure that the governance arrangements of Indigenous organisations are the strongest and the best they can be, because Indigenous people deserve to be protected. I also think that we need to do better in using technology to support the rollout of quality health care to Indigenous people in remote communities. Much of the challenge here is because of the remoteness of the challenge— (Time expired)
I too rise to make a contribution to the 2019 Closing the gap report. In doing so, I acknowledge that we meet on the lands of the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present, and any elders in the chamber observing the Senate this evening.
I want to start by thanking both Senators Dodson and McCarthy for leading the way and for contributing so much to Labor's agenda. I listened to the contribution of our leader, Mr Shorten, today in the other place, and it absolutely had the voices of Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy—and, indeed, that of Ms Linda Burney, the member for Barton—in it. They've made a real change in how Labor speaks and have made a change in our direction. I also acknowledge, of course, Mr Ken Wyatt, the member for Hasluck.
I stand here today with a vested interest in closing the gap. Some of you have heard me speak before about my granddaughter, Charlee. She's Gidja, from Turkey Creek in Western Australia. Many generations ago her grandmother was taken from Turkey Creek and settled in Broome. As the family looks through historical bureaucratic records, as Senator Dodson pointed out earlier in his contribution about the time when First Nations people's lives were controlled by the state, they are piecing together that Charlee's family comes from all over the Kimberley, including being incarcerated on islands at some point. But at some point Charlee's family moved down to Geraldton. We think her great-great-grandmother was taken by boat down to Geraldton. In Geraldton there existed on the fringes of the town what was called in those days a native settlement. There are pictures of Charlee's grandmother living in a tin hut with nothing on the floors. That is a couple of generations ago.
So I have a vested interest in closing the gap, because I want Charlee to succeed. I want her to do well. I want her to achieve everything that she's able to achieve. She's smart and she's sassy and she's well able to stick up for herself. But at the age of 14 Charlee has been to many, many more funerals than I have ever been to. At 14 she knows that her uncles and aunties have taken their own lives through suicide. She's witnessed that. She's been part of that. That is part of what happens in her family, very sadly. But her family is also a very proud family, and everyone in Geraldton, Broome and other parts of Western Australia knows the Gregorys, because they are a fine family. Like many other families, they're a fighting family. They have gone on to have a lot of achievements, but they have also suffered racism. Charlee suffers racism. She's had kids say to her at school, 'Oh, you know, you're all right—as an Aboriginal person.' Why should a 14-year-old have to bear that burden? She's been stopped by the police in Geraldton when she's gone home for school holidays because she's with her cousins, and they don't want them in McDonald's and they have herded them out. Many times I have told Charlee that is absolutely unacceptable and she needs to call it out, but it's almost as if it's what she expects. I remember one day saying to Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy, 'This is what happens to Charlee,' and the sad thing was that they weren't surprised either.
So when Mr Shorten said today that racism is still alive and well in our country, it is indeed. It has been part of Charlee's very short life at the age of 14, and as much as I drum into her that that is not something she should put up with, that when the police move her and her cousins on from McDonald's in Geraldton, she needs to tell her mother, because that is unacceptable. I know that that is what she faces at the age of 14, despite having a lot of ambition and promise.
I want to also talk about two things that both Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy said. Senator Dodson posed a really important question: who closes the gap? Indeed, if we're to be successful, I think it's time that we tried to answer that question. As I said earlier, Senator McCarthy said that the targets haven't failed; we've failed the targets. Of course we saw in Western Australia a shocking, shocking history of suicide, including young children. We have just seen a coronial report into that. That coronial report said—lo and behold!—we need First Nations people determining their own futures. Guess what? That was said by a highly educated white magistrate. I can tell you it's something that First Nations people have been saying for generations: they're our problems, and we know the answers to them.
I was very proud last year to be part of a First Nations women's meeting in Perth. We produced this document, which has been presented to Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney in the other place, as something for Labor to take and acknowledge. More than 100 of these women came together in Perth from all over Western Australia. They put forward not only issues but solutions for children, youth and learning; for health and ageing; for human rights, treaty and constitutional recognition; and for social and emotional wellbeing. They talked about effective programs and policies. As Aboriginal women, they carry a great burden in Aboriginal communities, but they had all of those solutions. Today the contribution that I want to make is along the lines of the contributions that we have heard from Senator Wong and our leader, Bill Shorten. We just haven't done enough.
Indeed, a couple of weeks ago I participated in a silent vigil outside the District Court of Western Australia, as a Catholic priest who raped young women in his care at the Wandering Mission pleaded guilty to historical charges of sexual abuse. That young woman was damaged for life. She was told through confession that it was her fault. As the judge says, one can only imagine the intense turmoil that that young woman suffered. But guess what? The court was stacked against her because, in the end, the judge accepted that the 80-year-old priest, who has been charged with more than one case of sexual assault, at some point had paid her a measly $4,000 and had shown remorse. Never mind that this historical case of sexual abuse against this young woman at Wandering Mission has defined her life. This bloke got a suspended sentence and he's now back in Victoria. Three people have been charged out of Wandering Mission. Many girls and many First Nations girls were sexually assaulted from the age of five up to about 15 or 16, when they left that mission, yet we don't have one person incarcerated. We get a judge who acknowledges the absolute trauma that this young woman experienced—a young girl, as she was at the time—and yet he gets off scot-free.
So yes, racism is alive and well in this country. First Nations people do not get the justice that those of us with white skin get. We have a lot of work to do. I am keen to be part of a Shorten Labor government in the future that will, in consultation with First Nations people, start to address the wrongs that have carried on for far too long.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution on the Closing the Gap report. I understand that Senator Collins will be making some remarks in a moment. I rise to do so in my capacity as chair of the finance and public administration committee of the Senate, which, through its oversight of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has coverage of Indigenous policy issues on behalf of the Senate. For someone like me, who came to parliament without any expertise or experience in Indigenous policy issues, the insight that I have gained through this role has been eye opening and humbling. I mean 'humbling' in the true sense of the word and not the sometimes politically abused sense of the word. Sometimes when politicians receive a promotion or an accolade they say they are humbled, but in fact that's the opposite of what they mean. I mean 'humbling' as in recognising the limits of one's own knowledge. I think it's healthy we are sometimes frank about that and admit that.
The Closing the Gap report this year is in some ways like many previous Closing the Gap reports in that it shows there has been some progress but that there is much, much more work to do. In a moment I will reflect on why that's the case, but I think the Prime Minister's reflection on that today has been a very sensible one. Although I think there's great merit in an annual report to parliament on progress and in setting clear goals which we can measure our performance against as a nation, it is very clear that our failure to meet those goals on, really, a bipartisan basis requires a new approach and a new reflection. Some of the design flaws in the original Closing the Gap program need to be addressed. This is an area of policy where—although this is a trait we should bring to all things—we should be particularly humble. While all governments in this area have strived to make progress, and while all governments can point to some progress under their stewardship, no government is in a position to be particularly boastful about their performance in this area, despite their best efforts. Nonetheless, we shouldn't be relentlessly negative about these issues, because that's dispiriting and discouraging, and we should celebrate the successes where they occur, while being very sober about the challenges that we face ahead.
I want to reflect on some of the results in this year's Closing the gap report against those targets. As we have heard in this debate, it is pleasing to know that there is progress in at least two areas. Firstly, there is the area of early education, with the result of 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds being enrolled in early childhood education by 2025. There has been good progress made towards that goal, and on year 12 attainment—to half the gap with year 12 attainment by 2020.
But, of course, there are more targets not on track than there are on track. One which is not on track is life expectancy—closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation, by 2031. I recognise that there are other things to be discussed in the chamber now, so I might yield my further time, but I look forward to further discussions on this topic. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
by leave—Tonight, I have a fairly unique Valentine's gift for my husband, Daryl: my resignation from parliament. I give notice that tomorrow I will present my resignation to you, Mr President. It's now time for Daryl and me to smell the roses. In the next chapter of our lives we are going to live the lifestyle we imagined when we were young. The last 24 years have been quite a wild ride for both of us. When I was first sworn into this place I was not only the sole woman in the Victorian federal parliamentary Labor Party but also the only woman in maternity attire. Our son, James, arrived a short time later. Look at the size of him now! I recall that on another occasion when I wore that maternity dress I was quietly asked by Kay Patterson if I was expecting again.
Political life is not conducive to building family life, for reasons that many of us have outlined, but we managed, which is perhaps not ideal. But I'm very proud of the family that we have formed, with the considerable support of my mother, Shirley. It took longer than usual for our Maddison, my youngest, to grace us. She is currently stuck in exams at the University of Sydney, so she is not joining us. She would actually rather be here, as we can all imagine. My eldest son, Ben, has added three beautiful grandchildren, Charlotte, Sophia and Oliver. Like all families, we've had our losses. I have discussed my father and the care he had at Villa Maria previously. Our beautiful Ruby was lost too soon and, indeed, Daryl's mother was lost to us as well.
Daryl has carried the brunt of the career compromises, the family duties and the isolation that this job involves. I am very fortunate and thankful that we as a family have remained intact. Perhaps my misfortune in leaving this place mid-parliamentary-career allowed us as a family to regroup. I'm very conscious that there but for the grace of God go I, as we all know the high number of family lives that dissolve under the pressure of parliamentary life.
It has been an extraordinary privilege to be here. I'll not revisit what has already been canvassed in the media since my announcement that I will no longer be contesting the next election, but I do want to take a brief moment to express my thanks to many people for the support and respect that has been granted to me, not only by my party colleagues and the broader Labor movement but also by my political opponents and other colleagues in this place and the other place. I also want to express my thanks to everyone who supports all of us here, from the clerks and our attendants to our cleaners. We can all be thankful for the support we get on a day-to-day basis in this house and beyond.
But I give special thanks to my long-suffering staff. I am fortunate that we have had among my staff over many years an elite club of return performers, many future leaders across several fields and long-serving, dedicated and loyal people. For example, Daniel Mulino, a Victorian member of parliament, will contest the next election in the new federal seat of Fraser; Raff Ciccone will replace me in the Senate; and Debbie Dalmau and Felicity Defombelle have served all of us well. Thank you also to Michael Donovan and the SDA for their longstanding support.
I say 'we' in discussing these contributions because the whole federal parliamentary Labor Party and, indeed, the federal parliament and the Australian community, have benefited from their contributions, most recently in their service whilst I've been Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate—although I understand the government doesn't necessarily like my help sometimes—
Mostly!
but also when I was shadow cabinet secretary, as well as in the education portfolio and many other roles over the years. My period has had too few years in government, but I love to share my passion for the Australian democracy, where so much can be achieved from opposition, especially through Senate estimates—and I wish my colleagues well for next week.
A good example of effective opposition is the work I was involved in investigating the establishment of a National Integrity Commission, which Labor has now adopted as a policy to establish in its first year of government. Indeed, the government has now conceded what I would call a pale imitation following these endeavours.
Before signing off, I want to debunk one myth: I do not represent a dying breed in the Labor Party. Those who come to our great party or broad church from a base of Christian social principles are not disappearing. In some respects we are stronger now than during some other periods over which I've served over the last two decades: just look at the recent euthanasia debate. It serves the interests of some on the far Left and the Far right of politics to dismiss and diminish us, but I thank the many people across a wide spectrum who do not.
The current example of this concerns religious freedom. On this issue, the Australian Labor Party has a strong, clear and long-standing policy position that others seek to deny. Labor's national platform clearly states the principle that Labor supports the appropriate protection of religious freedom of all people. Senators Keneally and Pratt moved a resolution at our recent national conference which was carried, and I'll quote a few sections of it. It affirmed:
… the Australian Labor Party stands for recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including religious freedom.
It also affirmed that the Labor Party:
Finally, and significantly, the motion affirmed that the Australian Labor Party would:
Before concluding, may I make a few brief remarks about this week's decision on refugee medical transfers, because it is satisfying to me to see a small step forward in respecting and upholding the dignity of those perilous people who have been incarcerated indefinitely on Manus Island and Nauru. I believe Australians are fair and decent people, and that has come through, ultimately, in spades over my two decades here. Australians do not want to see refugees languishing forever. While we all endorse the policy objective of deterrence, it is abhorrent to use people's lives to achieve such a goal. I regret that officials did not alert Labor when we were in government that boat interceptions or turnbacks could safely occur. Much of what followed might not have subsequently occurred. In my view, the coalition's record on this issue is shameful. I was reminded of what they did in opposition in relation to the Malaysia solution when we had a delegation from Malaysia here earlier this week. The position on the Malaysian solution was reprehensible.
It's time now to say goodbye. To those who remain in this federal parliament, I wish you all the courage to speak out on issues that matter to Australian families, the wisdom to carefully consider policies and ideas, and the calm in achieving consensus outcomes. This is not to say I don't thrive in an adversarial system, but I think some calm and some focus on consensus may serve the Australian public more broadly. I wish you all well, particularly my good friend Senator Gavin Marshall on the Victorian Senate ticket. Thank you.
Given the other business that the Senate has to conduct, I won't dwell too long on concluding my remarks, but I just want to revisit the original point I made in my contribution earlier, which was that it is a very welcome thing that COAG has agreed to refresh the Closing the Gap targets. That's not because targets are an unworthy thing to pursue and not because this hasn't been an illuminating exercise for the last decade but because not enough progress has been made and there were some design flaws at the outset. It's really important that we partner with Indigenous organisations in setting what are ambitious, but appropriate and realistic, targets, and a realistic means of achieving those targets in the years ahead.
by leave—I wish to place a matter on the public record today in relation to my brother, who, through his involvement in a consortium, has acquired just over a seven per cent interest in the Ralston coalmine and its related assets. As a result of this transaction, my brother-in-law will acquire a just over 0.7 per cent interest as well. This information has been revealed this afternoon as part of an update to the market by the companies involved.
I have taken the necessary steps to ensure that I comply with the Statement of Ministerial Standards, which includes seeking advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the appropriate course of action. This includes disclosing interests held by immediate family members during the deliberations of cabinet, in accordance with the requirements of the Cabinet Handbook, and arranging, as per this advice, that any decisions that involve actual conflict of interest between immediate family members, interests and ministerial responsibilities are referred to another minister.
I've also sought advice from the office of the Clerk of the Senate regarding any obligation I have to include this information on the Register of Senators' Interests. This advice has indicated that I am under no obligation to record this on the register. However, in the interests of transparency and public accountability I wish to place this development and the steps I have taken to address them on the public record.
For the information of the chamber, I table supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to government amendments to be moved to five bills to be considered later today.
I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. The government has been working tirelessly to ensure that more of the money earned by Australians stays with Australians. That's not surprising, really. Everything this government does is about helping Australians do more with their lives and make more of their own choices with their own money. Whether this has been through tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, the reduction of small-business taxes or the extension of the instant asset write-off, this government has been working hard every day to make sure that Australian taxpayers can keep more of their hard-earned money. That's because, unlike the Labor Party, we recognise that government revenue is not our money. It's never our money. It's the money of our constituents. It's the money of working Australians. The 'protecting your super' package is just another example of this Liberal-National government working hard to put more money back in the hands of Australians.
In light of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, these reforms are more necessary now than ever. The royal commission revealed that a number of our large superannuation funds have admitted to charging consumers fees for no service. For instance, AMP admitted to charging fees for no service with regard to superannuation products. Senior counsel assisting the commission, Michael Hodge QC, said a number of super fund trustees have also admitted misconduct or possible misconduct concerning fees for no service. He also said the National Australia Bank superannuation trustee NULIS has acknowledged it engaged in misconduct or conduct falling below community standards and expectations in relation to superannuation.
Public submissions to the royal commission about superannuation have raised concerns about fees for no service, as well as the provision of insurance by super funds that consumers have never sought. Our comprehensive 'protecting your super' package will stop people being ripped off in the superannuation sector, providing significant benefits to the financial security of millions of Australians. That benefits everyone, but it particularly benefits young people and women. For example, around two million women who hold low-balance, inactive accounts will be protected from erosion through excessive fees and inappropriate insurance. This is more common a problem for women than it is for men because there are many women who work a number of different part-time jobs, particularly during the parts of their lives when they are balancing the caring of children with work. Around six million women who are still contributing to low-balance accounts will see hundreds of millions of dollars worth of savings in total, and three million women will have their retirement savings boosted by a total of around $2.5 billion. I will say that again: $2.5 billion. That's thanks to being proactively reunited with their lost or inactive low-balance accounts.
Our 'protecting your super' package achieves this in a variety of ways. For example, schedule 1 will provide greater fee protections so that unfair charges don't eat away at superannuation. In a compulsory superannuation system the government has an obligation to protect members against excessive account erosion. Currently, low-balance accounts face disproportionately high fees and are at risk of erosion, particularly when they're in an account that charges flat fees for an account receiving small or no contributions. That's quite a common thing when a person has had a number of jobs or moved from one job to another and had a new account opened at the time of commencing each new job. When that occurs, the account relating to previous employment often receives no more contributions, but the fees keep ticking on and they aggregate swiftly. The impact upon superannuation balances at retirement ends up being quite enormous over the course of a working career. Under current arrangements, there are no special protections to prevent low-balance accounts from being eroded all the way down to zero.
In 2013, as part of the MySuper changes, Labor, through a decision made by the now Leader of the Opposition, repealed the member protection standards. These standards had protected accounts below $1,000 or accounts held in eligible rollover funds from erosion by requiring that fees not exceed investment earnings. That was a protection in place but in 2013 Labor took it away. The impact on balances has been significant.
Our superannuation package will introduce new requirements to prevent trustees of superannuation funds from charging administration and investment fees and prescribed costs exceeding three per cent of the balance per annum for accounts below the sum of $6,000. Based on the most recent data, it's estimated that around seven million Australians will save around $570 million just in fees just in the first year thanks to these reforms. Think of the aggregate impact of those fees being in the pockets of Australians when they are invested over the course of a working career. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars of difference at the time of retirement. For some people, the impact will be in the hundreds of thousands.
The measure also prevents trustees from charging exit fees on all superannuation accounts. That removes a disincentive for people to take the step of consolidating their accounts, and that's important because it should be the case that a consumer can choose easily and freely where they want to invest their superannuation savings. According to data from APRA, approximately one-third of superannuation funds charge exit fees. As at June 2017, the average exit fee disclosed by superannuation funds for MySuper products was $68, with total exit fees collected across the industry totalling $52 million.
In totality, these measures will help protect erosion of low-balance accounts by high fees and will remove a significant disincentive for members of the Australian community to consolidate their accounts, rolling them over into a single account that works best for them.
Schedule 2 of the bill has an important purpose too. It will work toward tailoring insurance arrangements. The current system requires the provision of default insurance for MySuper members. Default insurance can result in members paying for insurance cover that they aren't aware of, that to their mind they didn't ask for, that goes beyond their needs or which is so inappropriate for their own life or lifestyle that it means they can't, in fact, claim on it. That's not good for consumers. That's a policy that plays into the hands of and serves the superannuation industry and the insurance industry over the needs, the aspirations and the interests of Australian working people.
Insurance premiums can reduce low-income earners' retirement balances by 10 per cent or more, and that increases; it multiplies with every additional policy that is held by an individual. Schedule 2 to this bill prohibits trustees from providing insurance on an opt-out basis to new members who are aged under 25 years, to members with account balances below $6,000 and to members with inactive accounts, unless the member has directed otherwise. This is good. It puts responsibility and choice to take out insurance into the hands of Australians who hold these accounts, but it doesn't penalise those people who, in the busyness of their lives, don't pay all that much attention to their superannuation, particularly in the younger years of their life.
We'd all like people to pay more attention to saving for their retirement. We'd all like people to engage more with the process of selecting superannuation and insurance products that work for them. While we work towards that, we also have to accept the reality that there are many Australians who, at this point in time, are disengaged. This package offers a protection for people who have a low balance, because the insurance premium, which, as a percentage of the balance, is disproportionate to that which someone with a much higher balance would have. It protects people with a low balance from having their balance overly eroded by these insurance premiums. It protects people under the age of 25, who often move from job to job as they find their place in the workforce or as they juggle part-time jobs while they start out in their career or while they are studying. It makes sure they're not exploited by being co-opted, really, against their own understanding, into insurance policies they just don't need.
The changes in this package aim to better target default insurance and minimise balance erosion due to insurance premiums, particularly for individuals who have duplicate insurance cover through multiple accounts. Importantly, these changes don't prevent anyone who wants insurance from their superannuation from being able to get it. Low-balance, young or inactive members are still able to exercise their right to opt in to their insurance at any time through their superannuation account. The impact of these changes is huge. It's estimated that these changes will benefit around five million Australians, who will have the opportunity to save an estimated $3 billion in insurance premiums by having the choice to opt in to this cover rather than just paying for it by default.
Schedule 3 of the bill reforms the ATO lost and unclaimed superannuation money regime. Madam Deputy President Lines, I'm sure you have experienced this yourself and you're familiar with how it works. If you want to reunite yourself with a past superannuation account that's now in the lost and unclaimed section of the ATO, you need to take active steps to do that. There's a process of logging in or completing forms in order to reunite lost super with a tax-paying and superannuation-saving person. The current regime for transferring lost superannuation balances to the Commissioner of Taxation to protect them from erosion requires long periods of inactivity before those amounts are transferred. The impact of that is that the Australian who owns that account has more and more fees eroded by the time that account is ultimately marked inactive, moved to the ATO and placed in the position where it can be claimed. That's replicated once you also start deducting the impact of insurance policies. In addition, numerous exceptions permit trustees to avoid transferring balances below $6,000 to the ATO, allowing these balances to be subject to ongoing erosion all the way down to nil. Under schedule 3 to this bill, from 1 July 2019, all inactive accounts without insurance cover below $6,000 will be protected from further fees and charges by being transferred to the ATO. For the first time, the ATO will also be empowered to proactively return these amounts, along with existing unclaimed superannuation moneys it already holds, to an individual's active account, provided that the combined balance of the consolidated account would exceed $6,000, the member is still alive—that's pretty important—and the ATO is able to transfer the funds to the identified account. The ATO estimates that, on average, it will be able to reunite an amount it holds to its rightful owner within a month of receiving those funds. It's estimated that in the first year of operation this new system will see around $6 billion reunited with the active accounts of around three million members.
The reforms will help individuals who have been forced to hold multiple accounts as a result of restrictions on superannuation choice—restrictions which we propose to lift and which the opposition to date has refused to support. But why shouldn't it be a choice that is in the hands of each and every Australian? Choice is what we are all about. Currently, lost and unclaimed accounts must be requested from the ATO in writing or through the myGov platform, as I've mentioned already. This new process will supplement that existing account consolidation process, which will remain available for those who want it, and it will add an additional service for the Australian people, actively reuniting people who might be disengaged from their financial affairs but who nevertheless are entitled to that portion of their wage which has been saved as superannuation.
While our reforms to super will ensure Australians are left with more money for retirement, the Labor Party wants to hit working Australians not just with fees, not just with insurance premiums but with four new super taxes. These four new super taxes will punish Australians, taking away their savings processes through superannuation. They will abolish the flexibility afforded by the government's catch-up contributions, which allow yearly caps to be carried forward up to five years. They will hit mothers returning from maternity leave and those working in jobs where their income may fluctuate, such as in the tourism or hospitality sectors. They would abolish tax deductibility for personal superannuation contributions, particularly hurting the self-employed. They would hike taxes on superannuation contributions by lowering the non-concessional annual contributions cap from $100,000 to $75,000. And, if all of that wasn't bad enough, they would lower the high-income superannuation contribution threshold from $250,000 to $200,000, on which 30 per cent tax is paid on the contribution, rather than 15 per cent.
Based on Treasury estimates, the combined impact of those policies will hit around one million workers, given each of the four policies would hit around 230,000, 800,000, 17,000 and 130,000 Australians respectively. At the same time, Labor's retiree tax will hit those with self-managed super funds. Two hundred thousand self-managed super funds will lose, on average, $12,000 a year, with many people losing much more. Rather than listening to the genuine concerns of retirees across the country, Mr Shorten and Mr Bowen have dismissed them. They've simply refused to talk to people who have approached them sincerely, pleading for them to not proceed with such a destructive measure.
The choice could not be clearer. Under the coalition government, every day of the week you will pay less tax and you will keep more of your hard-earned money for retirement. You'll get help through those early or disruptive parts of your career when superannuation accounts can become higgledy-piggledy. We'll help you get them all back into one place. We'll help you save money on your fees. We'll help you make sure you're not paying for too many insurance policies you just don't need. But with Labor you'll get $200 billion worth of new taxes and less money to spend in your retirement. Only the Liberal-National government will protect the earnings of Australians, because, after all, we know, and we'll never forget, that it's your money—not ours, not the government's. It's the hard-earned money of working Australian people, and they're entitled to keep it.
I rise to talk to the treasury laws amendment that is in front of us today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. An important feature of the life insurance market in this country is that life cover, total and permanent disability cover, income protection, and trauma cover are available not only through individual policies but also through group arrangements. Around 12 million Australians hold insurance for life, total and permanent disability cover, and income protection through their superannuation, with about 80 per cent of these policies provided automatically, currently requiring members to opt out or amend cover if it's unsuitable. Premiums vary widely, but in total have increased by 35 per cent over the last three years to $9 billion across this country—that's in the 2016-17 financial year.
The current settings in this industry are more a function of history than of considered policy design. The suitability of the insurance relies on trustees balancing cover for members against the erosion of account balances for retirement. Avoiding unnecessary balance erosion is a formidable task and is certainly something that the royal commission recently focused on. Many members benefit from lower costs and ready access provided by default group insurance arrangements in superannuation. These arrangements also potentially address an underinsurance problem. But as we in here all know, many entrenched problems remain. Interestingly, the Productivity Commission point out on page 11 of their report that nearly one-third of all member complaints against their fund are over their insurance arrangements. I think the critical heart of the problem, and what we are going to be debating tonight, is that these are exacerbated by a lack of awareness. Around a quarter of members don't even realise they have insurance.
Particularly for young workers either with no dependants, in the case of life insurance, or low incomes, in the case of income protection, insurance is poor value and doesn't meet their needs. Balance erosion can be highly, excessively regressive, having a disproportionate impact on members with low income, intermittent labour force attachment and/or multiple accounts with insurance, with is about 17 per cent of members. The reduction in retirement balances for many of these members could reach 14 per cent, according to the Productivity Commission—about $85,000 in current terms. For some disadvantaged members it could be reduced by over a quarter, or $125,000. Trustees, according to the Productivity Commission, should be required to annually determine the balance erosion trade-off for the members and publish it on their website. They also go on to say that some members have policies that are of little or no use to them, including zombie policies that cannot be claimed against income.
What does this bill seek to do, given this basic background? The treasury laws amendment bill before us tonight has three schedules, the purpose of which are to make amendments to the SIS Act. It limits the amount fees that can be charged by a trustee of a superannuation fund for MySuper or choice products to three per cent of the balance of the account if the balance is less than $6,000. In other words, it puts a cap on that value erosion that the Productivity Commission have brought to everyone's attention. It prohibits superannuation funds and approved deposit funds from imposing exit fees when a member disposes of all or part of their interest in a fund. It prevents superannuation funds from providing insurance, such as death cover, total and permanent disability cover, or income protection insurance, on an opt-out basis—which is the way it currently is—if the member is under the age of 25 years and begins to hold a new superannuation account on or after 1 July 2019, if the member's account balance falls below $6,000 or if the member's account has not received a contribution for 13 months and is inactive. We will be talking about that definition of 'inactive' shortly. It also requires savings account providers and superannuation providers to pay the balance of MySuper or choice accounts to the Commissioner of Taxation where the account is inactive and the balance is less than $6,000. And, finally, it requires the commissioner to consolidate any amounts received in a person's superannuation account that will have a balance of $6,000 or more once consolidated. More precisely, schedule 1 caps fees and costs at three per cent, schedule 2 prevents life insurance and super from being opt-out according to those criteria and schedule 3 requires the transfer of all inactive superannuation accounts to the ATO, which should create an incentive to super funds to ensure that people do not have multiple accounts and do not get charged excessive fees as a result.
The Greens believe that schedules 1 and 3 are largely acceptable, with only relatively minor issues of concern that we would like to see amended. We do have a problem with the premise of schedule 2, that people under 25 do not need life cover as they are less likely to have dependants and less likely to become permanently sick or injured. However, those under 25 who would most benefit from life insurance are likely to be the most vulnerable, have kids younger and/or be lower down the socioeconomic spectrum in Australia. Blue collar unions and associated industry super funds strongly support insurance being retained as opt-out for default funds.
My office and I have had consultations over many months with a number of stakeholders. I've met with the Grattan Institute, who have publicly said, through the submission process on this bill, that they support changing opt-out to opt-in. I've listened to their concerns and, of course, I've let them know that I disagree. I've also spoken to a number of other stakeholders across the spectrum, including many unions and industry super funds. All these views have been factored into our decision and our amendment here tonight.
There are also issues with the definition of 'inactivity', which applies to schedules 2 and 3. The main issue is that defining it at 13 months would inadvertently capture parents on parental leave. The other issue is that people might engage with their superannuation fund, for example, by changing their policy settings, yet still be considered inactive. So we'll be moving a number of amendments to deal with those issues tonight, and I plan to go through the detail of those amendments when we go into committee stage. I would like to flag that I will no longer be moving a second reading amendment. That won't be necessary.
It's very important that we understand that the level of financial literacy in Australia is very low. This is certainly something that we've all known in this place, especially those of us who have been involved over the years with the economics committee on numerous inquiries, many of them relating to the scrutiny of financial advice or the provision of financial advice. Even though I have a finance background myself and have worked in the industry, I'm often also very lazy and inattentive to my own details of my own financial circumstances. It's difficult to expect young Australians, particularly young Australians who may not have an education or background in finance and how it works, to be paying full attention to detail. This, of course, has been labelled in many circumstances as asymmetries of information, and it was a critical point that was raised by the royal commission.
The Greens do believe that the key problem with this bill is in schedule 2, in changing insurance from the provision for an opt-out, which means that basically you can choose to opt out. I agree there are many ways we can make it more effective to have policyholders know their information and choose to opt-out or opt-in, but we're going to change that tonight if you support the current bill to a provision of opt-in, which means that you need to actively go after people to make sure that they're aware of their circumstances. I believe that the universal provision of life insurance is a really good asset of the superannuation industry. It is a very important principle, the universal provision of life insurance, and we'd like to see that remain intact. The main effect of our amendments tonight will be to retain group insurance as opt-out for people with default superannuation, and we want to make the best tonight of what we believe is fundamentally philosophy-flawed legislation.
If superannuation has done nothing else, it has provided affordable life insurance to a much greater number of Australians. The original bill sought to pick apart the provision of life insurance through superannuation, without considering how it would impact on vulnerable people. While I certainly have a lot of time for John Daley and others—even the Productivity Commission—who believe that we should be moving to opt in, the decisions are often made on averages, rather than by looking at individual details. It may be that a small number of young people would be affected by this, but there are potential consequences, for example, for someone who is young and in a blue-collar industry and who is more likely to be running a ladder up the side of a house on the weekend. We are not talking about protection in the workplace here; we are talking about life insurance outside the workplace. This cohort of policyholders are at high risk of injury and death, and this at least gives them that cover. I do believe that hasn't been properly considered in this legislation. I think the old adage is also true that no-one needs insurance until they need it. While we have actuaries assessing those risks, we need to consider the potentially catastrophic implications for those who aren't covered through this system.
It is also important to note that this should not be the end point tonight for changes that need to be made to group insurance and super. Once again, Justice Hayne, through the royal commission, has made a number of recommendations, particularly around a review. I would like to note for senators that, for the money that was spent on the royal commission and the recommendations that were made, Justice Hayne didn't support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to change 'opt out' to 'opt in'. That wasn't a recommendation of the royal commission, which is what this legislation is planning to do tonight. Commissioner Hayne also recommended the development of a standard set of conditions for life insurance, and we support this. Of course, there should be a universal provision for life insurance through super. That should be one of those standard conditions.
I don't think it's any secret for me to say here tonight that the Greens believe that the role of government should be further explored, including whether the provision of life insurance should be nationalised and, if not, do the underwriting itself. We have been on record as saying that a number of times. Many successful countries around the world integrate life insurance with social security. More work needs to be done to ensure that life insurance is better provided, including through superannuation. We believe that while schedule 1 and 3 of the bill have some important aspects, if schedule 2 were amended to essentially remain with the status quo of an opt-out system, then we would be getting a better result for Australians, especially working Australians, and the most vulnerable cohort in this country. I will go through our amendments in more detail when we get to the committee stage. But I will say that if the bill here tonight is supported and our amendments are supported and passed, we will be voting for the third reading.
As my colleague Senator Patrick stated previously, Centre Alliance is very happy to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018, but we are disappointed that the government has taken such a very long time to progress it. The 'protecting your superannuation package' bill does what its name says: it essentially protects low-balance super accounts from being eroded by excessive fees and insurance. The main beneficiaries will, of course, be young people, who, due to often having multiple jobs in their early working lives, usually end up with multiple low-balance super accounts. This bill preserves the balance of idle accounts so that they cannot be cannibalised by excessive fees and insurance once the balance falls to $6,000. Fees will be capped at no more than three per cent of the account balance, with is very much a welcome move.
The bill also requires super accounts with low balances to be transferred to the ATO if the account has been inactive for more than 13 months. This is a very important change, because it means that money accumulated in lost super accounts, lining the pockets of no-one except the super fund providers, can be consolidated into a single active member account. I also very much support the measures in this bill which restrict the application of automatic life insurance on inactive accounts, accounts with balances below $6,000, or those of young people under the age of 25, though the government's amendment will make an exception for those in dangerous occupations, and we do support that.
Workers should be empowered to make their own financial decisions, and their employer or super provider should provide them with relevant information so that their decision is the right one and one that lines their pockets not the super fund's. Not only will this bill assist today's workers but it will also assist every young person who enters the workforce in the future. To put things into perspective, the average job tenure for those under 25 is one year and eight months. This means that someone who may have started flipping burgers at McDonald's at age 14 could very well have worked as many as six different jobs before they reach the age of 25.
The beneficiaries of these reforms will be the workers. The losers will be the greedy super funds, particularly smaller funds, which rely on this member rip-off to keep themselves afloat. By levying fees on these lost and forgotten accounts, fund managers are raking in millions. They are earning more than $587 million a year from accounts holding less than $6,000 and a staggering $405 million a year from those with a balance less than a somewhat paltry $1,000. That's around $1 billion all up. The problem is they are not only eroding returns but they are also eating into their members' capital.
The issue of multiple super accounts or zombie accounts was highlighted in the banking royal commission's final report, which included a recommendation that a person should only have one default super account and that machinery should be developed for stapling a person to a single default account. As of June 2016, 40 per cent of members held multiple accounts. That is a staggering number. More than 25 million super accounts are held by only 15 million people and, what's more, more than half were inactive or held less than $6,000. Australia's largest super fund, AustralianSuper has a staggering 470,000 inactive accounts, and recently announced a 50 per cent increase to its administration fees to take effect later this year, which effectively slugs members an extra $39 a year. That will add an easy $55 million to its bottom line—nice money if you can get it, but at the expense of those who deserve better fiduciary care.
We need to stop members' nest eggs from being poached by profiteering. Some funds may fail to survive without the drip feed they get from whittling down hard-earned retirement savings, but I don't think the industry would be any poorer should this happen. Super should help Australians achieve greater financial independence while reducing the burden upon taxpayers to fund the aged pension, not the opposite. This legislation must be passed to ensure we protect hardworking children, men and women with low super balances, as well as future generations, from a higher tax burden.
I move that the question be put.
I was actually up. I didn't know that she was—
Except that you close the debate.
Sure, that is why I should be getting the call rather than the senator who wants to close the debate. I am the leader of the government so I take precedence in terms of the call.
I was actually exercising my right to speak in the debate.
I'm standing up. I'm seeking the call as the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Minister, there is no question you have precedence, but on this occasion you also close the debate, and Senator Urquhart was wanting to make a contribution.
She does not want to make a contribution.
I didn't know that and nor did you. She wanted the call.
She is not wanting to make a contribution. I think you know that.
No, I didn't know that. She told me she wanted the call. I called her. I had no idea. I assumed she was making a contribution.
I'm seeking the call, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and I'm asserting precedence, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to make a contribution.
Senator O'Neill, on a point of order?
I do not believe that the Leader of the Government can exercise his right in that way. Senator Urquhart had the call, she was on her feet and she made a contribution. I think it should stand on its merits. It's time for us to move on. We've got enough chaos and dysfunction going on here without this sort of debate distracting from the mess they've already created.
There was nobody else on the speakers' list. I was quite entitled to rise, and as the Leader of the Government in the Senate I am asserting my privilege to use the chamber to get the call.
I will give you the call, Senator Cormann.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who've contributed to this debate. The government is committed to putting members first and protecting their hard-earned retirement savings from erosion through excessive fees and the inefficiencies that result from holding multiple superannuation accounts. The government will support the Greens' amendments to facilitate passage of this bill to ensure key measures are able to commence from 1 July 2019. These measures include preventing trustees of superannuation funds from charging administration investment fees exceeding three per cent per annum of the balance of accounts below $6,000. It also prevents trustees from charging exit fees, regardless of account balance.
This legislation, whose passage through this chamber today we are facilitating, will abolish exit fees on all superannuation accounts, which is of course a great advance and to the great benefit of Australians saving for their retirement, who should be able to keep more of their own hard-earned money, rather than losing it in fees. Under this bill, all inactive accounts with a balance below $6,000 and no insurance cover will be transferred to the ATO. The ATO will, for the first time, be empowered to proactively return these amounts, along with existing unclaimed superannuation moneys, to their rightful owner's active accounts. This will result in around $6 billion belonging to three million members being reunited in the first year alone. The ATO will reunify an amount it holds with its rightful owner within 28 days. Importantly, the amendments in this bill will all now apply from 1 July 2019.
The remaining aspects of this bill, including in relation to superannuation, remain government policy, and the government will continue to work in good faith to secure the passage of these further reforms through the parliament. However, as this government has always done in our period in government, when we can secure the passage of substantial reforms, even if we can't get 100 per cent of what we believe should be legislated, we secure the passage of what we can secure when we can secure it. As a result of the passage of this bill, which we hope will occur later tonight, Australians with account balances of less than $6,000 will have their account balances protected, because there will be a cap on their fees. The trustees will be prevented from charging fees exceeding three per cent per annum, and we are abolishing the exit fees, with is a great advance for Australians saving for their retirement.
I should say that the government acknowledges that insurance in superannuation provides benefits to many people. However, there are some cohorts that do not receive value from insurance, and for too long these people have been cross-subsidising other members. The independent Productivity Commission, in its superannuation report, found that while insurance in super provides value for money for many members, it does not for all, particularly for young members or members with low incomes. The Productivity Commission found that insurance in superannuation is poor value and does not meet their needs, meaning that premiums can result in undue erosion of retirement savings. As I have indicated, the government remains committed to this policy. However, in the interests of ensuring all the other protections in this bill and all the other important reforms delivering benefits to Australians saving for their retirement—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator O'Neill is laughing at the fact that we are protecting retirement savings of Australians saving for their retirement. We are abolishing exit fees, we are capping the amount of fees that can be charged on superannuation accounts with balances below $6,000 and, indeed, we are also facilitating the consolidation of superannuation accounts, which is, of course, also an important benefit.
Senator O'Neill seems to suggest that instead of banking all of these improvements now because there was a consensus in the chamber behind them, we should have allowed Labor to completely dismantle every aspect of this bill and stopped Australians saving for their retirement from having the benefit of the abolition of exit fees, the three per cent cap on fees that trustees can charge on account balances of less than $6,000 and the consolidation of accounts, which are all part of this legislation.
In relation to extending the definition of 'inactivity', let me say that the original period of 13 months was chosen to provide a balance between the amount of time that account balances are subject to erosion through fees and insurance premiums while being held in multiple rather than consolidated accounts. While noting the Productivity Commission's recommendation and industry's voluntary code of practice for insurance and super, both feature 13-month periods of inactivity. The government has heard concerns raised by stakeholders that some members on extended maternity leave or on extended breaks from work may lose their insurance coverage under this bill. We have therefore agreed to support the relevant amendment circulated by Senator Whish-Wilson.
In relation to administrative actions counting as activity, the government is aware that some stakeholders have called for the test to be extended so that activities such as varying the investment option or changing the insurance cover count as being an active account. It is appropriate to link activity to receiving contributions. Any broadening of the definition of 'inactivity' would result in less-targeted policy. Accounts that are not receiving contributions are at particular risk of erosion, so the government agrees to this element of the amendments.
The government has taken action to address superannuation guarantee noncompliance. The government has introduced, for example, a package of targeted reforms to help improve superannuation guarantee integrity which include improved powers for the ATO to recover unpaid superannuation guarantee entitlements, court ordered penalties for employers who repeatedly fail to pay their superannuation liabilities and increased visibility of superannuation guarantee nonpayment to the ATO, including via extending single-touch payroll to all businesses and increasing fund reporting of superannuation contributions to the ATO.
In relation to the requirement for the ATO to consolidate accounts wherever possible within 28 days, the ATO estimates that, once it receives an amount for which its data matching has identified an active account that can receive the amount, it would take less than a month to transfer it to an active account. The government supports the amendment which allows for the consolidation of accounts within 28 days.
The important point here—and I do want to thank Senator Whish-Wilson for having engaged so constructively with me in relation to these matters and also thank his staff for working so constructively with the staff in the Treasurer's office and my office to talk through these issues—is that this is a consensus which will help secure the passage of important reforms for millions of Australians. This is very good news. I confirm again that the government will separately seek to pursue the remaining elements of this reform package and will continue to work in good faith with all parties represented in the parliament to that effect. With those few short words, I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I advise that the government withdraws its amendments to this bill. I withdraw, on behalf of the government, all of the amendments on sheet QM101.
by leave—I move the opposition's amendments (1) to (34) on sheet 8501 together:
(1) Schedule 2, page 10 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:
1A Subsection 10(1) (after paragraph (h) of the definition of reviewable decision )
Insert:
(haa) a decision of the Regulator refusing to make a declaration under section 68AADC; or
(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 14), omit "13", substitute "16".
(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 19), omit "13", substitute "16".
(4) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 28), omit "13", substitute "16".
(5) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (line 8), omit "13", substitute "16".
(6) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (line 11), omit "13", substitute "16".
(7) Schedule 2, item 1, page 12 (line 14), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(8) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (after line 28), after section 68AAD, insert:
68AADA Sections 68AAB and 68AAC do not apply if section 68AADC declaration in force
Sections 68AAB and 68AAC do not apply in relation to a kind of member of a regulated superannuation fund if a section 68AADC declaration specifying that kind of member of the fund is in force.
68AADB Application for section 68AADC declaration
(1) A trustee of a regulated superannuation fund may apply to the Regulator for a written declaration that sections 68AAB and 68AAC do not apply in relation to a specified kind of member of the fund.
(2) The application must:
(a) be in writing; and
(b) be in a form approved, in writing, by the Regulator.
68AADC Declaration that sections 68AAB and 68AAC do not apply
(1) On receiving an application under section 68AADB for a written declaration that sections 68AAB and 68AAC do not apply in relation to a specified kind of member of a regulated superannuation fund, the Regulator must decide:
(a) to make the declaration; or
(b) to refuse to make the declaration.
(2) The Regulator must not make the declaration unless the Regulator is satisfied that if the fund were to provide a benefit to, or in respect of, a member of the specified kind under a choice product or MySuper product held by the member by taking out or maintaining insurance, doing so would:
(a) be consistent with the fund's insurance management framework (however described); and
(b) not unreasonably erode the retirement savings of a member of that kind; and
(c) either:
(i) represent exceptionally good value for money for a member of that kind; or
(ii) meet a need for insurance of a member of that kind, having regard to the matters specified in subsection (3).
(3) The following matters are specified for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(ii):
(a) the level of workplace, occupational or other risk faced by a member of that kind;
(b) the extent and nature of the financial commitments, including commitments to dependents, of a member of that kind;
(c) any other matter advanced by the applicant consistently with the fund's obligations to its members.
(4) If the Regulator decides to refuse to make the declaration, the Regulator must give the applicant a written notice setting out the decision and the reasons for it.
(5) A declaration made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
(9) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 4), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 January 2020".
(10) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 14), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(11) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 18), omit "1 May", substitute "1 November".
(12) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 22), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 January 2020".
(13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 25), omit "13", substitute "16".
(14) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 33), omit "13", substitute "16".
(15) Schedule 2, item 3, page 17 (line 11), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(16) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (line 26), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 January 2020".
(17) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (line 28), omit "1April", substitute "1October".
(18) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (line 32), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(19) Schedule 2, item 4, page 18 (line 1), omit "1 May", substitute "1 November".
(20) Schedule 2, item 4, page 18 (line 5), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 January 2020".
(21) Schedule 2, item 4, page 18 (line 10), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(22) Schedule 2, item 4, page 18 (line 28), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(23) Schedule 2, item 4, page 19 (line 5), omit "1April", substitute "1October".
(24) Schedule 2, item 4, page 19 (line 9), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(25) Schedule 2, item 4, page 19 (line 12), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 January 2020".
(26) Schedule 2, item 4, page 19 (line 15), omit "1 April", substitute "1 October".
(27) Schedule 2, item 5, page 19 (lines 34 and 35), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 January 2020".
(28) Schedule 3, item 21, page 25 (lines 12 and 13), omit the definition of inactive low-balance account in section 8, substitute:
inactive low - balance account: see subsections 20QA(1) and (1A).
(29) Schedule 3, item 30, page 27 (line 13), omit "13", substitute "16".
(30) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (line 2), omit "13", substitute "16".
(31) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (after line 15), after subsection 20QA(1), insert:
(1A) However, an account in a fund that is a regulated superannuation fund is taken not to be an inactive low-balance account if:
(a) the account is held on behalf of a member of the fund; and
(b) any of the following occurred in relation to the member in the last 16 months:
(i) the member changed the member's investment options under the fund;
(ii) the member made changes in relation to the member's insurance coverage under the fund;
(iii) the member made or amended a binding beneficiary nomination;
(iv) the member, by written notice given to the Regulator, declared that the member was not a member of an inactive low-balance account;
(v) the superannuation provider was owed an amount in respect of the member.
(32) Schedule 3, item 32, page 42 (line 19), after "must", insert ", within 28 days of becoming satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b),".
(33) Schedule 3, item 32, page 42 (lines 27 to 29), omit paragraph 24NA(2)(d).
(34) Schedule 3, item 32, page 42 (line 34), omit "(c), (d) and (e)", substitute "(c) and (e)".
I'm a little at a loss for words, given the amazing change that we've seen from this government in the last few hours. We had a contribution from Senator Hume, who described herself just before lunchtime as a person worthy of making a considerable contribution to what's going on in this debate because of her experience as part of the superannuation sector. It's a big sector. It's grown to be a big sector because the Australian Labor Party envisioned a retirement savings structure for Australians. We instituted it. We've made sure that it's been protected. We've looked after it and protected it from the actions of this government opposite.
What we're seeing tonight from this government is an absolutely disgraceful response to the reality that faces Australians under the type of government it's offering us—the chaotic, dysfunctional, out-of-touch government that we have come to know and expect here, sadly, every single day. At lunchtime today, we had the Deputy Government Whip in the Senate saying that she worked in superannuation for almost all of her professional career before coming to the Senate. She worked in retail and industry superannuation funds and she thinks that that gave her a unique perspective on superannuation—its intricacies, complexities and vagaries. But what we see here tonight with this government is that it's decided to gut its own bill. Responsible governments who undertake negotiations in good faith with a sector as large as the superannuation sector should do what they say they're going to do.
The amendments that we have moved here this evening were composed in the context of honest, careful conversations with the sector. Our amendments seek to address the government's proposed very blunt removal of default insurance for large groups of Australians. That was their view. In its current form, the bill risks leaving younger members and lower income earners, predominantly women, without adequate insurance cover. That's why Labor have advanced these amendments. Our amendments were carefully considered. They were advanced in consultation. They haven't been changed at the last minute, which is what we've seen from the government. We know that the government simply don't understand the reality of hardworking Australians. They don't accept and respect the responsibility of government and they've failed the Australian people by what they've done here this evening.
The Greens won't be supporting the Labor amendments tonight. I won't go into any detail on that—
Senator Watt interjecting—
except to say that we think our amendments are better than yours, Senator Watt. We will get that on record.
The government will not be supporting the Labor amendments either. I have to say that, on this occasion, I agree with Senator Whish-Wilson that the Greens amendments are better than the Labor amendments. The Labor amendments were essentially going to gut the whole bill, whereas with us supporting the Greens amendments today we are able to secure the passage of important reforms like the capping of fees on low-value accounts, the abolition of exit fees and the streamlined consolidation of superannuation accounts. We would have liked to have seen the reforms in relation to insurance pass through the Senate today, but that wasn't possible. There wasn't a majority in this chamber for that.
So instead of getting nothing, we're securing passage of a substantial part of our package, and we will, of course, introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to pursue the remaining part of this very important reform package. Of course, the Labor Party would have liked us to just cop a complete dismantling of every aspect of important reform. That is not something we were prepared to entertain, because we are standing up for the best interests of Australians saving for their retirement. That is what Australians saving for their retirement expect us to do—to get as many improvements as we can today by securing a consensus on the Senate floor. That is what we've been able to do. Let's continue the conversation in relation to the remaining reforms.
As I've indicated to the chamber previously, the government continues to be of the view that there ought to be reforms to the default provision of insurance for under-25s and low-balance accounts. As I indicated earlier, while the government acknowledges that insurance in superannuation provides benefits to many people, there are some cohorts, particularly young people, who do not receive value from default insurance, and for too long these people have been cross-subsidising other members. The independent Productivity Commission, in its superannuation report, found that while insurance in super provides value for money for many members, it doesn't for all, particularly young members or members with low incomes. The PC found that insurance in super is poor value and does not meet their needs.
Secure passage on the very important reforms that we are able to get majority support for in this chamber is why we've made the decisions we have made. Labor's amendment seeks to delay the implementation date to 2020. We don't support that. It seeks to do a whole range of other things that we don't believe are desirable. For example, it seeks to give APRA the authority to carve out funds of cohorts of members from the under-25s and under-$6,000, where members are at particular risk—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Let me tell you, essentially the Labor amendments were causing difficulty all throughout the reform. To be fair to the Greens, the Greens are carving out a very distinct bit, and that is a very distinct bit that we will be able to pursue separately later. But in the meantime we don't want to stand in the way of Australians saving for their retirement and having the benefit of lower fees and the abolition of exit fees altogether.
I only have one question for the minister. It relates to a quote in The Australian. This question is a bit unorthodox, Minister; it's a multiple-choice question. The quote is: 'It is true that most young people don't need life insurance, but no-one needs insurance until they need it.' If I were to ask 100 people where that quote came from, and I gave them an option of someone selling insurance or a Greens senator, I think most people would pick the former. It's a rhetorical question. The Greens are forcing insurance upon people who do not need insurance. I think that's entirely inappropriate. The senator who said that, I think, would receive medals from the insurance companies for his efforts in boosting their profits.
I thank Senator Rex Patrick for that question. As I've indicated, the government remains committed to that important part of the reform, but we had to recognise that today it wasn't possible to reach a sufficient consensus with the majority of people in the Senate. The alternative would have been to get nothing or to allow Labor to cannibalise our bill in a way that would have made it unworkable. So what we've decided to do is to secure passage of the cap on fees for low-value accounts today, to secure passage of the abolition of exit fees today, to secure passage of the more efficient consolidation of super accounts today and to ensure that all of these reforms are in place from 1 July 2019. We will continue to pursue the remaining aspect of this reform in relation to default insurance, but in the end you have to be pragmatic in politics and get the best possible outcome when you can and keep working to improve on that further.
I will just briefly state that, when we get around to dealing with this next time, we'll support the proposition that the government has put up in its original legislation—
In the part-time parliament, you won't get much chance!
Well, we'll deal with that. I'm just quite disturbed that we end up with people in this place forcing insurance upon people for the benefit of insurance companies only.
I might respond to that, and to Senator Watt's not-so-veiled threat that they're going to remind us constantly of the time that we tried to improve outcomes for vulnerable workers in this place.
Senator Patrick, you weren't in here for my second reading contribution. But if you had been and you'd been listening, you're a very intelligent man, so I'm sure you wouldn't have had a problem picking up the gist of my argument. Having worked in the financial services industry myself and having sat on numerous inquiries in here, I know that we have what's called the 'asymmetry of information'. Most people who take financial products don't understand them. They don't know what they've got, where they've got it or what it costs them. That's why the system is so easily rorted.
The Greens are very happy to say that we stand for the universal provision of something like life insurance, especially through superannuation. It's a critical part of the way the system is set up, and it was supported by the royal commission. As I said in my second reading contribution, some countries even include that life insurance with social security so that everyone is covered. The problem we have is that a lot of young Australians, particularly those who are financially illiterate—and, sadly, there are many of them in this country—and in high-risk occupations, especially blue-collar occupations, are the most likely to suffer death and disability outside the workplace. That's a fact.
You can tell me that they should be able to opt in. Great—if I trusted the system. If I trusted the system, the provision of information and the processes in place to make sure that every vulnerable worker and every young Australian in this country opted in for insurance. then it might have been a different matter. But my understanding, having worked in the financial services industry, is that most people wouldn't actually opt in because they wouldn't get the information they needed to make that decision in the first place, or they would be too busy to make that decision, or there is something more pressing in their lives, like putting food on the table or watching Big Brother or whatever it happens to be. We believe that that system is in place for a good reason, and the Greens would actually like to see the role of government go even further in this area.
In relation to your point, Senator Watt: we've just been through a royal commission that has been scathing of the role of the regulator, APRA, amongst other regulators. Unfortunately, I accept that Labor's amendment that's before us has the right intentions. It's trying to find a medium between opt in and opt out. But the issue is that it's highly arbitrary and it's extremely subjective. I don't trust the regulator to be in a position to have the information to make those decisions and I don't know how it's going to work.
What we have before us is a simple proposition; it's surgical, it's precise and it keeps things the way they are, which keeps that provision of life insurance for some of the most vulnerable Australians. That's why we're doing this—we are standing up in this place and making sure that the most vulnerable Australians are protected. And it's not just us. I've got the report here, from the Parliamentary Library, that goes through the entire process. I recommend that you read it, Senator Patrick. It talks about the number of stakeholders, particularly unions around this country, that are extremely concerned about moving from opt out to opt in. It's actually a fundamental principle that we want to protect Australians where we can, and we're very proud of this amendment.
The question is that amendments (1) to (34) on sheet 8501 be agreed to.
I withdraw the amendments on sheet 8557 revised. I seek leave to move the Greens amendments on sheet 8635 revised together.
Leave granted.
I move Greens amendments (1) to (5), (7) to (13) and (15) to (22) on sheet 8635 together:
(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 14), omit "13", substitute "16".
(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 19), omit "13", substitute "16".
(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 28), omit "13", substitute "16".
(4) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (line 8), omit "13", substitute "16".
(5) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (line 11), omit "13", substitute "16".
(7) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (line 25), omit "Sections 68AAA, 68AAB and 68AAC do", substitute "Section 68AAA does".
(8) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (line 27), omit "Sections 68AAA, 68AAB and 68AAC do", substitute "Section 68AAA does".
(9) Schedule 2, item 2, page 15 (lines 22 and 23), omit the heading to subsection 68AA(8A), substitute:
Inactive accounts
(10) Schedule 2, item 2, page 15 (line 28), omit ", 68AAB or 68AAC".
(11) Schedule 2, item 2, page 15 (line 33), omit ", 68AAB or 68AAC".
(12) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 25), omit "13", substitute "16".
(13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 33), omit "13", substitute "16".
(15) Schedule 2, item 6, page 20 (line 5), omit "items 3 and 4", substitute "item 3".
(16) Schedule 3, item 21, page 25 (lines 12 and 13), omit the definition of inactive low-balance account in section 8, substitute:
inactive low - balance account: see subsections 20QA(1) and (1A).
(17) Schedule 3, item 30, page 27 (line 13), omit "13", substitute "16".
(18) Schedule 3, item 30, page 27 (line 29 to 34), omit subparagraph 20QA(1)(a)(ix).
(19) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (line 2), omit "13", substitute "16".
(20) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (after line 15), after subsection 20QA(1), insert:
(1A) However, an account in a fund that is a regulated superannuation fund is taken not to be an inactive low-balance account if:
(a) the account is held on behalf of a member of the fund; and
(b) any of the following occurred in relation to the member in the last 16 months:
(i) the member changed the member's investment options under the fund;
(ii) the member made changes in relation to the member's insurance coverage under the fund;
(iii) the member made or amended a binding beneficiary nomination;
(iv) the member, by written notice given to the Commissioner, declared that the member was not a member of an inactive low-balance account;
(v) the superannuation provider was owed an amount in respect of the member.
(21) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (line 21), omit "(v), (viii) and (ix)", substitute "(v) and (viii)".
(22) Schedule 3, item 32, page 42 (after line 18), after subsection 24NA(1), insert:
(1A) The Commissioner must pay the superannuation amount in accordance with subsection (2) within 28 days after the Commissioner is satisfied it is possible to pay that amount in accordance with that subsection.
The Greens oppose schedule 2 in the following terms
(6) Schedule 2, item 1, page 12 (line 6) to page 14 (line 24), sections 68AAB and 68AAC, TO BE OPPOSED.
(14) Schedule 2, items 4 and 5, page 17 (line 23) to page 19 (line 35), TO BE OPPOSED.
Very quickly, in the few minutes that we have left: this retains group insurance as an opt-out for people under 25 and for people with account balances of less than $6,000. It amends the definition of 'inactivity' to a continuous period of 16 months. It amends the definition of 'inactivity' so that people who change their investment options, alter their insurance cover or nominate a beneficiary are considered active. It requires the ATO to consolidate accounts within 28 days. We originally had a delay of commencement to 1 January 2020, but that has been removed in the revised amendment.
It being 7.30, the time allotted for consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 and other bills listed in the variation to routine of business agreed to this morning has expired.
The CHAIR: The question is that sections 68AAB and 68AAC in item 1 and items 4 and 5 of schedule 2 stand as printed.
We'll now move to the next amendments. The question now is that amendments (1) to (5), (7) to (13) and (15) to (22) on sheet 8635 revised, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 14), omit "13", substitute "16".
(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 19), omit "13", substitute "16".
(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 28), omit "13", substitute "16".
(4) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (line 8), omit "13", substitute "16".
(5) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (line 11), omit "13", substitute "16".
(7) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (line 25), omit "Sections 68AAA, 68AAB and 68AAC do", substitute "Section 68AAA does".
(8) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (line 27), omit "Sections 68AAA, 68AAB and 68AAC do", substitute "Section 68AAA does".
(9) Schedule 2, item 2, page 15 (lines 22 and 23), omit the heading to subsection 68AA(8A), substitute:
Inactive accounts
(10) Schedule 2, item 2, page 15 (line 28), omit ", 68AAB or 68AAC".
(11) Schedule 2, item 2, page 15 (line 33), omit ", 68AAB or 68AAC".
(12) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 25), omit "13", substitute "16".
(13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (line 33), omit "13", substitute "16".
(15) Schedule 2, item 6, page 20 (line 5), omit "items 3 and 4", substitute "item 3".
(16) Schedule 3, item 21, page 25 (lines 12 and 13), omit the definition of inactive low-balance account in section 8, substitute:
inactive low -balance account: see subsections 20QA(1) and (1A).
(17) Schedule 3, item 30, page 27 (line 13), omit "13", substitute "16".
(18) Schedule 3, item 30, page 27 (line 29 to 34), omit subparagraph 20QA(1) (a) (ix).
(19) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (line 2), omit "13", substitute "16".
(20) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (after line 15), after subsection 20QA(1), insert:
(1A) However, an account in a fund that is a regulated superannuation fund is taken not to be an inactive low-balance account if:
(a) the account is held on behalf of a member of the fund; and
(b) any of the following occurred in relation to the member in the last 16 months:
(i) the member changed the member's investment options under the fund;
(ii) the member made changes in relation to the member's insurance coverage under the fund;
(iii) the member made or amended a binding beneficiary nomination;
(iv) the member, by written notice given to the Commissioner, declared that the member was not a member of an inactive low-balance account;
(v) the superannuation provider was owed an amount in respect of the member.
(21) Schedule 3, item 30, page 28 (line 21), omit "(v), (viii) and (ix)", substitute "(v) and (viii)".
(22) Schedule 3, item 32, page 42 (after line 18), after subsection 24NA(1), insert:
(1A) The Commissioner must pay the superannuation amount in accordance with subsection (2) within 28 days after the Commissioner is satisfied it is possible to pay that amount in accordance with that subsection.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with amendments.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now turn to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. Senator O'Neill?
I seek leave to withdraw amendments to bills to be dealt with this evening.
Leave granted.
I withdraw the following amendments: Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, sheet 8301 revised; Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018, sheet 8640; and Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, sheet 8196 revised and sheet 8296.
I seek leave to make a short statement on the same issue.
Leave granted.
I wish to inform the chamber that I will not be proceeding with amendments to the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 on sheet 8201 and sheet 8201 revised.
On the same matter, I wish to inform the chamber that I won't be proceeding with amendments on sheet 8211 relating to the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and I seek leave to withdraw those amendments.
Leave granted.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The Senate will now consider the amendments on sheet GZ227 revised, circulated by the government. The question is that those amendments be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "7 and 8", substitute "7, 8 and 9".
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 5 (line 8), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 1—Annual outcomes assessment
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
1 Subsection 10(1) (subparagraph (a ) ( i) of the definition of enhanced director obligations )
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(i) a covenant referred to in paragraph 52A(2) (f), as it relates to covenants referred to in subsection 52(9), (12) or (13); and
2 Subsection 10(1) (subparagraph (a ) ( i) of the definition of enhanced trustee obligations )
Omit ", as enhanced by the obligations imposed under section 29VN".
3 Subsection 10(1) (definition of superannuation entity director )
Omit "29VO(3)", substitute "52A(7)".
4 Division 6 of Part 2C
Repeal the Division.
5 Section 51A
Omit ", and each obligation referred to in sections 29VN and 29VO,".
6 At the end of section 52
Add:
Covenants relating to regulated superannuation funds—annual outcomes assessments
(9) If the entity is a regulated superannuation fund (other than a regulated superannuation fund with fewer than 5 members), the covenants referred to in subsection (1) include the following covenants by each trustee of the entity:
(a) to determine, in writing, on an annual basis, for each MySuper product and choice product offered by the entity, whether the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity who hold the product are being promoted by the trustee, having regard to:
(i) if the product is a MySuper product—a comparison of the MySuper product with other MySuper products offered by other regulated superannuation funds, based on the factors mentioned in subsection (10), and a comparison of the MySuper product with any other benchmarks set under the prudential standards; and
(ii) if the product is a choice product—a comparison of the choice product with benchmarks set under the prudential standards; and
(iii) the factors mentioned in subsection (11);
(b) to make the determination referred to in paragraph (a), and a summary of the assessments and comparisons on which the determination is based, publicly available on the website of the entity;
(c) to do so within 28 days after the determination is made;
(d) to keep the determination, and the summary of the assessments and comparisons on which the determination is based, on the website until a new determination is made as referred to in paragraph (a).
(10) In comparing a MySuper product with other MySuper products, the trustees must compare each of the following:
(a) the fees and costs that affect the return to the beneficiaries holding the MySuper products;
(b) the return for the MySuper products (after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes);
(c) the level of investment risk for the MySuper products;
(d) any other matter set out in the prudential standards.
(11) In determining whether the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity who hold a MySuper product or choice product are being promoted by the trustee, the trustee must assess each of the following:
(a) whether the options, benefits and facilities offered under the product are appropriate to those beneficiaries;
(b) whether the investment strategy for the product, including the level of investment risk and the return target, is appropriate to those beneficiaries;
(c) whether the insurance strategy for the product is appropriate to those beneficiaries;
(d) whether any insurance fees charged in relation to the product inappropriately erode the retirement income of those beneficiaries;
(e) any other relevant matters, including any matters set out in the prudential standards.
Covenants relating to regulated superannuation funds—promoting financial interests of beneficiaries
(12) If the entity is a regulated superannuation fund (other than a regulated superannuation fund with fewer than 5 members), the covenants referred to in subsection (1) include a covenant by each trustee of the entity to promote the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity who hold a MySuper product or a choice product, in particular returns to those beneficiaries (after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes).
Covenants relating to regulated superannuation funds—MySuper products
(13) If the entity is a regulated superannuation fund that offers a MySuper product, the covenants referred to in subsection (1) include the following covenants by each trustee of the entity:
(a) to include in the investment strategy for the MySuper product the details of the trustee's determination of the matters mentioned in paragraph (9) (a);
(b) to include in the investment strategy for the MySuper product, and update each year:
(i) the investment return target over a period of 10 years for the assets of the entity that are attributed to the MySuper product; and
(ii) the level of risk appropriate to the investment of those assets.
7 At the end of section 52A
Add:
Superannuation entity director
(7) A superannuation entity director is a person whose profession, business or employment is or includes acting as director of a corporate trustee of a superannuation entity and investing money on behalf of beneficiaries of the superannuation entity.
8 Subsections 55(5) and (6)
Omit ", and all of the obligations referred to in sections 29VN and 29VO,".
9 Subsection 55(7)
Omit ", section 29VP".
10 After section 55C
Insert:
55D Governing rules void to the extent that they are inconsistent with obligations in relation to annual outcomes assessments and MySuper products
A provision of the governing rules of a regulated superannuation fund is void to the extent that it is inconsistent with:
(a) a covenant referred to in subsection 52(9), (12) or (13) that is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of the fund; or
(b) if the trustee of the fund is a body corporate—a covenant referred to in paragraph 52A(2) (f) that is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of the fund, to the extent that the covenant relates to a covenant referred to in subsection 52(9), (12) or (13).
11 Paragraph 323(1 ) ( b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) proceedings under subsection 55(3).
(3) Schedule 3, page 8 (line 1) to page 9 (line 5), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 3—Penalties for contravening covenants
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
1 After section 54A
Insert:
54B Civil and criminal consequences for contravening sections 52 and 52A covenants
Section 52 covenants
(1) A person must not contravene a covenant that:
(a) is to the effect of a covenant set out in section 52; and
(b) is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of superannuation entity.
Section 52A covenants
(2) A person must not contravene a covenant that:
(a) is to the effect of a covenant set out in section 52A; and
(b) is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of a superannuation entity.
Contravention has civil and criminal consequences
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are civil penalty provisions as defined by section 193, and Part 21 therefore provides for civil and criminal consequences of contravening, or being involved in a contravention of, those subsections.
(4) A contravention of subsection (1) or (2) does not result in the invalidity of a transaction.
(5) This section does not limit the operation of section 55.
Note: A contravention of subsection (1) or (2) may result in an action to recover loss or damage under section 55.
54C Other covenants must not be contravened
(1) A person must not contravene any other covenant contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of a superannuation entity.
(2) A contravention of subsection (1) is not an offence.
(3) A contravention of subsection (1) does not result in the invalidity of a transaction.
(4) This section does not limit the operation of section 55.
Note: A contravention of subsection (1) may result in an action to recover loss or damage under section 55.
2 Section 55 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
55 Recovering loss or damage for contravention of covenant
3 Subsections 55(1) and (2)
Repeal the subsections.
4 Subsection 55(3)
Omit "contravention of subsection (1)", substitute "contravention of subsection 54B(1), 54B(2) or 54C(1)".
5 Paragraph 55(4A ) ( a)
Omit "contravened subsection (1)", substitute "contravened subsection 54B(2) or 54C(1)".
6 Before paragraph 193(a)
Insert:
(aa) subsection 54B(1);
(ab) subsection 54B(2);
7 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to contraventions occurring on or after the day this Schedule commences.
(4) Schedule 4, item 8, page 13 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
(5) Schedule 4, item 10, page 15 (line 16), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
(6) Schedule 4, item 10, page 17 (line 34), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
(7) Schedule 4, item 10, page 18 (line 13), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
(8) Schedule 4, item 10, page 18 (lines 19 and 20), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
(9) Schedule 4, item 10, page 19 (lines 11 and 12), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
(10) Schedule 4, item 11, page 20 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
(11) Schedule 6, item 1, page 37 (lines 11 to 17), omit paragraph 1017BB(1) (a), substitute:
(a) sufficient information to identify each investment item (a disclosable item) allocated to the investment option at the end of the reporting day that:
(i) is held by the reporting entity, an associated entity of the reporting entity or a pooled superannuation trust; and
(ii) is neither an investment in an associated entity of the reporting entity, nor an investment in a pooled superannuation trust;
(12) Schedule 6, item 3, page 39 (lines 7 to 11), omit the definition of investment option in subsection 1017BB(6), substitute:
investment option means:
(a) an investment option (within the ordinary meaning of that expression) within a choice product or MySuper product; or
(b) a choice product, or a MySuper product, that does not contain multiple investment options.
(13) Schedule 6, item 3, page 39 (after line 14), after the definition of member in subsection 1017BB(6), insert:
MySuper product has the same meaning as in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
(14) Schedule 6, item 17, page 40 (line 20), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "31 December 2019".
(15) Schedule 6, item 19, page 41 (line 11), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "31 December 2019".
(16) Schedule 7, item 5, page 43 (after line 29), after subsection 29P(3), insert:
(3A) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003, regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (3) (b) may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating (with or without modification) any matter contained in a reporting standard, made by APRA under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001,as in force or existing from time to time.
(17) Page 52 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 9—Superannuation trustees not to incentivise employers
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
1 Subparagraph 6(1 ) ( a ) ( ix)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(ix) Part 21 (except to the extent that it relates to section 68A);
2 After subparagraph 6(1 ) ( c ) ( iii)
Insert:
and (iv) Part 21, to the extent that it relates to section 68A;
3 Section 68A (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
68A Trustees must not use goods or services to influence employers
4 Subsection 68A(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) A trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, must not:
(a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
if that action could reasonably be expected to:
(d) influence the choice of the fund into which the person pays superannuation contributions for employees of the person who have no chosen fund; or
(e) influence the person to encourage one or more of the person's employees to remain, or apply or agree to be, a member of the fund.
Note: Under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, employers will need to pay contributions for an employee who has no chosen fund into a fund chosen by the employer, in order to meet the choice of fund requirement and so avoid an increased individual superannuation guarantee shortfall for the employee. There are other limits on the fund that may be chosen by the employer (see Part 3A of that Act).
5 Subsection 68A(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) A trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, must not refuse to:
(a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
if it is reasonable to conclude that the refusal is given because:
(d) the person has not chosen the fund as the fund into which the person pays superannuation contributions for employees of the person who have no chosen fund; or
(e) the person has not encouraged one or more of the person's employees to remain, or apply or agree to be, a member of the fund.
Note: Under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, employers will need to pay contributions for an employee who has no chosen fund into a fund chosen by the employer, in order to meet the choice of fund requirement and so avoid an increased individual superannuation guarantee shortfall for the employee. There are other limits on the fund that may be chosen by the employer (see Part 3A of that Act).
6 After subsection 68A(4)
Insert:
Civil penalty provisions
(4A) Subsections (1) and (3) are civil penalty provisions as defined in section 193, and Part 21 therefore provides for civil and criminal consequences of contravening, or being involved in a contravention of, those subsections.
7 After paragraph 193(c)
Insert:
(caa) subsection 68A(1);
(cab) subsection 68A(3);
8 Changes to ban on incentives for choosing a default fund
(1) The amendments made by item 4 of this Schedule, and items 6 and 7 of this Schedule to the extent that the amendments relate to subsection 68A(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, apply where a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund:
(a) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) gives or allows, or offers to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
on or after the day on which this Schedule commences.
(2) The amendments made by item 5 of this Schedule, and items 6 and 7 of this Schedule to the extent that the amendments relate to subsection 68A(3) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, apply where a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, refuses to:
(a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
on or after the day on which this Schedule commences.
Question agreed to.
The question is that amendments (8) and (9) on sheet 8638 revised, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Senators, I need leave to recommit the vote on the amendments on sheet GZ227 revised, circulated by the government, in two questions because of some confusion about which amendments had been withdrawn.
Leave granted.
The Senate will now consider the amendments on sheet GZ227 revised, circulated by the government. The first question is that the amendments to the amendments on sheet GZ227 revised circulated by the opposition on sheet 8638 revised be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Amendment (2), before item 1, insert:
1A Subsection 10(1) (after the definition of authorised person)
Insert:
benchmark means a benchmark mentioned in, or specified in regulations made for the purposes of, subparagraphs 52(9) (a) (i) and (ii) and paragraph 52(9) (aa).
1AA Subsection 10(1) (after the definition of Commissioner)
Insert:
comparable choice products, in relation to a choice product, means a class of choice product specified in regulations made for the purposes of this definition that the choice product is to be compared with.
(2) Amendment (2), item 6, subparagraph 52(9) (a) (i), omit "set under the prudential standards", substitute "specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph".
(3) Amendment (2), item 6, subparagraph 52(9) (a) (ii), omit the subparagraph, substitute:
(ii) if the product is a choice product—a comparison of the choice product with the comparable choice products in relation to the choice product, based on factors mentioned in subsection (10A), and a comparison of the choice product with any other benchmarks specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph; and
(4) Amendment (2), item 6, after paragraph 52(9) (a), insert:
(aa) to determine, in writing, on an annual basis, whether each trustee of the entity is promoting the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the fund, as assessed against benchmarks specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph;
(5) Amendment (2), item 6, after subsection 52(10), insert:
(10A) In comparing a choice product with the comparable choice products in relation to the choice product, the trustees must compare each of the following:
(a) the fees and costs that affect the return to the beneficiaries holding the choice products;
(b) the return for the choice products;
(c) the level of investment risk for the choice products;
(d) any other matter specified in the prudential standards.
(6) Amendment (3), after item 6, insert:
6A Subsection 196(3)
Omit "2,000", substitute "2,400".
(7) Amendment (12), omit the definition of investment option, substitute:
investment option, for a registrable superannuation entity, means:
(a) an investment pool maintained within the entity; or
(b) a financial product made availableto a member of the entity:
(i) that is a managed investment scheme or other pooled investment; and
(ii) in respect of which section 1012IA applies if there is, or will be, a regulated acquisition of the product (within the meaning of that section).
ADDITIONAL RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
(8) Schedule 5, page 22 (after line 8), after item 2, insert:
2A Subsection 10(1) (definition of connected entity)
Repeal the definition, substitute:
connected entity, in relation to an RSE licensee of a registrable superannuation entity, means:
(a) an associated entity (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the RSE licensee; and
(b) if the RSE licensee is a group of individual trustees—an entity that has the capacity to determine or influence decisions made by one or more members of the group in relation to the registrable superannuation entity; and
(c) any other entity of a kind prescribed by the regulations.
[connected entity]
(9) Schedule 5, item 11, page 23 (after line 24), after paragraph 131D(1) (c), insert:
(ca) the RSE licensee, or the registrable superannuation entity of the RSE licensee, has failed to meet a benchmark that relates to the licensee or entity; or
The question now is that the amendments on sheet GZ227 revised as circulated by the government, as amended, be agreed to.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "7 and 8", substitute "7, 8 and 9".
[no incentivising employers]
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 5 (line 8), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 1—Annual outcomes assessment
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
1 Subsection 10(1) (subparagraph (a )( i) of the definition of enhanced director obligations )
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(i) a covenant referred to in paragraph 52A(2)(f), as it relates to covenants referred to in subsection 52(9), (12) or (13); and
2 Subsection 10(1) (subparagraph (a )( i) of the definition of enhanced trustee obligations )
Omit ", as enhanced by the obligations imposed under section 29VN".
3 Subsection 10(1) (definition of superannuation entity director )
Omit "29VO(3)", substitute "52A(7)".
4 Division 6 of Part 2C
Repeal the Division.
5 Section 51A
Omit ", and each obligation referred to in sections 29VN and 29VO,".
6 At the end of section 52
Add:
Covenants relating to regulated superannuation funds—annual outcomes assessments
(9) If the entity is a regulated superannuation fund (other than a regulated superannuation fund with fewer than 5 members), the covenants referred to in subsection (1) include the following covenants by each trustee of the entity:
(a) to determine, in writing, on an annual basis, for each MySuper product and choice product offered by the entity, whether the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity who hold the product are being promoted by the trustee, having regard to:
(i) if the product is a MySuper product—a comparison of the MySuper product with other MySuper products offered by other regulated superannuation funds, based on the factors mentioned in subsection (10), and a comparison of the MySuper product with any other benchmarks set under the prudential standards; and
(ii) if the product is a choice product—a comparison of the choice product with benchmarks set under the prudential standards; and
(iii) the factors mentioned in subsection (11);
(b) to make the determination referred to in paragraph (a), and a summary of the assessments and comparisons on which the determination is based, publicly available on the website of the entity;
(c) to do so within 28 days after the determination is made;
(d) to keep the determination, and the summary of the assessments and comparisons on which the determination is based, on the website until a new determination is made as referred to in paragraph (a).
(10) In comparing a MySuper product with other MySuper products, the trustees must compare each of the following:
(a) the fees and costs that affect the return to the beneficiaries holding the MySuper products;
(b) the return for the MySuper products (after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes);
(c) the level of investment risk for the MySuper products;
(d) any other matter set out in the prudential standards.
(11) In determining whether the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity who hold a MySuper product or choice product are being promoted by the trustee, the trustee must assess each of the following:
(a) whether the options, benefits and facilities offered under the product are appropriate to those beneficiaries;
(b) whether the investment strategy for the product, including the level of investment risk and the return target, is appropriate to those beneficiaries;
(c) whether the insurance strategy for the product is appropriate to those beneficiaries;
(d) whether any insurance fees charged in relation to the product inappropriately erode the retirement income of those beneficiaries;
(e) any other relevant matters, including any matters set out in the prudential standards.
Covenants relating to regulated superannuation funds—promoting financial interests of beneficiaries
(12) If the entity is a regulated superannuation fund (other than a regulated superannuation fund with fewer than 5 members), the covenants referred to in subsection (1) include a covenant by each trustee of the entity to promote the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity who hold a MySuper product or a choice product, in particular returns to those beneficiaries (after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes).
Covenants relating to regulated superannuation funds—MySuper products
(13) If the entity is a regulated superannuation fund that offers a MySuper product, the covenants referred to in subsection (1) include the following covenants by each trustee of the entity:
(a) to include in the investment strategy for the MySuper product the details of the trustee's determination of the matters mentioned in paragraph (9)(a);
(b) to include in the investment strategy for the MySuper product, and update each year:
(i) the investment return target over a period of 10 years for the assets of the entity that are attributed to the MySuper product; and
(ii) the level of risk appropriate to the investment of those assets.
7 At the end of section 52A
Add:
Superannuation entity director
(7) A superannuation entity director is a person whose profession, business or employment is or includes acting as director of a corporate trustee of a superannuation entity and investing money on behalf of beneficiaries of the superannuation entity.
8 Subsections 55(5) and (6)
Omit ", and all of the obligations referred to in sections 29VN and 29VO,".
9 Subsection 55(7)
Omit ", section 29VP".
10 After section 55C
Insert:
55D Governing rules void to the extent that they are inconsistent with obligations in relation to annual outcomes assessments and MySuper products
A provision of the governing rules of a regulated superannuation fund is void to the extent that it is inconsistent with:
(a) a covenant referred to in subsection 52(9), (12) or (13) that is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of the fund; or
(b) if the trustee of the fund is a body corporate—a covenant referred to in paragraph 52A(2)(f) that is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of the fund, to the extent that the covenant relates to a covenant referred to in subsection 52(9), (12) or (13).
11 Paragraph 323(1 )( b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) proceedings under subsection 55(3).
[annual outcomes assessments]
(3) Schedule 3, page 8 (line 1) to page 9 (line 5), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 3—Penalties for contravening covenants
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
1 After section 54A
Insert:
54B Civil and criminal consequences for contravening sections 52 and 52A covenants
Section 52 covenants
(1) A person must not contravene a covenant that:
(a) is to the effect of a covenant set out in section 52; and
(b) is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of superannuation entity.
Section 52A covenants
(2) A person must not contravene a covenant that:
(a) is to the effect of a covenant set out in section 52A; and
(b) is contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of a superannuation entity.
Contravention has civil and criminal consequences
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are civil penalty provisions as defined by section 193, and Part 21 therefore provides for civil and criminal consequences of contravening, or being involved in a contravention of, those subsections.
(4) A contravention of subsection (1) or (2) does not result in the invalidity of a transaction.
(5) This section does not limit the operation of section 55.
Note: A contravention of subsection (1) or (2) may result in an action to recover loss or damage under section 55.
54C Other covenants must not be contravened
(1) A person must not contravene any other covenant contained, or taken to be contained, in the governing rules of a superannuation entity.
(2) A contravention of subsection (1) is not an offence.
(3) A contravention of subsection (1) does not result in the invalidity of a transaction.
(4) This section does not limit the operation of section 55.
Note: A contravention of subsection (1) may result in an action to recover loss or damage under section 55.
2 Section 55 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
55 Recovering loss or damage for contravention of covenant
3 Subsections 55(1) and (2)
Repeal the subsections.
4 Subsection 55(3)
Omit "contravention of subsection (1)", substitute "contravention of subsection 54B(1), 54B(2) or 54C(1)".
5 Paragraph 55(4A )( a)
Omit "contravened subsection (1)", substitute "contravened subsection 54B(2) or 54C(1)".
6 Before paragraph 193(a)
Insert:
(aa) subsection 54B(1);
(ab) subsection 54B(2);
7 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to contraventions occurring on or after the day this Schedule commences.
[civil and criminal penalties for contravening covenants and annual outcomes assessments]
(4) Schedule 4, item 8, page 13 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
[annual outcomes assessments]
(5) Schedule 4, item 10, page 15 (line 16), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
[annual outcomes assessments]
(6) Schedule 4, item 10, page 17 (line 34), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
[annual outcomes assessments]
(7) Schedule 4, item 10, page 18 (line 13), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
[annual outcomes assessments]
(8) Schedule 4, item 10, page 18 (lines 19 and 20), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
[annual outcomes assessments]
(9) Schedule 4, item 10, page 19 (lines 11 and 12), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
[annual outcomes assessments]
(10) Schedule 4, item 11, page 20 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or referred to in section 29VN or 29VO".
[annual outcomes assessments]
(11) Schedule 6, item 1, page 37 (lines 11 to 17), omit paragraph 1017BB(1)(a), substitute:
(a) sufficient information to identify each investment item (a disclosable item) allocated to the investment option at the end of the reporting day that:
(i) is held by the reporting entity, an associated entity of the reporting entity or a pooled superannuation trust; and
(ii) is neither an investment in an associated entity of the reporting entity, nor an investment in a pooled superannuation trust;
[investment items held through pooled superannuation trusts]
(12) Schedule 6, item 3, page 39 (lines 7 to 11), omit the definition of investment option in subsection 1017BB(6), substitute:
investment option means:
(a) an investment option (within the ordinary meaning of that expression) within a choice product or MySuper product; or
(b) a choice product, or a MySuper product, that does not contain multiple investment options.
[investment options]
(13) Schedule 6, item 3, page 39 (after line 14), after the definition of member in subsection 1017BB(6), insert:
MySuper product has the same meaning as in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
[investment options]
(14) Schedule 6, item 17, page 40 (line 20), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "31 December 2019".
[portfolio holdings disclosure]
(15) Schedule 6, item 19, page 41 (line 11), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "31 December 2019".
[portfolio holdings disclosure]
(16) Schedule 7, item 5, page 43 (after line 29), after subsection 29P(3), insert:
(3A) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003, regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (3)(b) may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating (with or without modification) any matter contained in a reporting standard, made by APRA under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001,as in force or existing from time to time.
[annual members ' meetings]
(17) Page 52 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 9—Superannuation trustees not to incentivise employers
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
1 Subparagraph 6(1 )( a )( ix)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(ix) Part 21 (except to the extent that it relates to section 68A);
2 After subparagraph 6(1 )( c )( iii)
Insert:
and (iv) Part 21, to the extent that it relates to section 68A;
3 Section 68A (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
68A Trustees must not use goods or services to influence employers
4 Subsection 68A(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) A trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, must not:
(a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
if that action could reasonably be expected to:
(d) influence the choice of the fund into which the person pays superannuation contributions for employees of the person who have no chosen fund; or
(e) influence the person to encourage one or more of the person's employees to remain, or apply or agree to be, a member of the fund.
Note: Under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, employers will need to pay contributions for an employee who has no chosen fund into a fund chosen by the employer, in order to meet the choice of fund requirement and so avoid an increased individual superannuation guarantee shortfall for the employee. There are other limits on the fund that may be chosen by the employer (see Part 3A of that Act).
5 Subsection 68A(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) A trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, must not refuse to:
(a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
if it is reasonable to conclude that the refusal is given because:
(d) the person has not chosen the fund as the fund into which the person pays superannuation contributions for employees of the person who have no chosen fund; or
(e) the person has not encouraged one or more of the person's employees to remain, or apply or agree to be, a member of the fund.
Note: Under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, employers will need to pay contributions for an employee who has no chosen fund into a fund chosen by the employer, in order to meet the choice of fund requirement and so avoid an increased individual superannuation guarantee shortfall for the employee. There are other limits on the fund that may be chosen by the employer (see Part 3A of that Act).
6 After subsection 68A(4)
Insert:
Civil penalty provisions
(4A) Subsections (1) and (3) are civil penalty provisions as defined in section 193, and Part 21 therefore provides for civil and criminal consequences of contravening, or being involved in a contravention of, those subsections.
7 After paragraph 193(c)
Insert:
(caa) subsection 68A(1);
(cab) subsection 68A(3);
8 Changes to ban on incentives for choosing a default fund
(1) The amendments made by item 4 of this Schedule, and items 6 and 7 of this Schedule to the extent that the amendments relate to subsection 68A(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, apply where a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund:
(a) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) gives or allows, or offers to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
on or after the day on which this Schedule commences.
(2) The amendments made by item 5 of this Schedule, and items 6 and 7 of this Schedule to the extent that the amendments relate to subsection 68A(3) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, apply where a regulated superannuation fund, or an associate of a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund, refuses to:
(a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person; or
(b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person, at a particular price; or
(c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person, or a relative or associate of a person;
on or after the day on which this Schedule commences.
[no incentivising employers]
Question agreed to.
I now move to the Australian Greens amendments and separate them as requested by Senator Whish-Wilson. The question now is that the amendments on sheet 8500, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
[retail funds]
(2) Page 52 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 9—Amendments commencing on 1 July 2020
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992
1 At the end of subsection 32C(2)
Add:
; and (f) the trustee of the fund is not any of the following:
(i) an ADI within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959;
(ii) a related body corporate (within the meaning of that Act) of such an ADI;
(iii) a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of such an ADI;
(iv) an associate (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) of such an ADI.
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
2 Subsection 29S(1)
After "RSE licensee", insert "(other than an ineligible licensee)".
3 At the end of section 29S
Add:
Ineligible licensee
(8) In this section:
ineligible licensee means an RSE licensee that is:
(a) an ADI within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959; or
(b) a related body corporate (within the meaning of that Act) of such an ADI; or
(c) a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of such an ADI; or
(d) an associate of such an ADI.
[retail funds]
I will now turn to the amendments on sheet 8639, circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that those amendments be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 8, page 50 (before line 11), before item 3, insert:
2A After paragraph 13(4A ) ( a)
Insert:
(aa) the extent to which the profits of the investor is attributable to deductions made by the investor;
(ab) if the return on the investment made by the investor is passed on (in whole or in part) to members of a regulated superannuation entity of the RSE licensee—the effect of any deduction by the investor on the amount passed on to the members;
(ac) if the investor is a person connected with the RSE licensee—the relationship between the RSE licensee and the investor;
(2) Schedule 8, item 3, page 50 (line 11) to page 51 (line 18), omit the item, substitute:
3 After subsection 13(4C)
Insert:
(4D) A reporting standard may require an RSE licensee to provide information in relation to any money, consideration or other benefit given to an entity (the receiving entity) by the RSE licensee or a person connected with the RSE licensee (the paying entity) out of the assets, or assets derived from assets, of a registrable superannuation entity of the RSE licensee, including information about the following:
(a) details of the receiving entity;
(b) details of how the money, consideration or benefit is given to the receiving entity;
(c) if the receiving entity is not the RSE licensee—the relationship between the receiving entity and the paying entity;
(d) the purpose for which the money, consideration or other benefit is given;
(e) the way in which the money, consideration or other benefit is used by the receiving entity, and any entity with which that entity deals, including the extent to which the receiving entity's profit is attributable to that money, consideration or other benefit.
(4E) If:
(a) a reporting standard requires an RSE licensee to provide information (the required information) in relation to any money, consideration or other benefit given to a receiving entity by a paying entity out of the assets, or assets derived from assets, of a registrable superannuation entity of the RSE licensee; and
(b) the money, consideration or other benefit is given under a contract or other arrangement between the paying entity and the receiving entity;
the contract or arrangement is taken to include:
(c) a term requiring the paying entity, at the time the money, consideration or benefit is given or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time, to notify the receiving entity that the money, consideration or benefit is given out of assets, or assets derived from, a registrable superannuation entity; and
(d) a term requiring the receiving entity, if notified by the paying entity in accordance with paragraph (c), to, as soon as reasonably practicable after being notified, provide the paying entity with the required information of which the receiving party is aware.
(4F) A person is connected with an RSE licensee for the purposes of subsection (4D) if the person is:
(a) a related body corporate of the RSE licensee; or
(b) a custodian in relation to assets, or assets derived from assets, of the RSE licensee's registrable superannuation entities, and in relation to the RSE licensee or a related body corporate of the RSE licensee; or
(c) a person who, under a contract or other arrangement with the RSE licensee or a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b):
(i) invests assets, or assets derived from assets, of the RSE licensee's registrable superannuation entities; or
(ii) provides a financial service (within the meaning of section 766A of the Corporations Act 2001) in relation to assets, or assets derived from assets, of the RSE licensee's registrable superannuation entities.
(4G) Subsections (4D) and (4E) do not apply in relation to any money, consideration or other benefit given to another entity by the RSE licensee if it is an investment of assets, or assets derived from assets, of the RSE licensee's registrable superannuation entities by the RSE licensee.
(3) Schedule 8, item 4, page 51 (line 35) to page 52 (line 3), omit all the words from and including "another entity" to the end of the item, substitute "an entity by the RSE licensee, or a person connected with the RSE licensee, out of the assets, or assets derived from assets, of a registrable superannuation entity of the RSE licensee, then the RSE licensee is not required to comply with the reporting standard to the extent that it requires the RSE licensee to provide that particular information."
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The first question is that the amendments on sheet 8585, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 117, page 54 (lines 17 to 24), omit paragraph 1317G(4) (c), substitute:
(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.
(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 97 (lines 19 to 26), omit paragraph 12GBCA(2) (c), substitute:
(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.
(3) Schedule 3, item 7, page 128 (lines 22 to 29), omit paragraph 167B(2) (c), substitute:
(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.
(4) Schedule 4, item 4, page 166 (lines 19 to 26), omit paragraph 75D(2) (c), substitute:
(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the amendments on sheet 8616 revised and sheet 8617 revised, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
SHEET 8616 REVISED
(1) Schedule 1, item 117, page 57 (lines 22 to 24), omit subparagraph 1317G(4) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 100 (lines 24 to 26), omit subparagraph 12GBCA(2) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
(3) Schedule 3, item 7, page 131 (lines 27 to 29), omit subparagraph 167B(2) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
(4) Schedule 4, item 4, page 169 (lines 24 to 26), omit subparagraph 75D(2) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
SHEET 8617 REVISED
(1) Schedule 1, item 73, page 19 (line 7), omit "10", substitute "15".
(2) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (table item dealing with subsection 184(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(3) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (table item dealing with subsection 184(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(4) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (table item dealing with subsection 184(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(5) Schedule 1, item 140, page 71 (table item dealing with subsection 344(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(6) Schedule 1, item 140, page 73 (table item dealing with subsection 596AB(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(7) Schedule 1, item 140, page 73 (table item dealing with subsection 601FD(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(8) Schedule 1, item 140, page 73 (table item dealing with subsection 601FE(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(9) Schedule 1, item 140, page 75 (table item dealing with subsection 601UAA(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(10) Schedule 1, item 140, page 75 (table item dealing with subsection 601UAB(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(11) Schedule 1, item 140, page 77 (table item dealing with subsection 727(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(12) Schedule 1, item 140, page 77 (table item dealing with subsection 728(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(13) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952D(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(14) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952D(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(15) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(16) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(17) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(18) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952L(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(19) Schedule 1, item 140, page 85 (table item dealing with subsection 993B(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(20) Schedule 1, item 140, page 86 (table item dealing with subsection 1021D(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(21) Schedule 1, item 140, page 86 (table item dealing with subsection 1021D(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(22) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with section 1041A, column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(23) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041B(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(24) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041C(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(25) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with section 1041D, column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(26) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041E(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(27) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041F(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(28) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with section 1041G, column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(29) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1043A(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(30) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1043A(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(31) Schedule 5, item 2, page 187 (lines 10 to 13), omit the item, substitute:
2 Schedule 3 (table item dealing with subsection 596AB(1))
Repeal the item, substitute:
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I am pleased today to present this Bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to enable the Australian Electoral Commission to better align work practices with the contemporary behaviour and expectations of voters. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 increases transparency around candidate eligibility and positions the AEC to facilitate more efficient, cost-effective and timely service delivery, resulting in improved public confidence in Australia's electoral system.
The bill implements recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in two of its recent reports:
In line with these recommendations, the bill remedies errors, defects and anomalies in the legislation, and supports improvement in the conduct of federal elections. The bill applies the existing six- metre exclusion zone for polling booths on election day to pre-poll voting centres, to improve the consistency across in-person voting methods.
Schedule 1 —C andidate nominations
Schedule 1 of the bill makes a number of changes to part XIV of the Electoral Act to include an obligation for persons wishing to nominate as candidates in elections to provide information, in the form of a checklist, relevant to their eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution. The checklist will allow members of the public to scrutinise the information provided by all candidates.
The bill will make completing the checklist a mandatory requirement for all candidates in the next federal election, so no candidate can avoid checking their citizenship history, or side-step a declaration to voters about their qualifications for office. The checklist is consistent with the form previously established by regulations and used at the recent by-elections. Information provided in the checklist is also consistent with the form used by current Senators and Members of Parliament which is published on the respective parliamentary Citizenship Registers.
Schedule 2 —A mendments relating to voting and scrutiny processes
Schedule 2 to the bill makes a number of amendments to the Electoral Act and the Referendum Act, to modernise and simplify AEC operations to allow ballot papers to progress more quickly to the scrutiny process, without reducing count integrity.
Firstly, the bill allows for declaration vote ballot boxes to be opened and reconciled at the polling place, rather than being sent unopened to the Divisional Returning Officer for reconciliation. This will eradicate the need for two to three days of additional work at out-posted centres before the declaration vote exchange can be finalised. This amendment is important for the effective and timely delivery of the next federal election.
There is already a long-standing prohibition on canvassing for votes or soliciting the vote of an elector within six metres of the entrance of a polling booth. By omission, the same arrangement has not applied to pre-poll centres and this can cause confusion on election day when the perimeter for canvassing has to be pushed back. The bill will apply this six-metre exclusion zone to pre-poll voting centres as well to ensure all voters can enter a polling place, through a non-congested entry point The six-metre zone works well on election day to separate volunteer campaigners and therefore helps to lessen unnecessary friction and tension. These amendments do not prevent candidates and parties from distributing their campaign material or prohibit them from discussing issues with voters who might wish to engage prior to casting their vote. The amendments only restrict engaging in these activities within the immediate vicinity of a pre-polling place.
Since the introduction of this bill in the House of Representatives, the opposition have requested amendments to simplify the bill, by removing some of the more complex modernisation amendments that are not essential to the efficient conduct of the 2019 election. Such changes are acceptable to the government and I can foreshadow that there will be government amendments moved during the committee stage. Those amendments to remove non-critical parts of the bill would allow some of the lower priority reforms to be considered in detail after the election and progressed later, allowing more time for their consideration.
Conclusion
The bill introduces reforms to one of Australia's oldest pieces of legislation—the 100-year-old Commonwealth Electoral Actto modernise and improve electoral processes and AEC operations for the benefit of the Australian voting public. These amendments will assist the AEC in its responsibility of delivering effective and timely elections and promoting public confidence in a key democratic institution.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The question now is that items (1), (2), (7) to (21), (23) to (27), (52) to (58), (60), (61), (64), (69), (88) to (91), (95) to (104), (130), (131), (137) to (153) and (174) of schedule 2, and schedule 3 on sheet UV106, circulated by the government, stand as printed.
Government's circulated amendments—
(2) Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, page 36 (lines 5 to 18), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 2, items 7 to 21, page 37 (line 9) to page 38 (line 26), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 2, items 23 to 27, page 39 (line 26) to page 40 (line 14), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 2, items 52 to 58, page 45 (line 15) to page 46 (line 21), to be opposed.
(6) Schedule 2, items 60 and 61, page 46 (lines 25 to 28), to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 2, item 64, page 47 (lines 9 and 10), to be opposed.
(8) Schedule 2, item 69, page 47 (lines 27 and 28), to be opposed.
(21) Schedule 2, items 88 to 91, page 51 (line 12) to page 53, to be opposed.
(22) Schedule 2, items 95 to 104, page 55 (line 8) to page 56 (line 30), to be opposed.
(23) Schedule 2, items 130 and 131, page 62 (lines 11 to 23), to be opposed.
(24) Schedule 2, items 137 to 153, page 63 (line 18) to page 65 (line 14), to be opposed.
(37) Schedule 2, item 174, page 69 (lines 13 to 17), to be opposed.
(38) Schedule 3, page 70 (line 1) to page 72 (line 20), to be opposed.
Question negatived.
The question now is that amendments (1), (9) to (20) and (25) to (36) on sheet UV106, circulated by the government, be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item.
(9) Schedule 2, item 78, page 49 (line 9), omit "offices", substitute "places".
(10) Schedule 2, item 79, page 49 (lines 25 to 27), omit subparagraph 340(1) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre-poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre-poll votes may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, for the election; and
(11) Schedule 2, item 79, page 49 (line 31), after "a pre-poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(12) Schedule 2, item 79, page 50 (lines 1 and 2), omit "the pre-poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(13) Schedule 2, item 80, page 50, (lines 16 to 18), omit subparagraph 340(1A) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre-poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre-poll votes may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, for the election; and
(14) Schedule 2, item 80, page 50 (line 22), after "a pre-poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(15) Schedule 2, item 80, page 50 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the pre-poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(16) Schedule 2, item 81, page 50 (line 27), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(17) Schedule 2, item 82, page 50 (line 30), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(18) Schedule 2, item 84, page 51 (line 2), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of a DRO".
(19) Schedule 2, item 86, page 51 (line 7), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(20) Schedule 2, item 87, page 51 (line 10), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(25) Schedule 2, item 164, page 67 (line 2), omit "offices", substitute "places".
(26) Schedule 2, item 165, page 67 (lines 16 to 18), omit subparagraph 131(1) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre-poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre-poll votes may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, for the referendum; and
(27) Schedule 2, item 165, page 67 (line 24), after "a pre-poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(28) Schedule 2, item 165, page 67 (lines 26 and 27), omit "the pre-poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(29) Schedule 2, item 166, page 68 (lines 6 to 8), omit subparagraph 131(1A) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre-poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre-poll votes may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, for the referendum; and
(30) Schedule 2, item 166, page 68 (line 14), after "a pre-poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(31) Schedule 2, item 166, page 68 (lines 16 and 17), omit "the pre-poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(32) Schedule 2, item 167, page 68 (line 19), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(33) Schedule 2, item 168, page 68 (line 22), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(34) Schedule 2, item 170, page 68 (line 26), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of a DRO".
(35) Schedule 2, item 172, page 69 (line 8), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(36) Schedule 2, item 173, page 69 (line 11), omit "or pre-poll voting office", substitute ", pre-poll voting office or office of the DRO".
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to, and that this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Senate will first consider the amendment on sheet EU114, circulated by the government. The question is that the amendments to that amendment, circulated by Centre Alliance on sheet 8651 and sheet 8631, be agreed to.
Centre Alliance circulated amendments—
SHEET 8651—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS BILL 2017
(1) Amendment (1), after paragraph 96A(2)(a), insert:
(aa) contain information the person had regard to in determining that the introduction would be an exempted introduction; and
(2) Amendment (1), after subsection 96A(3), insert:
(3A) The Executive Director must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the declaration, publish the declaration on the AICIS website.
(3B) However, the Executive Director must delete from the declaration as published any information in the declaration that is protected information.
SHEET 8631—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS BILL 2017
(1) Page 25 (after line 28), after clause 24, insert:
24A Introductions not authorised as exempted or reported introductions — strict liability offence and civil penalty provision
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person introduces an industrial chemical on the basis the introduction is authorised by section 26 or 27; and
(b) the introduction is not authorised by section 26 or 27.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the introduction of the industrial chemical is otherwise authorised under this act.
Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Codeand section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).
(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 1000 penalty units.
24B Introductions not authorised as exempted or reported introductions—fault- based offence
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person introduces an industrial chemical on the basis the introduction is authorised by section 26 or 27; and
(b) the introduction is not authorised by section 26 or 27; and
(c) the person knew, or was reckless or negligent as to the fact, the introduction was not authorised by section 26 or 27.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the introduction of the industrial chemical is otherwise authorised under this act.
Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
Penalty for individuals
(3) An offence against subsection (1) committed by an individual is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than five years, a fine not more than 2,000 penalty units, or both.
Penalty for body corporate
(4) An offence against subsection (1) committed by a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine not more than the greatest of the following:
(a) 4,000 penalty units;
(b) 2 per cent of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the period (the turnover period) of 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the industrial chemical was introduced.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the annual turnover of a body corporate, during the turnover period, is the sum of the values of all the supplies that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, have made, or are likely to make, during that period, other than the following supplies:
(a) supplies made from any of those bodies corporate to any other of those bodies corporate;
(b) supplies that are input taxed;
(c) supplies that are not for consideration (and are not taxable supplies under section 72-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999);
(d) supplies that are not made in connection with an enterprise that the body corporate carries on.
(6) Expressions used in subsection (5) that are also used in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 have the same meaning in that subsection as they have in that Act.
(7) The question whether 2 bodies corporate are related to each other is to be determined for the purposes of this section in the same way as for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001.
Alternative verdict
(8) In a trial for an offence against subsection (1), the trier of fact may find the defendant not guilty of that offence but guilty of an offence under section 24A if:
(a) the trier of fact is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the offence against subsection (1); and
(b) the trier of fact is satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the offence under section 24A; and
(c) the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.
24C Criminal liability of executive officers of bodies corporates in relation to introductions of industrial chemicals
(1) An executive officer of a body corporate contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the body corporate commits an offence under section 24A or 24B; and
(b) the executive officer knew that, or was reckless or negligent as to whether, the offence would be committed; and
(c) the officer was in a position to influence the conduct of the body corporate in relation to the commission of the offence; and
(d) the officer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence.
(2) The maximum penalty for an offence against subsection (1) is the maximum penalty that a court could impose in respect of an individual for the offence committed by the body corporate.
(3) An executive officer of a body corporate means a person (whether or not a director of the body) who is concerned in, or takes part in, the management of the body.
(2) Clause 97, page 81 (after line 14), after paragraph (2)(b), insert:
(ba) contain information the person had regard to in determining that the proposed introduction would be a reported introduction; and
(3) Clause 97, page 81 (lines 22 to 24), omit paragraphs (3)(b) and (c), substitute:
(b) the proposed end use for the industrial chemical.
(4) Page 82 (after line 7), after subclause 97(5), add:
(6) The Executive Director must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the report, publish on the AICIS website the information mentioned in paragraph (2)(ba).
(5) Page 82 (after line 13), after clause 98, insert:
98A Reports for exempted introduction
(1) If a person introduces an industrial chemical on the basis the introduction is an exempted introduction, the person must give the Executive Director a report in accordance with subsection (2) as soon as reasonably practicable after the industrial chemical's introduction.
(2) The report must:
(a) be in the approved form; and
(b) contain information the person had regard to in determining that the introduction would be an exempted introduction; and
(c) be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3) The Executive Director must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the report, publish the report on the AICIS website.
(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 60 penalty units.
(6) Page 86 (after line 4), after clause 101, insert:
101A Publication of information relating to risks of an industrial chemical to human health or the environment
(1) The Executive Director must cause to be published, as soon as reasonably practicable, on the AICIS website any information relating to the risks of an industrial chemical to human health or the environment that was relied on in determining:
(a) whether the industrial chemical is to be listed on the inventory; or
(b) whether the introduction of the industrial chemical is an exempted introduction; or
(c) whether the introduction of the industrial chemical is a reported introduction; or
(d) whether an assessment certificate, commercial evaluation authorisation or exceptional circumstances authorisation for the introduction of the industrial chemical should be issued.
Note: The Executive Director may disclose protected information if the information is disclosed in the course of exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under this act (see section 116).
(2) To avoid doubt, the Executive Director is to publish the information even if the information is protected information.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the amendment on sheet EU114, the amendments on sheets MP102, EU117, MP104 and EU130, and the requests on sheets EU127, EU129 and EU128, circulated by the government, be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
SHEET EU114—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS BILL 2017
(1) Page 81 (before line 2), before clause 97, insert:
96A Post -introduction declarations for exempted introductions
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person first introduces an industrial chemical during a registration year; and
(b) the introduction is an exempted introduction; and
(c) the person does not make the declaration mentioned in subsection (2) within 4 months after the start of the last month of that registration year.
(2) The declaration must:
(a) be in the approved form; and
(b) contain the information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph for the type of exempted introduction.
(3) The rules may prescribe circumstances in which subsection (1) does not apply.
(4) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 300 penalty units.
(5) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 60 penalty units.
(6) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
SHEET MP102—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS BILL 2017
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Clause 9, page 14 (line 22), omit "1 September 2018", substitute "1 September 2020".
(3) Clause 103, page 88 (lines 9 and 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(4) Clause 168, page 137 (line 7), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
SHEET EU117—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS BILL 2017
(1) Clause 11, page 17 (line 2), after "Parts 1, 4, 7, 9 and 10", insert "and Division 4 of Part 6".
(2) Clause 26, page 26 (line 29), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; (e) the volume of the industrial chemical that is introduced in a period.
(3) Clause 27, page 27 (line 29), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; (f) the volume of the industrial chemical that is introduced in a period.
(4) Clause 41, page 35 (lines 17 and 18), omit "to remove the person as a holder of the certificate", substitute "to be removed as a holder of the certificate".
(5) Clause 86, page 72 (line 28), omit "has conducted an evaluation", substitute "has completed an evaluation".
(6) Clause 95, page 78 (line 29), omit "has conducted an evaluation", substitute "has completed an evaluation".
(7) Clause 102, page 87 (line 7), after "must", insert ", or must not,".
(8) Clause 102, page 87 (lines 16 and 17), omit subclause (3), substitute:
(3) Without limiting paragraph (1) (b), the rules may:
(a) prescribe different requirements for different categories of introduction; and
(b) prescribe a requirement that a person must obtain the approval of the Executive Director before having regard to particular information in determining the category of introduction.
(9) Page 97 (after line 26), after clause 113, insert:
113A Executive Director may request further information
(1) The Executive Director may, by written notice given to an applicant, request further information to be provided for the purposes of considering the application.
(2) The information must be given within the period specified in the notice, which must not be less than 20 working days after the day the notice is given.
(3) If the requested information is not provided within the period mentioned in subsection (2), the Executive Director may take the application to be withdrawn.
(10) Clause 117, page 101 (line 1), omit paragraph (2) (a), substitute:
(a) a Commonwealth entity (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013);
(11) Clause 163, page 130 (line 10), after "conditions", insert "or restrictions".
(12) Clause 163, page 130 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) Without limiting paragraph (1) (b), the conditions or restrictions that may be imposed include that the introduction or export of the industrial chemical must be approved by the Executive Director.
(1B) A person may apply to the Executive Director for the approval.
(13) Clause 166, page 134 (at the end of the table), add:
(14) Clause 167, page 136 (after line 4), after paragraph (1) (d), insert:
(da) subject to subsection (1B), not contain any information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(15) Clause 167, page 136 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) To avoid doubt:
(a) the rules may provide for applications to be made under the rules; and
(b) this section applies in relation to such applications.
(1B) The rules may provide that the restriction in paragraph (1) (da) does not apply in relation to particular information, if the inclusion of the information in the application is approved by the Executive Director.
(16) Clause 167, page 136 (line 13), after "this Act", insert "or the rules".
(17) Clause 169, page 140 (after table item 10), insert:
(18) Clause 169, page 140 (at the end of the table), add:
SHEET MP104—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2017
(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 20), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 4), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 12), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 16), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 6 (lines 18 and 19), omit "1September 2017", substitute "1September 2019".
(7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 6 (line 21), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(8) Schedule 2, item 3, page 6 (line 23), omit "1 September 2017", substitute "1 September 2019".
(9) Schedule 2, item 5, page 7 (line 8), omit "1July 2018", substitute "1July 2020".
(10) Schedule 2, item 5, page 7 (line 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(11) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 3), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(12) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(13) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(14) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 19), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(15) Schedule 2, item 7, page 8 (line 24), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(16) Schedule 2, item 8, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "on and after 1 July 2018, in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2017", substitute "on and after 1 July 2020, in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2019".
(17) Schedule 2, item 9, page 9 (lines 8 to 10), omit "1 July 2018, the person was registered under the old law in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2018", substitute 1 July 2020, the person was registered under the old law in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2020".
(18) Schedule 2, item 9, page 9 (lines 13 to 15), omit "1 July 2018, to be registered under the new law for the registration year beginning on 1 September 2018", substitute "1 July 2020, to be registered under the new law for the registration year beginning on 1 September 2020".
(19) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 29), omit "1 September 2018", substitute "1 September 2020".
(20) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 30), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(21) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (line 3), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(22) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 6), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(23) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 9), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(24) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 12), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(25) Schedule 2, item 13, page 12 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(26) Schedule 2, item 13, page 12 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(27) Schedule 2, item 17, page 12 (line 29), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(28) Schedule 2, item 17, page 13 (lines 1 and 2), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(29) Schedule 2, item 17, page 13 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(30) Schedule 2, item 18, page 13 (line 28), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(31) Schedule 2, item 18, page 13 (line 31), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(32) Schedule 2, item 19, page 14 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(33) Schedule 2, item 19, page 14 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(34) Schedule 2, item 19, page 14 (line 11), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(35) Schedule 2, item 21, page 15 (line 9), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(36) Schedule 2, item 21, page 15 (line 12), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(37) Schedule 2, item 26, page 16 (line 11), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(38) Schedule 2, item 26, page 16 (line 14), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(39) Schedule 2, item 26, page 16 (line 17), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(40) Schedule 2, item 28, page 17 (line 13), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(41) Schedule 2, item 28, page 17 (line 16), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(42) Schedule 2, item 33, page 18 (line 16), omit "1 September 2017", substitute "1 September 2019".
(43) Schedule 2, item 33, page 18 (line 25), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 July 2021".
(44) Schedule 2, item 33, page 18 (line 29), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(45) Schedule 2, item 34, page 19 (line 7), omit "1 September 2017", substitute "1 September 2019".
(46) Schedule 2, item 34, page 19 (line 15), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 July 2021".
(47) Schedule 2, item 34, page 19 (line 18), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(48) Schedule 2, item 35, page 20 (lines 3 and 4), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(49) Schedule 2, item 35, page 20 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(50) Schedule 2, item 37, page 21 (line 16), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(51) Schedule 2, item 37, page 21 (line 19), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(52) Schedule 2, item 39, page 23 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(53) Schedule 2, item 39, page 23 (line 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(54) Schedule 2, item 40, page 23 (line 19), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(55) Schedule 2, item 40, page 23 (line 23), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(56) Schedule 2, item 41, page 24 (line 18), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(57) Schedule 2, item 41, page 24 (line 21), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(58) Schedule 2, item 42, page 24 (line 30), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(59) Schedule 2, item 42, page 25 (line 1), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(60) Schedule 2, item 43, page 25 (line 25), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(61) Schedule 2, item 48, page 29 (line 8), omit "1July 2018", substitute "1July 2020".
(62) Schedule 2, item 48, page 29 (line 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(63) Schedule 2, item 48, page 29 (line 15), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(64) Schedule 2, item 50, page 30 (line 15), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 July 2022".
(65) Schedule 2, item 50, page 30 (line 19), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 July 2022".
SHEET EU130—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2017
(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 7 (lines 1 to 5), omit paragraph (1) (b), substitute:
(b) until that decision is made, a permit granted under subsection 30A(3) of the old law is taken to be an authorisation for the introduction of the industrial chemical for the purposes of paragraph 24(1) (b) of the new law so long as the introduction is in accordance with any conditions that are specified in the permit under subsection 30A(10) of the old law.
(2) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 23), omit "(other than paragraph (2) (e))".
(3) Schedule 2, item 18, page 13 (lines 22 to 27), omit paragraph (1) (a), substitute:
(a) the application is for a commercial evaluation permit relating to an industrial chemical under subsection 21B(1) of the old law; and
(4) Schedule 2, item 21, page 15 (lines 3 to 8), omit paragraph (1) (a), substitute:
(a) the application is for a low volume permit in respect of an industrial chemical under subsection 21R(1) of the old law; and
(5) Schedule 2, item 28, page 17 (lines 7 to 12), omit paragraph (1) (a), substitute:
(a) the application is for a controlled use permit in respect of an industrial chemical under subsection 22B(1) of the old law; and
SHEET EU127—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CHARGES (CUSTOMS) BILL 2017
(1) Clause 7, page 3 (line 24), after "registration year", insert "or a financial year".
Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests
Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:
Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation
53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.
The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.
Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.
Amendment (1)
The effect of this amendment is to permit the regulations to prescribe different charges or methods depending on the value of industrial chemicals introduced by a person during a financial year, rather than a registration year. It is covered by section 53 because the bill is a proposed law imposing taxation.
Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1)
This is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation and, therefore, any amendments to the bill must be moved as requests. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.
SHEET EU129—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CHARGES (GENERAL) BILL 2017
(1) Clause 7, page 3 (line 27), after "registration year", insert "or a financial year".
Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests
Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:
Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation
53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.
The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.
Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.
Amendment (1)
The effect of this amendment is to permit the regulations to prescribe different charges or methods depending on the value of industrial chemicals introduced by a person during a financial year, rather than a registration year. It is covered by section 53 because the bill is a proposed law imposing taxation.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1)
This is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation and, therefore, any amendments to the bill must be moved as requests. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.
SHEET EU128—INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CHARGES (EXCISE) BILL 2017
(1) Clause 7, page 3 (line 24), after "registration year", insert "or a financial year".
Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests
Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:
Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation
53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.
The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.
Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.
Amendment (1)
The effect of this amendment is to permit the regulations to prescribe different charges or methods depending on the value of industrial chemicals introduced by a person during a financial year, rather than a registration year. It is covered by section 53 because the bill is a proposed law imposing taxation.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1)
This is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation and, therefore, any amendments to the bill must be moved as requests. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.
Question agreed to.
I want to clarify that the following amendments were withdrawn earlier. I understand that the amendments moved by the Greens on sheet 8211 have been withdrawn. I understand that the amendments moved by the opposition on sheet 8196 revised have been withdrawn. I understand that the amendments on sheet 8201 revised 2, circulated by the Greens, Centre Alliance, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party and the opposition, have been withdrawn by agreement.
The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to and these bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiry into the Water Amendment (Purchase Limit Repeal) Bill 2019
Participating member: Senator Rice
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiry into the Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019
Participating member: Senator Rice.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
INCOME TAX (MANAGED INVESTMENT TRUST WITHHOLDING TAX) AMENDMENT BILL 2018
This Bill amends the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Act 2008 to ensure that fund payments that are attributable to non-concessional Managed Investment Trust income will be subject to managed investment trust withholding tax at the top corporate tax rate.
INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (SOVEREIGN ENTITIES) BILL 2018
This Bill amends the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to set the rate of tax payable in respect of the taxable income of a sovereign entity.
Unless another existing rate applies to the relevant taxable income or sovereign immunity applies, sovereign entities will pay tax in respect of their taxable income at a rate of 30 per cent.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 2 April 2019 at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting, so determined, shall be notified to each senator.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.
Today, tabled in this chamber was the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs dealing with its inquiry into the proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that came from the Labor Party and also the Greens. I rise to take note of the majority report of that committee, and in doing so I note and incorporate the coalition senators' dissenting report to the recent reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that was dealing with the same subject.
The bill and the Greens amendment cannot be supported. Of course, everyone in this chamber wants to see LGBTI people treated with fairness and respect. But the Labor and Greens contributions to this subject fail to balance the rights of LGBTI people with the competing rights of others in the community. The Labor bill and Greens amendment can be described as undermining human rights in the name of arbitrarily selected other human rights, including through the limitations they propose to place upon the ability of not only religious schools but all bodies established for religious purposes to teach their doctrines. Both the bill and the Greens amendment limit human rights in a way that is clearly not permissible in international law. It's my purpose to elaborate a little on that point in particular.
The primary protection of religious freedom in international law is contained in article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. International human rights law stipulates that strict conditions must be satisfied in order for the manifestation of the freedom of religion or belief to be limited. In this context, the ICCPR provides that the right to manifest religious belief may only be limited to the extent that it is necessary in order to protect the 'fundamental rights and freedoms of others' and any limitation must be proportionate. The bill and the Greens amendment both fail to comply with these requirements as they simply extinguish the right to religious freedom. For that reason alone, they cannot be supported.
Further, article 18(4) of the ICCPR provides:
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
This convention right protects the right to establish private religious schools. In interpreting the equivalent provision in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights has said this right:
… aims in short at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education, which possibility is essential for the preservation of the democratic society.
Furthermore, it said:
It is in the discharge of a natural duty towards their children—parents being primarily responsible for the "education and teaching" of their children—that parents may require the state to respect their religious and philosophical convictions.
Similarly, the European Commission of Human Rights has concluded that the principle of the freedom of individuals forming one of the cornerstones of the democratic society requires the existence of a possibility to run and attend private schools.
The bill and the Greens amendment each respectively appear to proceed from the same somewhat totalitarian presumption as that remonstrated against by the European Commission of Human Rights. Many of the submitters to this inquiry who represented faith based schools emphasised to the committee that their particular model of education requires the ongoing ability to define the religious character of their institution and the education they provide. They emphasised that limitations upon the ability of religious schools to teach and to ensure conformity of standards within the student body will detrimentally impact upon their ability to create an ethos consistent with their religious beliefs. It is clear that, under Labor's bill, there is no certainty that a religious body or a religious school would be able to teach its view on matters such as marriage without the risk of suffering a discrimination complaint. For these reasons, the bill and, similarly, the Greens amendment cannot be supported.
Adjunct Associate Professor Fowler of the University of Notre Dame has argued:
To fail to recognise the rights of faith-based institutions would strip the wider community of the unique voice of such bodies. It is no understatement to say that in the Western tradition associational freedom has been the single greatest preserve of the equality rights of the individual. It is precisely the freedom of individuals to aggregate around common concerns and elect leaders who are able to articulate their unique view to the majority that has given birth to the fundamental freedoms we enjoy today. Individual equality is best preserved by a plurality of institutions, whose capacity to advocate for the fundamental rights of their members enjoys strong protection at law. In modern Australia it is the practical, granular terms and scope of the exemptions in anti-discrimination law that determine whether these foundational freedoms are maintained.
The withdrawal of such foundational societal freedoms is not a proportionate means to progress the equality right. Rather, the bill and the Greens' amendment seriously breach the equality rights of religious believers. In light of these considerations, both the bill and the Greens' amendment fail to acquit Australia's obligations under the international human rights law that Australia has ratified. Any reform will need to give detailed consideration to these complicated matters and will need to ensure that faith based schools are able to continue to teach in accordance with their religious convictions.
These matters were set out at length in the dissenting coalition senators' report to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report on the Australian Greens' Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018. That analysis remains equally applicable to Labor's bill. For these reasons, I'm of the view that this matter should be addressed as part of the government's holistic response to the Ruddock review so that the rights of LGBTI people are protected in a way that fairly balances that right with the competing rights of others and fosters a society in which the human rights of all people are encouraged to co-exist.
I don't know, but I don't think this is going be my last speech, as we always say in this chamber. We know it's not my first speech—you go ahead and make a speech. In this case, I'm not sure if this is going to be my last speech. If it is, I can think of no topic I would rather speak on in this place than the Sustainable Development Goals. This afternoon the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade reported on the recent inquiry that we had on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This inquiry was held over several months. We had over 150 submissions from the community, from individuals, to our Senate committee, because they cared about the Sustainable Development Goals, they knew what the Sustainable Development Goals were and they had hope that into the future our nation would take a strong, coordinated, effective response to these goals as part of the 2015 commitment of over 190 nations at the United Nations to implement these goals.
I've spoken a number of times in this place about why I believe this is an effective framework for policy change across the globe and why it is an exceptional opportunity for people everywhere to genuinely look at that marvellous motto which is the basis of the SDGs: 'leave no-one behind'. If we could agree to look at a strategy to ensure that that particular focus is maintained across not just Australia but across the world, what a world we would have.
The Sustainable Development Goals are based around five key principles: people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership. This focuses our mind on what we believe would be a sustainable future for our world so that we will be able to work together into the future looking after the people in the world—our planet. Sustainability is very often associated particularly with the issues around environment. That is important, but it's not the only concept—it's sustainable society, sustainable community, sustainable people. We also have the issue of looking at genuine prosperity. If we look at leaving no-one behind, we must ensure that every individual and every family, no matter where they live on this planet, will have access to opportunities so they have an effective future and have hope and optimism into an agreed future. That could only happen if there is an agreement about identifying what it will take across our world to achieve peace.
Most importantly, this agenda looks at developing genuine partnerships so that people will accept no-one can do this alone. If there is a commitment, it must be shared and there must be genuine partnerships. In that vein, our committee met in a number of capital cities, read the submissions and had a number of discussions with key public sector agencies. The way the Australian government has introduced the Sustainable Development Goal response is to focus through the government agencies, creating interdepartmental committees to discuss best practice to develop processes to implement the SDG agenda.
Our committee, after listening to the evidence, felt that there was a need to do more. The people who came to see us put the challenge out there in the work they had done, in the commitment they had made for many years before 2015. This didn't just appear on the agenda; the SDG agenda came out of years of engagement across the globe, looking at how we could best commit to ending the poverty that was put across our world in many areas. People were not having fairness and equality. The Millennium Development Goal agenda led through this, looking at trying to reduce the level of poverty in our world. The next step was developing the SDGs, and our government was active for many years in developing this 2030 Sustainable Development Goal agenda.
The government is in no way ignorant of what the intent would be, and the process was going to focus around an interdepartmental coordinated action looking at what was going to happen. We heard evidence from the departments about how they were operating but, more so, we heard evidence from people across the community who felt that this did not go far enough, that there was still massive ignorance in our nation about exactly what the agenda was. There was a feeling that it impacted on other people; it wasn't something that was for real knowledge or for real action that had to happen.
Amongst the 18 recommendations was that there needed to be clear consideration within the Australian government that there must be a strategy and a plan that is public to which people can refer, where we can talk to each other about what, in fact, we are expected to do to reach this plan that will ensure that we have a focus on people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership.
There is opportunity for change; there's opportunity for action. I really hope that people will take the opportunity to read this report to get a snapshot about what's happening in Australia at the moment as part of our progress to achieve real change and ensure that we actually address the issues of poverty and disadvantage. So many organisations and people took the opportunity to come and see us to talk about how they felt it could operate.
Australia has done its first voluntary review on the progress in Australia of the Sustainable Development Goals, which was handed down last year in Geneva. Did anybody here in this Senate know that even happened? This was a major commitment, a statement by Australia, to the world about what we were doing with the Sustainable Development Goals. There were two mentions on government websites about the fact that our voluntary national review had been handed down. That worries me immensely. If we as a nation have made a commitment, we need to talk about our commitment. We need to engage with the community to ensure what is available, what can happen, and how people can be involved in the process. It is very, very difficult to find mention of the Sustainable Development Goals in a regular way in any government publication, on websites or in the curriculum in schools. There was a particular recommendation to look at engaging our education system in the SDGs because one of the truly hopeful elements we discovered, not only in this inquiry but generally, was that if you work with young people, they get it. They want to be involved in the discussion, they want to know what is the future for their world and they want to be part of taking an active role.
In a previous time here I talked about the work which the Forrest Primary School down the road did in their school program about how the Sustainable Development Goals impacted on them and how they made it real for their community and their families. And that is what gives me hope: the fact that there are pockets of knowledge, commitment and passion that we can tap to actually form an effective partnership so we can take real action.
So the report has been handed down. I really hope that people across the community will take the chance to look at it to see for themselves how they are living now and whether they can be part of the change into the future. I really commend the recommendations to the government. It's not meant as a criticism. It is not meant as anything more than a challenge reflecting the evidence that we got in our committee—evidence from people who do care and who know about these processes.
I want to end with a quote that was made by an 11-year-old. Miles said to us:
The SDGs are hope. They are a shining beacon for a world with more equality, less poverty and a healthier environment.
The SDGs have made us realise we are not helpless.
I rise to speak on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 and the chair's majority report, which found that the bill and all amendments should not be passed. Over 9,000 submissions were received, predominantly against the bill, and this is the second time in recent months that alleged gender discrimination has been considered by the Senate. What continues to be clear is that this is a very complex area of the law.
The issue arose from the leak of a recommendation of the Ruddock review without the reasoning behind it. Those opposite have sought to cast this bill as one aimed at ensuring gay students are not discriminated against and expelled from schools and have built the bill on this furphy. Overwhelming evidence has been provided in both inquiries that religious schools are not expelling gay students.
The Sex Discrimination Act was enacted in 1984. The exemptions to religious bodies and religious educational institutions have been in place for many years. There has been no public outcry. There was no legal challenge to their validity. Indeed, as the evidence has shown, they have provided a very important framework within which religious schools have operated to manage issues and ensure that gay students have been appropriately and pastorally taken care of.
This bill goes way beyond the non-issue of alleged expulsion of gay students. It seeks to impose a stringent legal framework which will affect millions of people, to purportedly solve a problem that is non-existent. The bill completely removes the ability of religious educational institutions to maintain their ethos through what they teach and through the rules of conduct they impose on their students. The direct result will be that such teachings and rules of conduct will now expose religious schools to litigation under the SDA.
As indicated by Ms Eastman from the Law Council of Australia, the operation of the exemptions are technical and complex and involve the interaction of various provisions, including sections 21, 37 and 38. The extensive evidence presented to the inquiry highlighted the myriad issues raised by the bill and the proposed amendments. It reinforced the complexities that the Ruddock review was faced with and that any reform in this area needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. There was substantial evidence from across the broad religious spectrum, opposing the bill on the basis that it represented an unacceptable incursion on religious freedom and that it would introduce uncertainty into the SDA that in turn would lead to much broader, unintended consequences which would create unnecessary conflict and ambiguity in school communities.
The effect of the proposed subsection 37(3) is much broader than intended. As drafted, it would limit the general exemption in paragraph 37(1)(d) for all bodies established for religious purposes, not just for religious educational institutions. In practice, this would restrict the ability for intrinsically religious bodies, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, monasteries, prayer centres, theological colleges and seminaries, if they were engaged in educational activities, to provide education in accordance with their religious beliefs or ethos. This was exemplified by Pastor Worker from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who stated that the unintended consequences included employment and retention of staff, without which religious schools would no longer reflect the religious purpose for which they were established to espouse, and, in turn, the existence of religious schools would be at risk.
Another unintended consequence is the potential negative impact on the broader work of local churches and community service initiatives of churches, including classes and groups operated to communicate Bible teachings, principles and values of the church. This raises the spectre of the state directing churches in their practice of beliefs, doctrines and tenets of faith. It was observed by the Law Council that the proposed new section was too broadly worded and brought into play the need for clarity around the term 'body established for religious purposes', given that a range of educational activities, for example, Bible study, relationship counselling, welfare and youth work, may, in turn, be run by religious bodies. The meaning of 'body established for religious purposes' would almost certainly have to be tested and defined by the courts.
We are supposed to protect freedom of religion, not expose religion to activist litigation and, therefore, any law that this Senate passes should be clear and unambiguous in its intent. The government amendments sought to address these concerns, but they, in turn, created their own uncertainties, and the prospect of adding further factors to the test of reasonableness would have added unnecessary complexity. Accordingly, we accepted the views of many submitters that the intersection of various human rights raised significant and complex matters that needed to be properly investigated to result in a balanced and reasonable solution, and we concluded that referral of the matter to the Australian Law Reform Commission was necessary. In short, prohibiting discrimination should not occur at the expense of the ability of religious educational institutions to maintain their ethos through what they teach and the rules of conduct that they impose.
Religious freedom is a vital aspect of our society, and religious communities should feel respected and protected. Indeed, over the summer break I spent long hours briefing and discussing issues with key religious leaders across the religious spectrum. Faith based schools have a unique and important role to play in our system, and it is important that they are maintained and their ability to teach according to their ethos is maintained free of the threat of legal liability.
I welcome the release of the report Religious Freedom Review. It was long overdue. I was especially pleased that finally there was recognition of a standalone need for the fundamental right of religious freedom to be recognised, a right that is recognised under international law. As I indicated at the time of the same-sex marriage debate, all of these issues should have been considered then. Many people voted for the same-sex marriage survey on the understanding that religious freedom would be protected. This is a freedom recognised by international law. It will require constitutional considerations and changes to state and federal legislation, and, therefore, referral of these to the ALRC is really important. Indeed, a passage of comprehensive reforms to include standalone religious freedom legislation will overtake the need for this bill and, indeed, the government's own exposure draft.
This is a complicated and difficult issue, where we see competing rights needing to be balanced. I put to most submitters the following from the Ruddock review:
Importantly, there is no hierarchy of rights: one right does not take precedence over another. Rights, in this sense, are indivisible … Australia does not get to choose, for example, between protecting religious freedom and providing for equality before the law. It must do both under its international obligations.
Can I also reflect on the Attorney-General's Department's submission. It states that under international human rights law, limitations may be imposed where it is reasonable to do so. This brings into question our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 18(3) provides that the right to manifest religious belief may only be limited to the extent that it is necessary in order 'to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights or freedoms of others'. Arguably the standard of 'reasonable' and 'necessary' do not equate. This is a complex issue that also needs to be considered. This is why the Ruddock review recommended that governments across Australia should have regard to the Siracusa principles when drafting laws. These principles outline the operation of the necessary limitation.
Article 18 also enshrines the right of parents 'to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions'. Australia needs to decide whether we are going to respect this right, whether we respect international human rights law, and whether we truly are going to have a diverse society. If we do take the alternative path, we will be instead enshrining a single state-sanctioned teaching on sexuality and morality. These are not questions of conscience but of recognition of human rights, and they should be legislated accordingly.
I'm leaving the Senate because I seek to represent the Liberal Democrats for many years to come in the New South Wales parliament. In this, my very final speech in the Senate, I want to remind listeners that whilst our excessive government continues to do great harm, Australians still have much to celebrate. Let me outline some examples.
The government's ban on low-paid work, euphemistically called the minimum wage, is a disgrace and means that unemployment is higher than it should be. Despite this, we should celebrate that most of us can work in jobs that are somewhat rewarding, and that this happens because we have a largely free-market capitalist economy built on trust.
It is a disgrace when fat cats can rip off their workers and evade justice by skipping the country, using elaborate corporate trickery or benefitting from bureaucracies that are too lazy to do their job and prosecute the bad guys. Despite this, we should celebrate that most of Australia's poor don't find themselves poor for long, because work and education are available and rewarding. And we should celebrate that most of Australia's rich are rich because they've done something good. If we pulled down some of the regulatory walls that prevent new businesses competing with the businesses of the fat cats, we'd have even more social mobility between the rich and the poor. A lower company tax rate would help, too, by making it clear to foreign investors and multinationals that Australia is open for business and Australians are ready for more jobs. Multinationals are not charities; they don't need to do business in Australia, and they won't if those with more hate for multinationals than sense have any sway on our government.
It's an absolute disgrace that billions of taxpayers' funds have been wasted on increased salaries for teachers and principals while they have been producing worse and worse results. Despite this, we should recognise that the trickle of taxpayer funding that makes its way to non-government schools provides middle- and low-income parents with some semblance of a choice. Within reach is a future where taxpayer funding depends on the degree of disadvantage of the child rather than whether the school happens to be owned by the government.
It's a disgrace that a disproportionate number of both perpetrators and victims of crime in Australia are Indigenous Australians, and a disproportionate number of disadvantaged Australians are Indigenous Australians. Yet we continue to ignore the history of communism by persisting with forced collective ownership of Aboriginal land with no option for individuals to separate their share as personal freehold title if they wish. It is maddening that some people think that the solution for disadvantaged communities is the continuation of taxpayer funded government programs with more direction from the disadvantaged communities, as if the unemployed are experts at designing employment policy and the sick are experts at designing health care policy. But there is a glimmer of hope when Indigenous Australians vote with their feet and leave dysfunctional government-run communities. There is hope when more and more Indigenous Australians partner with business, rather than government, to lead themselves and their families to a better life.
Australia has a lot of work to do, and our current crop of politicians aren't helping much in this regard. But there is no denying that Australians have a lot to celebrate. The Liberal Democrats recognise this, as we strive to be a growing force in Australian politics to do the work that needs to be done to make Australia even better.
I rise tonight to speak on the jobactive program. A report was tabled earlier this afternoon on the jobactive program. There were so many reports tabled today that unfortunately there were many that we didn't get to talk about. The report outlines the fundamental failures of the jobactive system in its work to support unemployed workers. I referred this matter to a Senate inquiry and I'm very pleased that the Senate supported the referral—particularly the Labor Party, who also expressed very strong support for the inquiry. I referred this matter because this issue has been raised with me so many times. There are so many times I have heard from people—both in direct conversations and with people emailing me about their concerns—the problems they've had with the jobactive system.
The evidence to the committee highlights the failures of the program. It is basically not fit for purpose and it has some fundamental flaws at its heart. For a start, this government takes an ideological approach to unemployment by basically framing it as a personal failure by the individuals. The government uses the income support system to effectively punish people who, unfortunately, can't find work. This approach doesn't address the systemic issues of employment: the lack of employment itself; underemployment; issues such as poverty and intergenerational trauma; and, as I said, job market conditions. With little oversight the government has outsourced what we consider are its responsibilities to private contractors, many of whom are making millions of dollars to implement what is effectively a punitive approach that ultimately punishes people who are trying to survive on income support.
The inquiry showed that jobactive is a blunt instrument, one that takes a one-size-fits-all approach to people who each might have specific issues they need to address. There may be training they need to access. They may be living in poverty. In fact, lots are because they are trying to survive on the very low rate of Newstart, and it is causing people harm. That can be demonstrated. If you go to chapter 2 of the report, it is the evidence from people themselves—not everybody's evidence, because the report would be huge—but we've picked out some key examples of how the program isn't working for people.
The system is based on mutual obligation and a harsh compliance framework, and that is definitely hurting people. We know from research both here and overseas that mutual obligations are consistently ineffective in helping people into work. Recent studies from the UK, which were reported on at the ACOSS conference late last year, found that welfare conditionality increased poverty and destitution and exacerbated poor health. In fact that reflects the evidence that we heard during the inquiry, where people talked about the impact of the system on their mental health. For those that already had poor mental health, it made it worse. People talked about feeling isolated, humiliated and depressed. They talked about loss of dignity. The evidence confirmed this.
We also heard how people had been cut off from income support payments because of the many barriers they faced. Sometimes they could not make an appointment because they literally could not afford the transport to get to their job service provider
We also heard how the system is hurting newly arrived humanitarian refugees and migrants, who are in fact missing their absolutely essential English language lessons, because they're not being adequately counted as activities, to attend jobactive appointments. These are perverse outcomes. Mutual obligations are leaving people feeling little hope for the future. When somebody has been out there looking for work and is now being penalised with demerit points under the new targeted compliance framework, it is demoralising. People talked about humiliation.
We also heard how, because of the changes that have been made through the welfare reform process, the reasonable excuse for people suffering from drug or alcohol addiction has been taken away and they're forced into activities, which is having a real impact on their treatment. We got very strong evidence in Western Australia about the impact it is having. Because of changes to the system, counsellors have to spend up to 30 per cent of their time, when they should be helping people with their treatment, dealing with jobactive providers.
The targeted compliance framework is hurting people. It is flawed and it needs to be abolished. Newstart needs to be increased, we need to rethink the issues around mutual obligation, and jobactive needs to fundamentally be reformed.
Senate adjourned at 21:01