I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I call Senator Faruqi.
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2010, as circulated in the chamber.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Faruqi moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020.
All that the Greens are seeking here is for the paid pandemic leave bill to have an hour and a half of debate this morning. This is an hour and a half of our time which can, hopefully, provide livelihoods to workers who are really suffering, and it can help us save lives. Just yesterday, we passed a bill to extend the JobKeeper package, but even that extension was given with workers getting less money to survive during this pandemic. So many people are still left out of the JobKeeper package—casual workers, university workers, childcare workers and temporary visa holders.
We need to make sure that every single person and worker in Australia at this point in time has at least 14 days of paid pandemic leave so they are not forced to choose between their health, the health of their families, the health of their community and their livelihoods. We don't have to wait for a disaster to happen; we can do that right now. We can have better public health in our country and we can better support our workers as well. We know that the Premier of South Australia has asked the Prime Minister to make this happen. We know that the Premier of New South Wales has asked the Prime Minister to make this happen. We know that we are on a cliff, and it is our responsibility to make sure that no-one falls off that cliff.
We know that the virus is going to be here for a while. We're not yet sure when a vaccine will be developed. There is uncertainty around what's going to happen now, but it is in our power to provide at least some certainty to workers that we will care for them and look after them. That's why this bill that I am requesting the Senate agree to debate and pass through this house will provide 14 days of paid COVID-19 leave to all workers, even those that have been left out of the JobKeeper package. It will make sure that permanent part-time, casual and gig economy workers will have that leave to look after themselves, look after the community, put food on the table and have a roof over their heads. It is absolutely urgent that we do this now, because people are suffering right at this point in time. We can't go away this week and come back after a month and then start considering this.
What this bill will do—and that's why it is so important that we debate it now—is actually provide an employee with 14 days leave who is unable to attend work because the employees' workplace has been shut down; it will provide 14 days leave to an employee who is subject to self-isolation or quarantine measures in accordance with Commonwealth guidelines; and it will provide an employee with leave if the employee is caring for another person who's been diagnosed with COVID-19.
This bill is a vital piece of legislation that we actually need to debate today. I'm hoping that senators here will support the bill, because it will protect workers and it will protect our community. There are 3.3 million workers around Australia at this point in time who cannot access paid sick leave. At the end of the day, this bill is about fairness. This bill is about making sure that every single worker—whether they are casual, part time or on a temporary visa and no matter where they work—is able to access 14 days of pandemic leave. All we are requesting is an hour and a half of the Senate's time—an hour and a half to save livelihoods and save lives.
I think all senators know the framework for the program for the week. There's a time to deal with private senators' business—that is, Monday morning. If Senator Faruqi wanted to pursue this with urgency, she would have known about this on Monday and she could have made appropriate arrangements at that time. She waited until Wednesday, which says to me it wasn't quite as urgent as she's now trying to suggest. This is an attempt to disrupt the orderly operation of the Senate.
At the best of times, there is not actually that much government business time. This is an attempt to interfere with the time for government business. There is business of the Senate to be progressed, and indeed we've got an important set of bills on our agenda this morning. We will not be supporting this suspension. There are ways and means available to Senator Faruqi and other senators in the chamber to progress the matters that she has raised substantively, and we would strongly encourage her and others who support the substantive proposal that she's put forward to pursue those other opportunities in the appropriate fashion.
Australia is going through a pretty difficult period, and this is not the time to play procedural games. This is a time to get the job done that the Australian people have elected us to do, and part of getting the job done is to progress the items of government business at the time that the Senate, by consensus, has scheduled for government business to be dealt with.
Let's be very clear: Senator Faruqi is not bringing this on now because there is some sort of urgency to deal with it now. If it was a matter of urgency she would've dealt with it on Monday. Senator Faruqi is bringing this up now to disrupt the agenda of the government during government business time this morning. That is not something that we can support or facilitate, and we won't. I will not take my full five minutes so that the Senate can get back to its business, as scheduled on the agenda, at the earliest opportunity.
I have to say, since the country's going through such a difficult time at the moment and it's so difficult, we're sitting here on a Wednesday morning before we finish for, I think, nearly eight weeks and we're talking about electoral legislation. That's the first item on the agenda this morning, Australians!
An honourable senator: The money-laundering bill!
The money-laundering bill—that's the one. How about that? Because we are going through such an economic crisis, these guys here, the major parties, have made a dirty, filthy little deal to talk about electoral matters. That's where we're at this morning. Don't worry about these people. Don't worry that we have no vaccine. Nobody's got any vision from your side that this could be going on for the next few years—that these people may need pandemic leave—and what are you going to do? Just leave them without money, are you? How's that going to keep the economy going around?
You want to talk about what's important to this country—and, by the way, this was never on the agenda—and you're in here chucking this right at the crossbench's face this morning. Because this is so important, it was chucked on late last night to tell us that we're going to talk about electoral matters here this morning. We're going to talk all about cash and about winning seats instead of the health of Australians in this country. That's where we're at this morning. That's apparently what's more important than anything else. It's not about you guys, your house loans or if you get pandemic leave, while these guys are saying, 'Open all the borders,' and waiting for a catastrophe to happen and then wondering how we're going to keep Australians going for two weeks; wondering how, if they're on pandemic leave or they're on leave with nothing to cover that, they're going to feed their kids; and wondering how they're going to pay their house payments. That's what we're doing this morning, because apparently that's the most important thing. Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves this morning. This is just rubbish.
My office has looked at this this morning, and already we're finding holes in it. You're not talking about the loans, how they're not going to be transparent and how this is not going to be how you're going to get a loan like the Labor Party did last time with $30 million—that apparently you can pay these loans back, but they're not a political donation even though you're using that $30 million to win political seats. My God, that's where we're at. You have had an inquiry. You've been sitting there saying, 'This is great,' and you've got a girl from Tasmania who hasn't got a university degree, and I'm already, in 10 minutes this morning, finding holes in this bill. That's where we're at. So bring on the debate.
Labor will be supporting the suspension today to bring on a universal paid pandemic leave bill—the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020—for debate. We shouldn't be in this position where we're having to move a suspension for a private senator's bill. This should have been a scheme that was brought in by the government. It should have been brought in months ago. I think the point that the Greens senators are making here is that this is the last couple of days we sit before the budget. There's another month to go, and we haven't been able to get the government to bring in a paid pandemic leave scheme. I think it's one of the real weaknesses in our response to COVID-19. I think the more and more we learn about this virus, the more and more we understand the need for people, if they are feeling unwell, to be able to stay at home and isolate, pending tests.
What we also know is that, for many people, staying at home is not a choice that they are able to make, because they have to make a choice between income, putting food on the table, looking after their kids and paying their bills or not doing those things. If there's no sick leave or other entitlements for them—and let's remember, there are 3.7 million workers in this country that don't have access to leave entitlements—that's the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed through a paid pandemic leave scheme that operates across the country.
People who represent workers—the unions—were calling for this back at the beginning of the pandemic, because they realised that, with the nature of insecure work in this country, we had millions of workers without access to leave entitlements who, when it came to the crunch, would be forced to go to work so that they would be able to earn an income, and they would not be in a position to make that choice of working from home or keeping away if they were unwell. This was a real gap in the response. I think we've seen it play out. We've certainly seen it play out in aged care.
One of the biggest issues of the outbreak in Victoria has been the casualised workforce working across multiple sites when they are unwell, and the COVID-19 infection spread across sites because they didn't have access to leave entitlements which would have allowed them to stay at home. The Commonwealth has acted in relation to aged-care workers in Victoria. The state government has responded, with a payment arrangement to be put in place. But it's not universal, it doesn't happen across the country and it's not in place early enough. It has, again, been a reactionary measure from this government to deal with a problem once the problem arises, and for the workers that have become unwell, for the outbreaks that have spread, that's been too late.
So we do support this suspension. We think 1½ hours to debate is reasonable. We actually think it should be a government bill. They're in charge. They're the ones that are getting all the information. They should be taking the lead on this, and they should be providing nationally consistent arrangements, because, as we understand it, without a vaccine the situation for many casualised workers, for those who don't have permanent employment—contractors, freelancers, sole traders, gig workers and all those sorts of people—is that they are going to face this pressure until a vaccine is here, and that could be some time. So I think the suspension by the Greens should be supported. It is sensible. We need to take action on paid pandemic leave.
The bill that the Greens have moved isn't exactly as Labor would have done it. There are some areas that we would do differently. But we welcome the debate on the issue itself, because what it's highlighting is a significant gap in the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic—a gap that is easily addressed and would allow those workers who aren't in the fortunate position that people like us are in to make those choices in the interests of the community, as opposed to having to make choices for themselves and their families. It becomes a choice between earning an income or not earning an income. And not earning an income has significant consequences for families. There's a sensible way to deal with it. The unions have been arguing for it for months. Any casual worker will tell you that this is a real problem for them. If we're going to be serious about stopping the spread, managing the outbreaks and opening up the economy then this has to be an ingredient to support that recovery. (Time expired)
The Greens are doing the job that the government should have done. Instead of agreeing with us and realising they are leaving people behind, they are choosing to label this an excuse to disrupt the Senate. No, it's not. It's the Greens, with the opposition and the crossbenchers, trying to do what the government have failed to do—that is, to protect all workers in this country and to stop the spread of COVID, because sick workers are having to go to work because they have no income.
But the government would rather spend their time rushing through a bill to trash our environment laws, because that is what they are trying to do. They would rather rush through a bill to trash our education system, to trash our universities and to make life so much harder for young people in this country. They don't want to refer either of those bills to a committee—oh, no. Why would you do that? No, they want to rush those through. But when it comes to actually protecting our community, to making sure that no-one is left behind, the Greens get accused of disrupting the Senate. No, we're not. We're not disrupting the Senate. We're doing the government's job for them to ensure that people are not left behind and to ensure that we don't get situations where sick workers have to go to work because, for example, they may have used up all their sick leave. But they should not have to, in fact, use up all their sick leave in order to take time off work. They should know that they have the security of pandemic leave, because that is what we're dealing with in this country: we're dealing with a pandemic. We need leave to make sure all workers are protected, particularly those casual workers whom the government have so clearly left behind. They don't get access to JobKeeper. Those on temporary visas don't get access to JobKeeper. The government are quite happy to leave those people behind, while saying, 'We're all in this together.' No, we're not. Those who don't get access to leave aren't all in this together; they are being left behind by the government.
This bill would provide 14 days of paid COVID-19 leave to all workers, including part-time, casual and gig economy workers. They would get this if they were diagnosed with COVID-19, if they were unable to attend work because their workplace had been shut down due to COVID-19, if they needed to self-isolate or quarantine in accordance with a Commonwealth, state or territory government policy relating to COVID-19, if they were caring for another person who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or if they needed to self-isolate or quarantine in accordance with a direction from a state or Commonwealth government. Paid pandemic leave would be added to the National Employment Standards, and the Fair Work Commission would have the power to make COVID-19 leave orders to extend 14 days paid leave to workers or classes of workers who may not be employees, such as food delivery drivers. That makes absolute sense. The government should be doing this.
The Greens shouldn't have to be seeking to move to suspend standing orders in order to bring this debate on. We are being very reasonable. We're asking for an hour and a half to deal with this. And, given the need for this, given the urgency of this—because all Australians know we are not out of this pandemic yet—we need to act to protect everybody. This would not only ensure that workers are looked after, it would also protect the broader community. Having sick workers go to work does not help anybody; in fact, it could help spread COVID-19.
This is a complete flaw in the government's approach to COVID-19. It's a whacking great hole in their approach. How can you think of moving to recovery, moving out of this and lifting restrictions by Christmas as the Prime Minister is now saying? Well, unless we're looking after all our workers, we're not going to get there. This is part of our response to the pandemic; it's about ensuring that people are not left behind. I tell you what, this government is leaving people behind. This is essential legislation that the government should have moved. We're doing their job for them.
I rise to support the Greens motion and note the contribution from the previous speakers. I don't think there's any greater issue that this country faces at the moment than confronting the coronavirus and the response to the pandemic that we now find ourselves in. It's almost as if we're living in a parallel universe: on the one hand, we're in here discussing other bits of legislation which may or may not be of interest to the community, and, on the other hand, the Greens and Labor maintain that the most important issue that this country now faces is dealing with the issue of pandemic leave.
We have seen the response of the government to the aged-care crisis that's currently going on in Victorian aged-care homes and in Victorian hospitals. What was one of the triggers for that development in Victoria? One of the triggers was that employees were going from aged-care facility to aged-care facility. Why did they do that? Well, the people in this industry tend to be relatively low paid. In order to maintain an income, because of the casual nature of the employment, they have continued to work, in circumstances where obviously what they should have been doing was staying at home and recovering from this terrible virus. But instead, in order to feed their families, to pay their bills, they have been going to work.
Of all the issues that we could confront here this week and over this two-week period, I don't think there's a more important issue than the ones that the Greens have put on the table today. We—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Order.
No, this is the second time this week I've supported the Greens. I'm supporting them because they're absolutely right. The Greens are absolutely right on this issue.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
There is no greater issue—
Government senators interjecting—
Order on my right!
There is no greater issue that this country confronts. Anybody who has a family member in Victoria knows the risks that are going on in that state. Lots of frontline workers are out there. One example that I'm familiar with are the retail workers. They have continued to work throughout this whole period if they work in supermarkets. People have obviously continued to need to eat. These workers have been frontline workers. What happens when their sick leave runs out? They have to make a choice for their families: 'Do I go do work and risk infecting other people if I've got the virus, or do I stay home and have no money to feed myself?' It's a pretty simple proposition, and until this government understands why this crisis—the total collapse in the aged-care industry—has occurred in Victoria under their watch I don't think we're going to get a solution to this problem.
The more we can do to assist those workers who've got to make that choice—and it's not an easy choice. We know people have been making the wrong decisions. Why have they been making the wrong decisions? They haven't got paid pandemic leave. Fourteen days is a good period, because by and large, hopefully, you're over and done with the virus. You can get a test. It's what I am going to have to do that when I go back to Adelaide on Friday to make sure I haven't caught the virus up here. Those people can have the opportunity to go and do their test, recover and then come back to work. The small price of paid pandemic leave is miniscule compared to the damage that is being done to this economy by these lockdowns. It's a small price to pay both to help the individuals themselves who have obviously run out of sick leave and to help the country get back and overcome the economic carnage that has occurred. So I support very much the debate this morning on this bill.
One of the things that this pandemic has done is expose some very significant pre-existing fault lines in our economy and our society. Too many Australians have found themselves on the wrong side of these fault lines. One of those fault lines is casual and insecure work, where people who may be feeling sick or displaying symptoms of COVID are placed in the most invidious of positions. They are placed in a position where on one hand they want to stay home and do the right thing by themselves and by our community, minimising the risk of transmission. On the other hand they know that, if they stay home, they won't get paid. They won't be able to pay their rent. They won't be able to put food on the table for their families. They won't be able to do all those things that we all take for granted in here but for many Australians are a matter of day-to-day decisions—and the most difficult of decisions at that.
We know, particularly from the Victorian experience, that insecure work is driving a health crisis in this country, because so many millions of Australians have no paid sick leave and they lose income, as I said, if they don't go do work. We know the dangers posed by workplace transmission of COVID. We know that workplace transmission in Victoria was the most significant driver of the second wave of infections, which is still seeing lockdowns and constraints on people's lives, quite rightly but with great added difficulty, in Victoria.
When we introduced this bill in May, our leader, Adam Bandt, wrote to Scott Morrison, asking for cooperation to find time in parliament to pass this critical legislation, which protects workers, protects the wellbeing of our community and protects our economy. And what the government is saying today when it stands up through its leader in the Senate, Senator Cormann, and says that it is not prepared to cooperate, to provide the Senate time to debate and, hopefully, pass this legislation, is that the government has other priorities.
Well, let's look at the government's other priorities. Let's look at what the government wants to do instead of debating this bill today. The first cab off the rank is a piece of legislation that is a stitch-up between the major parties and will effectively allow them to launder political donations. It is nothing more than a money-laundering bill for the benefit of the major parties in this country. That is what the government wants to prioritise, instead of addressing a massive issue, a massive fault line in our country, which is that we have allowed so many millions of Australians to face the harsh, day-to-day realities of casual and insecure work and how that is now driving a significant health crisis in our country.
We in here are all, quite rightly, judged on our priorities by the Australian people, and I invite the Australian people to make a judgement on the priorities that are being displayed by all of us in this place today. On the one hand you have the Greens, with the support of Labor and many of the crossbench, wanting to have a debate about a bill which will provide 14 days paid COVID-19 leave to all workers if they've been diagnosed with COVID, if they are unable to attend work because their workplace has been shut down by COVID, if they need to self-isolate or quarantine in accordance with a Commonwealth, state or territory government policy relating to COVID or if they are caring for a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19. On the other hand you have a government that wants to prioritise the laundering of political donations. I invite people to make their judgement, and I know full well where the Australian people will land on this: they will land on the side of those of us who are trying to stick up for people who are so affected by—
Order, Senator McKim. Time for the debate has expired, I believe. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
I seek to make a contribution to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. This bill seeks to make a number of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. Many of the amendments contained in the bill are technical ones that were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its review of the 2016 federal election. These recommendations flowed from submissions by the independent regulator, the Australian Electoral Commission. However, the amendments which have garnered the most attention are the amendments to sections 302CA and 314B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I want to make Labor's position clear upfront: Labor supports the technical amendments and supports the intention of the amendments to sections 302CA and 314B to clarify the Commonwealth's power to make laws with respect to Commonwealth elections. Labor will therefore be supporting the bill provided some important amendments are made, which I will expand on shortly.
The bill's proposed amendments to section 302CA arise out of the High Court's decision in the case of Spence v Queensland [2019] HCA 15, where the court found section 302CA to be wholly invalid. Section 302CA provided that, despite any state or territory law, a donation could be made to a federally registered party if the donation was 'required to be, or may be,' used for federal purposes. This provision allowed gifts which were not permitted at a state level to be made to a party as long as the gift was used, or might be used, for federal purposes. The amendments to section 302CA seek to rectify errors in the drafting of the original clause and bring it within the Commonwealth's power. Under the amendment, it is not good enough that a donation might be used for a federal election. The donations must be expressly offered, sought, given, accepted and used for federal purposes. If they are not then the relevant state law will apply.
The bill also seeks to amend section 314B. The amendment should mean that donations which are above the state threshold for disclosure but below the federal threshold, which is currently $14,300, will not need to be disclosed to the state electoral commission if they are expressly given and used for federal purpose.
Labor's taken time to consider the implications of the bill and the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, including those in Labor's dissenting report. As many of the submissions to JSCEM noted, the Commonwealth laws on political donations lag behind those of the states. It's not Labor's intention in any way to weaken any of those provisions already in place in the states, but the Commonwealth parliament should be able to make laws with respect to Commonwealth elections, and those laws should not be overridden by the states. These amendments do not try to control the laws that state governments make in relation to state elections. They simply confirm the Commonwealth parliament has the legislative responsibility for making laws in relation to Commonwealth elections.
Labor is of the view that we should have a uniform federal system that treats federal parties and candidates equally no matter which state or territory they are based in. All federal parties and candidates should be playing by the same rules—those contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, not in eight different state and territory electoral acts. I think we can all agree that we do not want to go down the path of the United States, where the laws of the 50 states govern presidential elections. Imagine if an Australian state didn't allow postal voting in a federal election, for instance.
We must never forget how fortunate we are to have a uniform federal system for federal elections, and we should not be undermining that now. If we do not address the inconsistencies raised in the Spence case then it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that a state donation law that is actually worse than the Commonwealth law could be imposed upon us. A state government could, for example, try to restrict the role of unions or charities in elections—legitimate third parties that have a legitimate role to play in our democracy. Just because a current state law may be deemed to be better that the Commonwealth's, we cannot simply cherrypick that and apply it to Commonwealth elections. We wouldn't want to do that if the state law were worse, so we wouldn't want to do it just because it's allegedly better. What we should be aiming for is a better federal system, and we recognise the concerns raised by some submissions to JSCEM's inquiry. We're pleased that the government has listened to Labor's concerns and has drafted an amendment to require federal donations to be paid into dedicated federal campaign accounts. We will have more to say on this during the committee stage.
Because we don't want there to be any confusion as to which laws apply, during the committee stage Labor will also be moving an amendment to delay the commencement of the bill until after the Queensland election. That way, parties, candidates and the Queensland Electoral Commission will have certainty in the upcoming election. We believe a combination of those two amendments will ameliorate some of the concerns with this bill. Many of the submissions to the JSCEM inquiry called on the Morrison government to implement wholesale changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act to improve the transparency of the electoral system.
Labor has a proud history of political donations reform. It was Labor that secured the ban on foreign donations, protecting our political system from foreign interference. It was Labor's amendments that linked public funding to the campaign expenditure, preventing parties from profiting from the electoral system. It was Labor, under Bob Hawke, that was the first to introduce a donations disclosure regime in back in 1983. The Labor Party currently has two bills before the Senate which deliver on some of our longstanding commitments. One bill seeks to lower the disclosure threshold from the current $14,300, indexed to inflation, to a fixed $1,000. The other bill seeks to introduce a system of real-time disclosure, where donations above the threshold would need to be disclosed within seven days.
If the Morrison government had any desire at all to improve the integrity of our system then it would immediately support these bills. I will be moving a second reading amendment calling on them to do just that. The second reading amendment includes other reforms that will increase transparency, level the playing field and reduce parties' reliance on political fundraising and the corollary risk of corruption. We must catch up with our state counterparts and implement donations and expenditure caps. Currently, there's no limit to how much a person or entity can donate to a political party or candidate. In 2016-17, Malcolm Turnbull donated $1.75 million to the Liberal Party, the largest political donation that year. That was, of course, eclipsed by Clive Palmer's record-breaking donation to the United Australia Party leading up to the 2019 election, an eye-watering $83 million.
New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland all have caps on political donations, and the Commonwealth should be following suit. Donations caps should work hand in hand with expenditure caps. Expenditure caps would level the playing field for candidates and parties, and assure that election debate is not dominated by the party with the biggest bank balance. To support these measures and reduce parties' reliance on fundraising, the rate of public election funding should be increased, and parties and elected Independents should be provided with administrative funding to help cover the increased cost of compliance. Labor calls on the Senate to support these measures to improve the integrity of our electoral system.
As mentioned earlier, the bill makes a number of technical amendments designed to rectify drafting errors and improve the processes of the Electoral Commission. Labor supports these technical amendments. However, I would like to note that one amendment in particular that was raised in submissions to the JSCEM inquiry is the provision relating to questions that polling officials asked of a voter to ascertain their entitlement to vote. Currently the Electoral Act requires a polling officer to ask: what is your full name, where do you live and have you voted before in this election? Occasionally, these questions can cause confusion, and a polling official may need some scope to rephrase the questions. The amendments provide flexibility, but some submissions raised concern that the changes would allow a polling official to ask a voter to provide identification.
As Labor's dissenting report for the JSCEM inquiry pointed out, Labor does not support so-called voter ID laws. We believe that requiring people to provide identification may have the effect of discouraging some people from voting and, in turn, undermine our system of compulsory voting. However, we are assured that the amendment is necessary in circumstances where the voter has a hearing disability or there is a language barrier, and we will be seeking further assurances from the Electoral Commission that it will not result in polling officials asking for identification. I look forward to speaking more on the bill during committee stage. I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(a) is of the opinion that Australia's electoral system would be strengthened by:
(i) lowering the disclosure threshold for political donations from the current $14,300 to $1,000,
(ii) removing the indexation of the political donation disclosure threshold, and
(iii) requiring recipients of political donations to disclose those donations within seven days;
(b) notes that the Opposition has introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures – Lowering the Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019 and the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures – Real Time Disclosure) Bill 2019, which, if enacted, would achieve these outcomes;
(c) calls on the Government to support these bills; and
(d) is also of the opinion that Australia's electoral system would be further strengthened by:
(i) implementing caps on political donations and electoral expenditure,
(ii) increasing the rate of public funding concurrently with the implementation of these caps, to reduce the reliance of participants in the political process on political fundraising, and
(iii) introducing administrative funding for parties and elected independents to cover administrative and operating expenses".
[by video link] Here we have a government that said it was not urgent to deal with paid pandemic leave so that people could stay home when they're sick and not spread COVID-19. But it thinks this bill is urgent. This bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, would allow massive donations from the big corporate mates of this government so they could keep giving it those dirty, big political donations. That's what this government thinks is urgent business for the federal parliament. They are shameless. They don't want to actually help people and stop the spread of COVID-19; they want to keep the spread of dirty political donations flowing. That's what was listed at last minute's notice last night for the federal parliament to debate today.
The High Court had something to say about this. The government first tried to get around the stronger state restrictions and the stronger state requirements on disclosure of political donations with the EFDR bill a couple of years ago. The High Court said, 'No, you can't. It was terrible drafting and you simply can't get around those stricter state laws.' So here is this government again: it has come back with a redraft, because it is desperate to keep those millions of dollars of big corporate donations flowing into its coffers so it can shore up its own re-election and keep delivering for those same donor mates. What an absolute crock!
We've got some stronger donations laws around the country at the state level. They're not perfect—some of them, in fact, are still quite weak—but some of the states have moved to stop the flow of that big, dirty money to try to make sure that democracy isn't for sale and that those big corporate donations don't simply deliver representatives who can facilitate an agenda that boosts private profits. New South Wales, of course, is the most well-known example. It's got much stronger donations disclosure rules, donations caps and donations bans. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anywhere else in the country. Queensland has started to follow suit, thanks to pressure from the Greens in the lead-up to the previous state election. The Queensland government has banned donations from property developers. This federal government is not happy about that. So it has brought in this bill today, which is rushed through, in an attempt to allow the dirty money to keep flowing.
The statistics are appalling. This government and, frankly, the opposition too are for sale to big donors. There have been $100 million in corporate donations to both of those political parties since to 2012. Is it any wonder that we see big tax cuts for corporations on the agenda or that we see $270 billion given out for weapons manufacturers? Yet they won't even provide paid pandemic leave for ordinary workers and they won't even let casuals and temporary visa workers get access to JobKeeper. The priorities of the government are clear: they are here to deliver for their big corporate donors, so they doesn't want the restrictions that the states have started to impose on the flow of that money. This is an attempt to get around the High Court and allow that money to keep flowing into their back pockets.
We had hopes that Labor might stand with us and oppose this—and I can see that they've got some second reading amendments, which we'll be supporting—but it remains to be seen whether they will support our committee stage amendments that would actually stop the flow of dirty money and would restore democracy, putting it back into the hands of the people, not vested interests and donors. We've got a particular amendment which would lower the disclosure threshold for donations nationally, because at the moment there is a much higher threshold. Nobody knows who's donating to whom if they donate less than the $13,800 threshold. Getting rid of the dirty money is the most important thing, but at least knowing about the dirty money is the second most important thing. We're not even sure whether the Labor Party will stand with us to fix that loophole or whether they just want to have a second reading debate which says that but won't follow through and will vote for the actual amendment when it gets to the committee stage. We'll be moving other amendments that actually slam that back door shut and that say that you can't just donate that money to state political parties and allow other money to be freed up to be used—that you can't just use that back door to keep the dirty money flowing. We want to eliminate that possibility.
We also want to clean up the system so that you can't donate if you are a property developer or if you are in alcohol, tobacco, big mining or coal seam gas—a list of other industries that have for too long been influencing this parliament in a way that is not good for the community or the planet. The reason why we have no decent climate policy and why emissions have been increasing—particularly export gas emissions, even in this time of reduced emissions that is a COVID blip—is that this government takes millions of dollars from big oil, big gas, and big coal. This is exactly why we should be banning donations from that sector, and from other big sectors that seek to boost their own private profits at the expense of the public interest.
I think that we've got some crossbench support for those amendments. But this is a real test for Labor and the government: do they want to stand with the community and with the public interest? Or do they want to stand with their vested interests and their donors and let that dirty money keep dictating their policy agenda? We will find out soon enough. But, sadly, I don't have a lot of hope that Labor and the government will stand with us to ban that dirty money from those vested interests. These are the same vested interests that then offer well-paid jobs, I might add, to MPs once they leave parliament. It's a very cosy relationship: the money flows in, it gets used in the political campaign to keep seats, the policies get written that suit that corporate agenda, and the MP gets a lovely job once they exit parliament. It's a very cosy arrangement, where everyone wins—except the public. We've got a chance to clean that up today, and it will be a real test for the big parties if they want to vote to support that.
Dirty money should not be running this place, irrespective of where it's coming from. And so, another really important measure that we've long proposed and will again be proposing today is to cap political donations from anybody at no more than $1,000 a year. That includes corporations, it includes individuals, it includes organisations and it includes unions. Across the board, big money should not be buying outcomes. Outcomes should be determined by what's in the public interest and what's best for the nation. Again, it will be a big test for the other political parties in this chamber: do they want to do their job to represent their constituents and further the interests of the nation in a way that benefits everyone and benefits and protects nature? Or do they want to just be here for power's sake, keep taking the money and keep delivering for their big corporate vested-interest donors? We will find out.
As I mentioned earlier, we want to at least know the extent of the dirty money that is slushing around in this system. The federal government has long had much, much weaker disclosure rules than many other states have and the disclosure threshold is much higher. Many of the states have a disclosure threshold of $1,000, and often require disclosure within a much shorter time frame, for example, seven days. We actually think there should be real-time disclosure. But the federal rules are so much weaker. You don't have to tell anybody about a donation either that you've given or that you as a political party have received, except once a year. So it can be 12 months after the fact that you just got a whopping great donation that you have to disclose that to the public. That's not accountability. That's not transparency. That means that people could vote in an election not knowing who has funded a political party's campaign and—conveniently—only be told about it, many months after the fact, on 1 February each year. That time frame for disclosure and the threshold for disclosure are both far too weak. It allows a ton of dirty, dark money to be slushing around, funding political parties and exerting influence, without the public even knowing. The public don't know who is donating, they don't know how much and they don't know in a timely manner. So we've got an amendment to fix that as well, and to lower that disclosure threshold to $1,000, which matches the threshold of many of the other states. People have a right to know who is trying to buy influence from a democracy that is meant to represent people but which has been hijacked by big donors and vested interests. People have a right to know.
I know this is the Labor Party's policy, and we welcome that, but are they going to vote for us? I haven't got a reply yet. They've got their own second reading amendment to the same effect which we all know sadly is a great statement of principle that doesn't actually change the law; it doesn't have any tangible impact. The tangible impact that could occur is if they vote for it at the third reading stage, the committee stage, where I will move that amendment. And I really hope they do, because what's the point of having a policy if you don't vote for it? It's kind of meaningless. We've got a chance to lower the disclosure threshold for national donations—a huge improvement—but are they going to vote for it? We will find out. I believe we've got crossbench support for that. So it's coming down to Labor. It'll be very interesting to see whether they want to actually reveal who's funding their own campaigns, because there is an awful lot of corporate money that flows into their campaigns as well.
We've seen the Labor Party come to an agreement with the government—it happens quite a lot, doesn't it, particularly where big dirty donations are in question—that they're okay with this back door that continues to let donors get around stricter state donations laws. They're okay with this back door as long as they can get past the Queensland state election first. Well, that's a pretty cynical approach. Either you have a principled stance where you think that dirty donations shouldn't keep on flowing and where stronger state restrictions should be respected, or you don't. It shouldn't be contingent on your own electoral prospects in a state election. I've found that approach particularly affronting from the opposition, and I would urge them to support the Greens' strong amendments once we get to committee stage to really restrict the influence of big donations on our polity.
This is a long and sordid tale. We have been trying to remove the influence of big money from politics as long as I've been in parliament—and that's going back to the 2010 election now—and still we have $100 million in corporate donations that have flowed into the big parties' re-election funds. Donations reform is so long overdue it is beyond a joke. We've got a chance today to start to fix it, but it looks to me like the two big parties have, once again, reached an agreement that suits their political parties' bottom line and it very much suits the agenda of their corporate and other large donors. Well, democracy should not be for sale.
Political donations reform is absolutely critical. In fact, it's the one issue, as I have campaigned for many, many years, that the community consistently raises. No matter who they vote for, they all think it stinks that big donors can make big donations to big political parties and get fantastic policy outcomes that suit their private profits, while throwing the community and nature on the scrap heap. Everybody thinks that's corrupt. What we have here is legalised corruption. It's legalised for big donations to buy outcomes that suit private profits and deliver a well-paid job once that politician leaves parliament. It is legalised corruption.
We have a chance to clean this up today, to put democracy back in the hands of the community and start taking decisions that actually help people—what an absolute shock that we maybe give paid pandemic leave to workers so that they don't go to work sick and potentially spread COVID-19 because they can't afford to not get paid. That's the sort of stuff that this parliament should be working on, and it took the Greens this morning to bring that forward. Of course, the government didn't want to support it. I'm grateful that on this occasion we did have the support of the opposition. But, no, the government thinks it's not urgent. What's urgent here is creating a back door so that big donors can keep making donations to political parties and shoring up outcomes. It is absolutely disgusting. The priorities of this government have once again been made completely obvious, and it's all about corporate favours for big donors.
This is really heartbreaking stuff, because we've got a chance to actually fix this today. I know we won't get support from the government, but it remains to be seen whether we will get support from the opposition. I'm grateful for the support that we have from the crossbench, and I thank those members of the crossbench who have said they will support our amendments.
Let's clean up democracy. Let's make it work for the people, for the public interest like it's meant to, like we've all been elected to do. We're not here to deliver for corporate mates—memo to the government!—we're actually here to protect the public interest, and it's about time the government started doing so. I look forward to moving the amendments once we get to—
Thank you, Senator Waters. Senator McGrath.
As Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I wish to contribute to this second reading debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. It is a key function of committees to ensure that any proposed legislation is carefully examined and that the public has an opportunity to contribute to those parliamentary deliberations. It is also crucial that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in examining bills, seeks to ensure that any proposed legislation lessens regulatory burdens and red tape which can significantly impact not only on smaller parties and Independents but also on the wider voting public.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 contains a number of amendments designed to improve clarity, enhance electoral processes and strengthen electoral integrity in the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The bill makes necessary amendments to sections 302CA and 314B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and clarifies the relationship between the electoral laws of the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. To alleviate unnecessary administrative burdens, the bill also includes a number of practical amendments. These include changing the telephone voting method available to Antarctic electors to provide secret voting; changing staffing requirements for the Australian Electoral Commission to allow greater flexibility; allowing AEC staff to make administrative marks on ballot papers; allowing pens, as well as pencils, to be used to mark votes on ballot papers; making minor practical changes to the Senate ballot paper to mitigate excessive ballot width; and streamlining the vote-issuing process. These changes, amongst others, contribute to the Australian Electoral Commission's ability to deliver transparent, consistent and efficient elections, while removing unnecessarily prescriptive practices. The committee has therefore recommended that the bill be passed.
The committee has also recommended that the government amend the bill to clarify that the recipients of donations will be provided exclusive coverage under federal donation laws only when they place donations in a federal electoral account that can be drawn down only for federal electoral purposes. This will ensure that the banking and accounting treatment of donations aligns with the legal treatment, supporting a separation of state campaign activity from federal campaign activity. This amendment squarely addresses the main issues raised in submissions.
I'd like to thank everyone who made a submission to our inquiry into this bill, and I'd particularly like to thank my deputy chair and the other members of the committee, along with the secretariat, for their work. Thank you.
There's not much in politics that is predictable, but what you can always bet your last dollar on is that when there's a chance to fix our rotten donation laws the Labor Party will flub it. I've got to say, I always make the same mistake—I'm owning up to it. Every time I hear the Labor Party talk about how they want to 'strengthen', 'fix' or 'tighten up' our donation laws or say, 'Let's bring on a national ICAC in Australia,' I make the mistake of letting myself get sucked into having a bit of hope that they'll stick to their word. I make the mistake of getting my hopes up every time, and every time I get burned, and so do the Australian people. Every time I hope they'll get it right they just send it further backwards, and I'm always so disappointed. Maybe I'm just a slow learner, but I reckon there are a lot of Labor voters who will feel pretty burned about this as well.
Do you, ALP backbenchers over there, even know what your own party are doing? Do you have any idea what they're making you vote for? You tell your voters that you want there to be greater transparency in parliament. Once again, do you know what you're talking about? You say you'll fight corruption and combat the influence of big corporate donors, and then, when the time comes for you to stand up for what you believe in, you blink, you roll over, you scurry off into a corner like cockroaches. It's no wonder no-one listens to you anymore when it comes to transparency and what's best for the country over political donations. We might as well not have an opposition party in this parliament, because you give the government what they want every time. You care more about protecting your donors than you do about your own voters. I hope to God that they wake up to you sooner rather than later.
Everyone who's giving big piles of cash to major parties wants things to stay the way they are. Everyone who is pinning their hopes on major parties that things will get better wants things to change. Every single time the donors win the day. We are stuck in this chamber of acting only with the permission of the donor classes. Nothing about our donation laws can change if it hurts the ones who are donating their way into the hearts and minds of the major parties. And because the ones who win out of our crumby donation laws are the donors, not the voters, voters don't win out of this. If the voters were going to win, you'd actually have to go out there and earn your seats instead of paying for them. The voters just keep getting told to suck it up and shut it down.
Why is it up to the crossbench to stick up for something that's so popular that 80 per cent of voters want it? Eighty per cent of voters out there want electoral change in the right way. You guys are always accused of being too focused on doing what's popular instead of doing what's right. I'm here to defend you against that accusation, because we've got evidence that it's wrong and it's right in front of us today. Here we have a chance to do something that 80 per cent of voters support and you're saying: 'No. Too bad. I have to keep my political seat and that's more important than doing what's doing right by the voters and right by the country, showing that there is no influence in both these chambers.' It continues to be shown out there that, if you pay enough money, you get plenty of influence up here in the big, white house in Canberra. There's no doubt about that. There's no argument there.
So full credit to Australians who standing up to the will of the people! Congratulations on fighting against the will of the people who voted you in here in the first place to begin with! There is something admirable about having the strength to fight against your voters and fight for your donors! But I'm sorry to inform you that I don't have your spine! Unlike you, I don't take the big donations from the big spenders. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, they don't offer it, to be honest. Secondly, even if they did offer it, I'd turn them down. I care about my dignity too much to sell myself out and sell out Tasmanians for that. I am sure you and your voters would say it's always worth selling your souls to get you into office. If you can sleep of a night-time then good for you. You're bigger than I am! Maybe you genuinely believe that. After all, you can't do anything if you don't have government. That's what they say at least.
But here again we have evidence today to prove that it's not true, because from the benches of the opposition Labor are about to achieve something really huge. Let nobody say you have no power to make change from opposition, because Labor are about to make a huge change and they don't even need to win government to do it. What's about to happen in front of our very eyes is a pea-and-thimble trick that would make a street magician blush. Labor are about to vote for legislation they say will strengthen our donation laws. They are about to move some amendments that they say will close all the loopholes and maintain all the integrity of our donation system. As soon as they do, the cracks in our federal donation laws will blow open even further. They will say they are strengthening them and they'll get weaker. They'll say they're making things more transparent and they'll get less transparent—not that there's much transparency left at all. They don't even need to be in government to do it. I bet the Liberals and Nationals are sitting back right now and thinking, 'You beauty.' They're laughing their butts off at you people. You just fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
If the Labor Party want to move amendments to the Liberal Party's dodgy donations bill that will make it even dodgier nobody in the Liberals is going to stand in the way. They have walked all over the top of you. It's shameful. Every time the Liberal and Labor Party get together to work on our donations laws, you can guarantee they're covering each other's butts and we're going backwards, not forwards. It's scary stuff. Labor are about to argue that federal donation laws should be more like state laws. Well, jeez, I hope you're not following the state laws of Tasmania, because when it comes to donations laws there are none! Isn't that right, Senator McKim?
Absolutely right, Senator Lambie—none at all.
None at all. They're saying: 'Fantastic. Great move. Well done.' God, what a shameful day. They're going to say we should lower the disclosure threshold and speed up disclosure times, but they're just not going to move any amendments to do either of those things. I know you want to move your amendments, but you know you don't have the votes. All you're doing is trying to make yourselves look good. We are on top of it. People aren't fooled anymore by your amendments that say, 'This is what we want,' when you know very well you don't have the numbers. That, in itself, is even more shameful—that you are trying to pull the wool over Australians' eyes. I'm going to call you out for it.
Instead, we're going to pass a bill that insulates donations from any state laws that are tougher and stronger than the federal laws—laws which are, according to every expert who looks at them, the weakest of any jurisdiction in the country. Imagine arguing that we need stronger donation laws and, five minutes later, voting to weaken our donation laws. You have no shame, and I don't even need to argue that point because I imagine there are millions of Australians out there saying: 'They actually have no shame. We've known that for a long time.' You know, because I've told you how this is going to work, that I looked at your amendments for 10 minutes and found a way to get around them—10 minutes! This bill has been through a committee. We're supposed to be with it up here; we're supposed to be leaders. I've looked at the bill for 10 minutes and already I'm finding holes in it. So I ask: was that deliberate? Are we so stupid and incompetent here that we've got holes in the bill? I sincerely believe it's deliberate because I don't believe you're that stupid. I would hope not, because otherwise we've got much bigger problems than I first thought.
Let's go through how this works. Before every election, parties take out massive loans from the banks. They use the money from the loan to pay for their election campaign. Then, after the election, the AEC gives them back all the money they spent, courtesy of the public. You people out there in Australia pay them back the cash. The parties take the money they got from the AEC and give it right back to the bank to pay back their loan. The interest on that loan gets paid by the donors, and none of this system gets touched by this bill—not one bit of it. There is no transparency. It always amuses me how you guys find a way around anything. It's a pity you couldn't put all that energy and effort into actually making something solid, instead of finding wriggle room or ways to go behind so that, you hope, nobody picks up exactly what's going on.
You can take money from any source to be used for federal purposes. Paying back a loan counts as a federal purpose about as much as anything else does, because it doesn't count as anything. There is no transparency going on here. If you want it to be used for state purposes only, that's fine too. You aren't required to take out a loan for federal purposes only or a state purpose only, so you aren't required to repay a loan the same way either. This matters because loans are not counted as donations. Oh, dear. It's a pity we couldn't go and borrow $30 million, isn't it, Senator McKim? We'd get away with this as well. They're not donations; they are called 'other receipts'. If you're not sure what that means, it's because it doesn't mean anything, apart from there being no transparency of who's buying them up this time around. It's designed to mean absolutely nothing. It's like calling a bill 'miscellaneous measures', which is what this one is called. If you want nobody to pay attention to it, call it something boring and chuck it in first thing in the morning so nobody catches on until it's too late.
My amendments would remove the unconstitutional sections 302CA and 314B from the Commonwealth Electoral Act, rather than rewording them. This would mean that state and federal donation regimes would operate together as one scheme—that would be common sense—so state branches of political parties would have to disclose their donations according to the rules in their jurisdiction. In the absence of strong donation laws at the Commonwealth level, this is the only way to ensure that state branches don't use technicalities and loopholes to hide their donations from state disclosure regimes. This is what was recommended by multiple integrity experts in submissions to the inquiry on the bill, including the Human Rights Law Centre, and the Centre For Public Integrity. I do get that word: integrity. So you would think this would be an integral part of bill. If the bill passes with the new section 302CA and section 314B in it, we will be, effectively, knocking the legs out from under the state disclosure regimes. It would be a real shame if that happened, since the states are the only jurisdictions that are doing anything about donation reform at this stage. They're trying to go forward, and we're going backwards—except for the state of Tasmania, which is doing nothing.
If you'd like to support my amendments, that would be great. If you can't, I understand. I'm not getting my hopes up on this one. Once bitten, twice shy—and I've been bitten about 10,000 times by the Labor Party, saying it cares about transparency, only to vote the opposite way. Sooner or later I've got to stop getting my hopes up. I do have faith, I have to be honest, because if you choose between breaking the hearts of voters or your donors, you'll have made up your mind faster than I can finish this sentence, because you'll always put your donors before the voters. And the sooner those millions of Australians get through their thick head what these donations do—there is little transparency on them, there's no time disclosure and 14 months to reveal where your money comes from. Let's be honest, if you've got nothing to hide, what's wrong with seven days?
Then I get some rubbish from Minister Cormann, saying, small business, they give 10,000 bucks and still have the union thugs outside their door. If that's not the biggest load of rubbish I have heard in this chamber since I've been here, then blow me over. I said, 'Where did you get that from?' I haven't read that in any of their submissions—nothing. I think it was just something he made up after his Weetbix yesterday morning; he must have had an extra couple. I mean, come on. This is why the Australian public has very little trust in us, and you people up here are not helping.
You are going in the opposite direction of transparency and making political disclosure reforms. That's what you're doing, and you should be ashamed. You've got the Greens bill. You've got my bill going on. You've got the Centre Alliance bill. But no, the government doesn't want to talk about that. It doesn't want to bring that to the table. Do you know why? Because it would clean it up. You don't care about trust from the community, because you buy your seats with the million dollars worth of donations. But we do, because we have to go and earn it. You let me know when you're standing at traffic lights with campaign signs and spending 50,000 bucks of your own money to earn a seat, and then I might take you seriously. I know I can stand here and truly say that I did not buy my seat; I earned it—and by God did I earn it.
There's an old saying in politics: if you run a coin down the side of anything that's going on, the first thing you'll expose is self-interest. The Australian people are about to get a classic demonstration of that old adage, because self-interest is right at the heart of this legislation, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. Let's name up what this legislation does. It will legalise money laundering by political parties.
Let's be frank. Political donations corrupt our democracy. They encourage the corruption of individuals, the corruption of members of parliament and senators and the corruption of political parties. This is about the government making it legal to funnel money that would otherwise be illegal under state laws through their federal branches. I want people to understand what is going on. I predict that this legalisation of money laundering, the encouragement of political corruption, is going to slide through with the support of the Labor Party. They're going to make a big hoo-ha now and try to make it look as if they've got some issues here, but I reckon they're going to let it slide through. And it will be very interesting to see how they vote on some of the amendments that the Senate will shortly consider.
I want to remind people that my home state of Tasmania has no state based political donations disclosure laws—none whatsoever. And, believe me, in the last state election in 2018, we lived through the impacts of that lack of state based political donations disclosure laws. The state of Tasmania and the people of Tasmania have never seen anything like what happened in the 2018 state election. It should be a lesson to the Labor Party, because it actually cost them a go at forming government in Tasmania. For once in the Tasmanian Labor Party's recent history, they actually took a half-decent policy on poker machines to the election. It wasn't as strong as the policy the Greens took, but at least it actually had a go at constraining the monopoly power of Federal Group hotels, an obscenely rich, privately owned company from New South Wales that had and still has a monopoly on poker machines in Tasmania. It is a company owned by Greg Farrell, who's made himself obscenely rich by sucking the food off the tables and the money out of the wallets of so many Tasmanian families who are doing it so tough.
That campaign cost Labor a go at forming government. How did it happen? It happened because people like Mr Farrell and people like the mainland pokies barons stuffed millions of dollars into the pockets of the Tasmanian Liberals and into the pockets of the Tasmanian Hospitality Association, run by Mr Steve Old, who prostituted himself for the pokies barons during that election. You couldn't move in Tasmania without seeing the signs on the sides of the pubs that themselves had been making obscene profits from the pokies monopoly for so long. You couldn't move down there. We've never seen anything like it. I've been in politics for a long time; I've never seen anything like it, and the Greens live in this space. We face these campaigns against us every single time in Tasmania—they get bigger every time—and I've still never seen anything like what we saw in 2018. The pokies barons bought government for the Liberal Party in Tasmania, and they are still in government today as a result of that corruption, that base corruption of our democracy in Tasmania, made possible because we don't have any state based donations disclosure laws in my home state. What an utter disgrace that is.
We will never know how much the pokies barons threw at that campaign. We will never know, and we should know, because it is a fundamental right of voters when they go to the ballot box to know who has donated how much to which political party and candidate. Elections should be a contest of ideas; they shouldn't be a competition to see who's got the deepest pockets. But, unfortunately, that is where we are in our completely cooked democracy in this country. Elections have become about who has the deepest pockets, and our democracy has been fundamentally corrupted by political donations.
When you add the effect of political donations on our democracy to the revolving doors that exist between the boardrooms of the big corporations—the greedy profit-making machines that couldn't care less about the impact of their actions on the environment or on our communities—and this place here, where we see, time after time, major party politicians accepting political donations, coming into this place, running corporate agendas, delivering for their political donors and then sliding out the other side of the revolving door and walking straight into a cushy consultancy or a cushy directorship in the boardrooms of those very corporations, it makes me sick. It makes me sick to witness it. And both major parties do it time after time after time. Whether it be big banking, big gaming or big fossil fuels, we see it again and again and again. Who loses? The Australian people, our environment and our democracy lose. Who wins? The big, greedy corporations win again and again.
If you want a prime example of the revolving door, I refer you to the scandal that was the Australian government's bugging of the Timor-Leste government during negotiations around a treaty to allocate fossil fuel resources from the Timor Sea. Australia illegally bugged the Timor-Leste government during the negotiations for that treaty. This is the matter that Mr Collaery is currently undergoing a secret trial in relation to. And what happened? Shortly after that scandal, Mr Downer, a man at the very heart of what happened, walked out of politics and into a cushy consultancy advising Woodside Petroleum, the big corporate beneficiary of that unlawful action. I could go on about that revolving door, but suffice to say it makes me absolutely sick.
This legislation gives us the chance, as Senator Waters said, to actually start fixing up this corruption of our democracy, to start making sure that laws actually do their best to restrain this corruption, to make sure that laws actually do their best to turn elections from being a competition to see who's got the deepest pockets or the thickest wallets into a contest of ideas. Colleagues, surely we can all agree that elections should be a contest of ideas conducted on a level playing field? At the moment, the playing field is tilted and it's tilted in favour of the major parties and the people that they truly represent in this place—particularly the LNP, who, let's face it, are the political arm of corporate Australia.
In my home state of Tasmania you don't have to worry about using a brown paper bag. That's how bad it is down there.
Senator Patrick interjecting—
'It's an Aldi bag!' says Senator Patrick. He makes a fair point. But, whether it's a brown paper or an Aldi bag, the point remains. You don't even need to wrap the cash up down in Tasmania to try to hide it. There's nothing to hide it from, because we don't have state based political donations laws in Tasmania.
There's a lot that Senator Lambie says and does that I don't agree with, and I think that's pretty clearly on the record, but what she said in this debate I 100 per cent concur with, and so do the Australian Greens, because Senator Lambie, like the Australian Greens, has been a long-time campaigner for reform on political donations. We've been at it for decades. She's been at it for a shorter period of time, but that's because she's been in parliament for a shorter period of time. We've been campaigning for this for a long time. I want to thank other members of the crossbench that do demonstrate integrity, like Senator Patrick.
If the LNP need help with integrity, let me spell it for them: i-n-t-e-g-r-i-t-y. Can you say it? Do you know what it means? I don't think you do. What you're doing this this place here today demonstrates that, whether or not you can spell it, you actually don't know what it means. You're bringing this bill in to facilitate money laundering. You're bringing this bill in to facilitate corruption—the corruption of our democracy, the corruption of politics and the corruption of Australia. If you can't have confidence in your democracy and in your political systems, how can you have confidence in anything that goes on in this place?
I look forward to the debate on this bill. As Senator Lambie says, we've got concerns about the position Labor are going to take, particularly in regard to some of our amendments, and we will see whether Labor let this one slide through. I urge senators: please, we need to tidy up our democracy. We need to clean it up, because it's broken, it's cooked and it's not delivering for the Australian people. Who it is delivering for are the big corporations.
I rise to speak on this bill. I note that the bill has a very innocuous title—Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. Indeed, that's what this is; it's just miscellaneous measures. It doesn't actually go to the heart of what needs to happen in respect of electoral reform. Australians need to know that, if you donate anything less than $14,300, the disclosure requirements are almost non-existent. That's a real issue that needs to dealt with that is not being dealt with by this bill.
People also need to understand what's happened. This bill wasn't actually listed until late last night. The way things work, just to let you know, is that, prior to parliament sitting, the government provides parties with a list of legislation that they expect to be brought up in the upcoming sitting period. That allows people like crossbenchers and Labor to examine legislation, and then they know which legislation to focus on. This bill wasn't on that list.
What's happened over the last couple of weeks is that Labor have concluded their discussions with the government and reached a position. Now that they've done that, they have to urgently deal with this. Senator Lambie was absolutely correct this morning when she pointed out during the motion to suspend standing orders that instead of looking at legislation that would be designed to help people who have to make a choice between going to work—understanding they potentially have COVID or certainly understanding they've got a cold—or staying at home and not being able to feed their family is an awful, awful choice. She talked about a bill that we could have debated today. It would have helped Australians. Instead we've put to the top of the priority list a miscellaneous measures bill that is so miscellaneous it actually doesn't go to the heart of the thing that concerns most Australians, and that's political donations and the transparency around those political donations.
We saw JobKeeper legislation passing through the Senate yesterday. During the debate on that, we looked at how taxpayers' money is going into the JobKeeper program, and everyone in this chamber supports that. But then, following the money and seeing what happens afterwards, we saw Accent Group receiving $13 million of JobKeeper and its CEO getting a $1.2 million bonus from that. We saw IPD Education receiving $1.4 million in JobKeeper and its CEO getting a $600,000 bonus. We saw companies like Nick Scali receiving $44 million from the Australian and New Zealand governments to help them through the pandemic and then paying $2 million in dividends to their investors.
What we didn't talk about was what else that money might be used for. So what else would that money be used for? It's a gift effectively from the taxpayer getting funnelled through a system, and I have no doubt in my mind that some of it will end up in the hands of the LNP and indeed Labor through donations. This bill doesn't seek to look at that. Australians need to be aware of what's happening with their money. So often the money that is getting passed to the large parties by way of donation is not even the company's money; it's money that's been taken from the taxpayer.
Over the last week we also talked about grandfathered large propriety companies—the 1,119 companies that are not required to lodge financial returns to ASIC. So we don't even know if they're paying higher dividends. We don't know if they're paying bonuses to their executives as a result of perhaps receiving JobKeeper. We don't know what JobKeeper is doing to position those companies so that they can donate to political parties. On numerous occasions in this chamber we've tried to stop that loophole, and the government has resisted—and I thank the Labor Party and all of the crossbench for their support in trying to stop this. However, the government has on multiple occasions voted against that and failed. It's gone to the House, come back and ping-pong has occurred, but, in doing so, they've provided no policy basis for that provision to stand to give elitist companies the ability to not lodge those ASIC returns. I am absolutely sure that some of the profits of those companies will flow into the hands of the major parties.
I mentioned this last week: Michael West, who examines these things, is looking at every one of those 1,119 companies. He's using the ability that journalists have to access corporate reports and to do so free of charge—and I encourage all journalists to utilise that facility that was negotiated by Nick Xenophon and me with the government in the last parliament. Michael West is going to pull all of this apart, and we're soon going to learn who those 1,119 companies are and who the beneficiaries of those companies are. We can start looking at tracking donations back to the Liberal Party, and then we might find the policy reason for them resisting closing down that loophole.
This bill doesn't get to the heart of some of the matters that really do concern voters. Let me tell you how this works. We've got Senator Ruston and Senator Cormann, sitting on the other side of the chamber. The way this works to avoid disclosure—and this needs to be addressed, and one of the Greens' amendments seeks to do this—is a lot of companies are not allowed to make political donations. Their corporate governance prevents them from making political donations. So what do they do? They turn up to a Liberal Party function and will pay $2,500 to $5,000 per ticket just to have dinner. Now, if that is not understood to be outright corruption, bypassing their own governance to pass money to political parties—they don't have to declare it as a donation; they're simply paying to go to dinner. Everyone needs to understand: that's how the Liberal Party raise a lot of money. It is completely opaque in respect of who is contributing. I can see on the other side of the chamber that no-one is looking at me; they're all embarrassed by what I'm telling you. This is how they generate money. And it's unacceptable—they should be declaring that. They should be declaring that they had a dinner and they charged $10,000 a seat, and they raised half a million dollars for the purposes of later getting themselves re-elected. But they're not. The bill that's before the parliament today doesn't address that.
We need donations to be disclosed in real time and to have a much lower threshold than the current threshold of $14,300. I don't mind people who donate to a political party because they like what the party is doing. I like the idea that grassroots people can contribute, and they can look and say: 'I like that party. I'm going to support them. I'm going to send my 20 bucks to the party and I'm going to help them. I'm appreciative of them and I'm going to encourage them.' I think that's okay. But there's a difference between saying, 'I like what you do and therefore I'm going to contribute', and saying, 'Give me lots of money, and you've bought me.' And that is, at the very least, the apprehended position of most Australians. They see that as political parties being bought by big corporate donors. So these dinners have to stop. But they won't stop, because neither of the parties will let that happen. In fact, even COVID couldn't stop the dinners. We've had dinners that are being paid for by big corporates to come and sit down and have dinner with their friendly LNP MP, paying a motza for it—and doing it during COVID, whilst everyone is being told to be responsible, to self-isolate and to avoid gatherings. All of that good medical advice gets ignored when it's about funding political parties. This bill does nothing to address that.
The bill title is accurate: it is a 'miscellaneous measures' bill. It hardly does anything. It doesn't go to the big issue that most Australians are concerned with—that is, making sure that democracy functions on behalf of the people, not on behalf of those with the biggest chequebooks. We have to get solid reforms occurring, not these miscellaneous measures.
I thank all those in the chamber who've contributed to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. I also take this opportunity to thank the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their thorough review of the bill and their even-handed examination of the issues raised in submissions. The committee found that the reforms in the bill will deliver important enhancements to our electoral system.
I also thank the committee for their recommendation for minor amendments to clarify key parts of the bill related to the interaction of electoral laws of different jurisdictions, consistent with the government's intent with this reform legislation. The government will move amendments that reflect that recommendation and we'll say more on those details during the in committee stages of the debate. I also foreshadow that the government is also willing to support an opposition amendment to the commencement date, as was proposed separately by the opposition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Australia, and the reforms in this bill are important to help modernise parts of the electoral system and to assist the AEC to deliver effective and timely electoral events.
Many of the amendments in this bill were included in an earlier technical amendment bill in the last parliament. While those reforms were recognised at the time as necessary, they were carried across the current parliament so that the AEC could focus on the delivery of the most urgent machinery changes ahead of the 2019 federal election.
This bill contains numerous improvements. The most important among those are: it extends the confidential voting service to Australian voters working in Antarctica; it removes the requirement to designate some divisional offices as pre-poll centres where they are unfit for purpose, including lacking disability access; it helps contain the width of the Senate ballot by allowing candidate names to be printed underneath preference boxes instead of only alongside boxes; it clarifies the interaction between federal, state and territory funding and disclosure regimes; and it allows flexibility in wording of questions to help find a voter on the roll, which will better assist people with a non-English-speaking background or those with a hearing disability. In summary, these reforms will improve the operational efficiency of elections, remove overly prescriptive language in the act, improve services to particular disadvantaged or geographically remote voter groups and strengthen electoral integrity and administration.
I should say, having listened to the contributions to this debate, that as far as this bill is concerned it appears that most of the contributions have focused on the measures in this bill that clarify the interaction between federal, state and territory funding and disclosure regimes. The principle that the government is seeking to pursue is a very simple one, and that is that state laws should govern state elections and federal laws should govern federal elections; state laws should not govern federal elections. And I've got to say that I'm somewhat surprised by the strength of commentary from the Greens and even from my good friends and valued colleagues in Centre Alliance, because you're making all sorts of allegations, using offensive big words, in relation to a piece of legislation—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Here we go, and we've also got Senator Waters making money signs on the screen. This principle is actually something that has previously been legislated through this chamber—except it was much broader than what is in front of us now. What is here is a very narrow set of measures to ensure that there is clear separation between federal and state laws when it comes to the management of federal elections and state elections. And do you know what? The broader arrangement, the arrangement that went further than what is in this bill in front of us—do you know who voted for it? The Greens voted for it. Senator McKim voted for it. I'm not sure whether Senator Waters was in the Senate at the time. It might have been at a time when she was inconvenienced with constitutional matters. But I certainly know that Senator McKim voted for it. I also know that Senator Siewert voted for it. I know that Senator Patrick voted for it. I know that Senator Griff voted for it. So, now there is this confected outrage that somehow we're doing something terribly secretive. I mean, this is something that's been around for some time. It's something that all of you have voted for in the past, applauding the government for pursuing sensible reform. And now, because it's convenient in terms of the political narrative you want to run, you are somehow suggesting that there is something nefarious here.
Well, this is very plain and straightforward. This is a housekeeping bill. This is actually a housekeeping piece of legislation that helps to facilitate the proper functioning of our parliamentary democracy.
Senator Patrick interjecting—
Senator Patrick, you voted for a much more significant measure, consistent with this principle of separating federal and state laws when it comes to electoral matters. It is entirely appropriate. The principle that federal law should govern federal elections and state laws should govern state elections, and state laws should not seek to interfere with the conduct of federal elections, is entirely straightforward, entirely proper. That is why I thank the opposition for their appropriate and sensible support for what is an absolutely appropriate and sensible housekeeping reform. Thank you.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Farrell be agreed to.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (8) on sheet UV130 together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) to (8) on sheet UV130 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (before line 11), before the definition of federal purpose, insert:
federal account means an account where:
(a) the only amounts deposited into the account are amounts to be used only for a federal purpose; and
(b) the only amounts withdrawn or transferred from the account are amounts:
(i) withdrawn or transferred for a federal purpose; or
(ii) transferred to another federal account.
Example: A federal account of a federal party may be established by the federal party or a State branch of the federal party.
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 29), after item 2, insert:
2A Subsection 287(1) (definition of State or Territory electoral law )
After "means a law", insert "(including a part of a law)".
(3) Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (lines 14 to 30), omit subsections 302CA(4) to (8), substitute:
Receiving or keeping gifts—money
(4) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may receive a gift of money if:
(a) the money is deposited into a federal account as soon as practicable after the money is received; and
(b) the money is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:
(i) to use the money for federal purposes; or
(ii) to transfer the money to another federal account.
(4A) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may keep a gift of money if:
(a) the money is kept in a federal account; and
(b) the money is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:
(i) to use the money for federal purposes; or
(ii) to transfer the money to another federal account.
(4B) To avoid doubt, subsections (4) and (4A) are taken never to have applied if, at any time, the money is transferred or withdrawn out of the account, or any other federal account, except as provided by subparagraph (4)(b)(i) or (ii) or (4A)(b)(i) or (ii).
Receiving or keeping gifts—gifts other than money
(5) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may receive or keep a gift that is not money unless the regulated entity keeps the gift for use for, or uses the gift for, purposes other than federal purposes.
(5A) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the regulated entity keeps the gift for use for, or uses the gift for, purposes other than federal purposes.
Receiving or keeping gifts—additional operation
(6) Subsections (4), (4A) and (5) also have the effect they would have if a reference to a gift were confined to a gift expressly given for federal purposes.
Using gifts—money
(7) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity may use, or authorise the use of, a gift of money for federal purposes if the gift has been continuouslykept in a federal account since it was deposited in that account, or any other federal account, in accordance with subsection (4).
Using gifts—gifts other than money
(7A) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity may use, or authorise the use of, a gift, that is not money, for federal purposes if the gift has been continuouslykept for federal purposes since it was received.
Using gifts—relationship with State or Territory electoral laws
(8) To avoid doubt, the fact that, as a result of subsection (7) or (7A), a State or Territory electoral law does not prohibit the use of a gift does not prevent that law from prohibiting the offering, seeking, giving, receiving or keeping of the gift.
(4) Schedule 1, item 25, page 9 (after line 3), at the end of section 302CA, add:
Parts of gifts
(10) For the purposes of this section, if a part of a gift is offered, sought, given, received, kept or used for a particular purpose, and that same action is taken in relation to another part of the gift for a different purpose, each part of the gift is taken to be a separate gift.
(5) Schedule 1, item 27, page 9 (lines 10 to 28), omit subsections 314B(1) to (4), substitute:
Disclosure of amounts and benefits given etc.
(1) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount of money, or information relating to an amount of money, (including a gift or loan) if the person or entity expressly gives the amount to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity for federal purposes.
(1A) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law the value of a non-monetary benefit, or information relating to a non-monetary benefit, if the person or entity expressly provides the benefit to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity for federal purposes.
Note: For the definition of non-monetary benefit, see subsection (8).
Disclosure of amounts and other benefits received
(1B) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount of money, or information relating to an amount of money, (including a gift or loan) that is received by or on behalf of the regulated entity if:
(a) the amount is deposited into a federal account as soon as practicable after the amount is received; and
(b) the amount is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:
(i) to use the amount for federal purposes; or
(ii) to transfer the amount to another federal account.
(1C) To avoid doubt, subsection (1B) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the amount is transferred or withdrawn out of the account, or any other federal account, except as provided by subparagraph (1B)(b)(i) or (ii).
(2) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law the value of a non-monetary benefit, or information relating to a non-monetary benefit, that is received by or on behalf of the regulated entity unless the regulated entity keeps the benefit for use for, or uses the benefit for, purposes other than federal purposes.
(3) To avoid doubt, subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the regulated entity keeps the benefit for use for, or uses the benefit for, purposes other than federal purposes.
(4) Subsections (1B) and (2) also have the effect they would have if a reference to an amount or benefit were confined to an amount or benefit expressly given or provided for federal purposes.
(6) Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 8 to 18), omit subsection 314B(7), substitute:
Interpretation
(7) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, if, as a result of this section, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount, information or value referred to in this section (the federal information), then:
(a) it is immaterial whether the federal information is required to be included in a return provided under this Part; and
(b) a total amount, or information relating to a total amount, that is required to be disclosed under that law is not required to include the federal information.
(8) A non-monetary benefit is a gift, or a good or service that is lent, that is not money.
(9) For the purposes of this section, if an action (such as, giving or using) is taken in relation to a part of an amount or non-monetary benefit for a particular purpose, and that same action is taken in relation to another part of the amount or benefit for a different purpose, each part of the amount or benefit is taken to be a separate amount or benefit.
Compulsory production provisions excluded
(10) This section does not apply in relation to any compulsory production provision in a State or Territory electoral law.
(11) A compulsory production provision in a State or Territory electoral law is a provision that confers a power on a person or body (the regulator) to compel a particular person to disclose information (including an amount or value) for the purposes of the regulator investigating a potential contravention of that or any otherlaw.
Note: A provision that confers a power for a person or body to give a notice to produce to a regulated entity is an example of a compulsory production provision.
(7) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 18), after item 27, insert:
27A After subsection 317(1)
Insert:
(1A) A person or entity (the record keeper) must keep records in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) for the purposes of allowing a person, court or other body to determine whether section 302CA or 314B applies in relation to the record keeper.
Example: A statement of all transactions into and out of a federal account is example of a record that must be kept for the purposes of this subsection.
Civil penalty: 200 penalty units.
27B Subsection 317(2)
After "A record", insert "kept under subsection (1) or (1A)".
27C At the end of subsection 317(2)
Add:
; and (e) if the record relates to the application of section 302CA or 314B—5 years after the day the relevant gift, amount or benefit is offered, sought, given, provided, received or used, or the relevant expenditure or debt is incurred.
27D Subsection 317(3)
Omit "A record", substitute "The record".
(8) Schedule 1, item 34, page 11 (line 30), after "amounts given,", insert "non-monetary benefits provided,".
These amendments give effect to recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I restate on the record my thanks for the committee's work. The government and the opposition representatives on the committee agreed that the Commonwealth Electoral Act should apply exclusively to federal political donations, but they recommended that this should be conditional on banking federal donations in separate federal purpose-only accounts to strictly separate these funds from any state campaign funds. As the committee put it, this would align the accounting treatment of federal donations with the legal treatment proposed in the bill.
This proposal raised on a bipartisan basis by JSCEM members is compatible, I believe, with the technical amendments in the government's bill and is entirely consistent with the intention behind those amendments. The government amendments circulated in my name will implement this recommendation. The amendments provide that, as a condition for being covered exclusively under the federal electoral law, federal funds must be deposited in a federal account and can only be used for federal electoral expenditure or transferred to another federal account. This is equivalent to legislative requirements adopted in some state and territory electoral laws. It is increasingly the case if recent years for state and territory jurisdictions to require that political parties deposit all funds intended for election use at state and territory level in dedicated campaign accounts. Accordingly, many political parties already operate separate bank accounts for their state and federal campaigns. To the extent some do not, these amendments will require new practices for dedicated handling of federal money. As JSCEM put it:
A Federal-purpose account would effectively create a sanitised stream of financial activity within a state arm of a party that is fully separated from the State-affairs of the party. It would remove a capacity to shuffle funds between purposes, after they have been committed and banked.
The amendments include integrity rules that will nullify inappropriate attempts to misuse federal donations for non-federal electoral purposes. For example, if a political party initially banks a donation in a dedicated federal account but later spends that amount at a state level then Commonwealth law is deemed to have never applied to that donation. The federal account would also lose its federal status at that time. In this instance, a donation may be subject to state or territory law, including where relevant, penalties, reporting requirements and potentially registration obligations.
Importantly, while the amendments protect the right of the Commonwealth parliament to make exclusive laws for federal elections, they are very carefully drafted to ensure state and territory electoral regimes continue to apply to their fullest extent possible to donations related to their own elections. Specifically, these amendments make clear that, for avoidance of doubt, the Commonwealth does not in any way impair powers of a state regulator to seek compulsory production of documents in relation to contravention of state laws. Together, the effect of this set of amendments is to ensure that there is a uniform federal set of requirements for donations that have a federal purpose. Without laws to protect the Commonwealth parliament's power to regulate its own elections, people in different corners of the country could potentially be subject to very inconsistent donation rules based on where they live. The amendments reflect the government's readiness to address issues that surface in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters process. These amendments make parts of the bill more targeted and they demonstrate the value of improving electoral legislation on a bipartisan basis through that committee. I commend the amendments to the Senate.
Labor will support the government's amendments and, in particular, we welcome the government listening to Labor's suggestions that parties should be required to keep separate state and federal campaign accounts. Several state jurisdictions already require that separate state campaign accounts be maintained. Separate federal accounts will provide an additional layer of transparency and accountability to ensure that the actors in the electoral process cannot use the Commonwealth Electoral Act to circumvent state electoral laws.
[via video link] This is a bit tricksy, really. The government has managed to sew up the opposition's support for this whole bill—which, I might add, its Queensland Labor state counterparts strongly oppose—and it has done so on the basis of this provision, which requires a separate bank account to be used. I'm afraid that's not enough protection from the influence of big money over our politics. Clearly, if money goes into a separate bank account, it's still going into a pool of funds. It will still therefore free up other funds that could then be used for state purposes. So, whilst this is a very small improvement, it is nowhere near enough of an improvement, and it still allows a dodging of those stronger state restrictions. So I don't take any comfort from this. I know the opposition does—I know the Queensland Labor Party does not, but your internal squabbles I will leave to you. This is not enough of a reassurance. The fact is, big money is still flowing.
I note Minister Cormann's reference to disparate regimes. Well, harmonise them! Have some strong national laws with caps on donations and with proper disclosure thresholds. That's the solution that would actually clean up politics and deliver a good outcome.
I might just also address some of the comments that Senator Cormann made in relation to the Greens' support for previous versions of the EFDR bill. I was in the parliament when this vote occurred. We moved an amendment to say that federal laws should not be allowed to override stronger state donation laws—and you guys voted against it. So it's a bit rich for you to somehow accuse us of having a curious position when, in fact, we sought to improve this last time. We are now seeking to improve this again. I have a private member's bill which would also seek to clean up donations laws. We have been entirely consistent, and we'll continue to bang our heads against the brick wall that is made of your big donors' vested interests until we smash it down. I just want to get that on the record.
I might also add that, sadly, the supplementary explanatory memorandum which Senator Cormann tabled, what, four minutes ago, has not been properly circulated. I've managed now to secure a copy of it. But again we see a government that doesn't take this chamber seriously. It's sewn up the opposition to support them on this amendment, so it's thrown due process out the window once again. We understand the intent of these amendments. We've read them; we don't need the supplementary EM. But I just want to note that it is bad practice to not circulate documents like that, that pertain to chamber business.
They are the comments that we have about this amendment. As I say, it is a very small improvement and, on that basis, we will be supporting this amendment. But it is nowhere near enough, and it does not overcome the litany and the tide of big, dirty political donations that the government is still allowing to flow, and it doesn't really disguise the fact that the government is still attempting to circumvent stronger state donation laws.
Just to assist Senator Waters, on 15 November 2018, a previous bill pursuing a much more broadly framed change, seeking to separate federal electoral laws from state electoral laws, passed unanimously in the period between ten past six and a quarter past six. Unanimously! This bill before us, even without this amendment, is much more narrow in its focus. It is very explicit that there can't be any interference in any way, shape or form by federal electoral laws with state electoral laws—in the same way as we don't want to have any interference by state electoral laws with federal electoral laws. This bill in front of us is already much narrower. The amendment that I've just moved puts it beyond doubt that there is to be complete separation. The Greens previously were part of unanimous support in this chamber to implement a change of this nature, a change which is eminently sensible. For Senator Waters, the reference is page 8,430 in the Senate Hansard. It was just before quarter past six on Thursday 15 November 2018.
[by video link] That is exactly why I sought to place on the record the amendment that we sought to make to that previous bill which this government voted against. So, I'm a bit baffled as to why Senator Cormann thinks he's scored a point against us there. I will let the Hansard stand on that record.
I just want to make it known that One Nation had no idea this bill was being brought on this morning. So, everyone else knew about it and moved amendments to the bill. What I want to ask Senator Cormann—in light of the fact that this is due to the Queensland government moving legislation which will impact on the federal government in the states to do with election donations—is: if this bill's not passed today, will that mean that the federal arm of the political parties in Queensland will be treated totally differently to every other state?
The answer to that question is yes. This is housekeeping legislation, which should be entirely noncontentious. Indeed, it was entirely noncontentious when a much more far-reaching reform along those lines was passed by the parliament back in 2018. We want to ensure that federal elections are organised nationally on a nationally consistent basis. A state electoral law should not be able to interfere with the conduct of federal elections, and our federal candidates and federal representatives out of Queensland should not be disadvantaged compared to their counterparts in other states and territories. It is a completely and utterly commonsensical position that there should be a uniform approach through the conduct of federal elections on a nationally consistent basis, and passage of this legislation will ensure that happens. Given that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters provided its report, this is the opportunity to deal with this.
How will loans be treated under these amendments?
There is no change under this bill to the treatment of any loans. That will be handled in the way it's currently handled.
So there's no change. How are you going to make sure the repayments on loans aren't used to launder donations for federal purposes into state branches of political parties, if you've made no changes to that?
The purpose of the bill, as well as addressing a range of practical issues that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has identified, is to ensure that the conduct of federal elections, nationally, on a nationally consistent basis, is governed by federal electoral laws and the conduct of state elections, as is consistent across relevant state jurisdictions, is governed by state electoral laws. We think that that is an entirely straightforward proposition, and we can't see where the contention is in that very straightforward proposition.
Okay, so you've left a massive gap here—let's be honest. How much is the Liberal Party loan? How much did you loan at the last election?
I don't believe that the internal affairs of the Liberal Party are a subject of this bill. I don't represent the Liberal Party as an organisation in this chamber; I represent the government. Clearly, whatever the arrangements are that are engaged in by the Liberal Party, by the Labor Party, by the Greens, by the Jacqui Lambie Network or, indeed, by Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, they all have to comply with relevant laws. What we are saying is that, when it comes to the conduct of federal elections, they should be governed by federal laws. When it comes to the conduct of state elections, they should be governed by state laws.
We still have no transparency. If the federal Liberal Party or Labor Party get a loan, when they are paying the loan back out of people's political donations, apparently, they are not counted as political donations; they are counted as loans. I can tell you now that that to me is absolutely political corruption. I look at this and see that these people over here get $30 million—and I've got no idea because there is no transparency—out of what, at the time, were supposed to be political donations but are now called loan repayments. You don't see that as a big gaping hole?
Loans provided to political parties in the context that Senator Lambie suggests are disclosable. These arrangements have to be and should be transparent. The issue that Senator Lambie is raising in the broad is not the object of this bill. The object of this bill in relation to the interaction of state and federal electoral laws is that state laws should govern the conduct of state elections and federal laws should govern the conduct of federal elections. Obviously, it is open to any individual senator either to pursue amendments to this bill on matters that they wish to raise or pursue or to move a private senators' bill if there is an issue that, in the view of individual senators, ought to be pursued.
Maybe if you'd have bothered to give us time—and I go through the Chair to what Senator Hanson said—to actually look at this instead of shoving it down our throat this morning in quick succession then we would be able to do that. Does that not tell you that there is something politically corrupt going on here or what? Tell me this then, Minister: how is a 'federal purpose' defined in this bill?
The definition of 'relevant expenditure' relies on the existing definitions in the electoral law of 'electoral expenditure'. So the definitions of 'electoral matter 'and 'electoral expenditure' are pre-existing definitions. Really, what this clarifies is that any campaign donations for federal matters or federal expenditure—election related expenditure and electoral matters—ought to be governed by this federal Electoral Act, whereas state elections ought to be governed by the state electoral acts.
I also don't accept that this is something that has come out of the nowhere. This was unanimously passed in 2018 in a much broader set of arrangements. There was a process leading up to this. This has been with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters since the middle of 2019. There's been a lot of work done through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is recommending that this proceed based on relevant amendments which the government and the opposition will be moving. This is an issue that's been around for a long time. It is simple housekeeping. The basic proposition which is eminently reasonable is that federal law should govern the conduct of federal elections and state law should govern the conduct of state elections.
It was unconstitutional to begin with, and it's been to the High Court since then. So of course we have a problem now. The High Court has a problem now as well. Is it still unconstitutional?
There is absolutely no circumstance in which a government would deliberately put forward an unconstitutional piece of legislation. Clearly we have taken careful note of the findings of the High Court in relation to the original bill, which was supported unanimously because it was a sensible reform in terms of the intent it sought to pursue. In this bill we have ensured that we've reflected the findings of the High Court in relation to the previous piece of legislation to ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of the High Court in terms of the constitutionality of what is in front of us. Specifically, we are being very, very clear that federal law should only govern federal elections and that state law should govern state elections, but, where there is any doubt, federal law would not apply. Federal law will only apply to those circumstances where donations are exclusively and specifically directed for federal election purposes. The amendment that I have moved on behalf of the government will provide a further reassurance to ensure that that strict separation of the management of campaign donations is indeed guaranteed.
Except for when it's got to do with a loan repayment, because then it's not a political donation; it's a loan repayment. So I have to ask both sides, Labor and Liberal: now you know there's this massive loophole, do you intend to fix this loan situation?
I don't accept that there is a loophole. If Senator Lambie is concerned about a loophole, I'm very happy to refer for the consideration of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the issue of loans for the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to assess any issues that Senator Lambie believes arise. But this legislation has no bearing on what Senator Lambie might think ought to be addressed.
Minister, if you are going to do that, can we have that sorted before the next election so we don't have any confusion about a political donation that floats across here and then the next thing it's known as paying off a loan?
In the end, I don't control the timetable of parliamentary committees, as you would appreciate. But I'm quite happy to ask the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to assess the issue. If Senator Lambie wants to write to me and provide some context and background on what she believes the issue at hand is, I'd be very happy to receive such a letter. I would say again, though, that this legislation has no bearing on it. This legislation in relation to the relevant point that is being discussed only does one thing. It ensures that there is strict separation between federal law and state law when it comes to the conduct of federal elections as opposed to state elections and it helps ensure that there is a nationally consistent approach to the conduct of federal elections, which we think is entirely appropriate.
I will do that. Thank you for giving me the option to do that. How will the AEC or state electoral commissions know if money is not used for federal purposes? We know that sometimes it gets very confused between state and federal passing money over to each other, so could you tell me: how will the AEC or state electoral commissions know if the money is not used for a federal purpose?
The whole point of this account is to put this even further beyond doubt. There are integrity and compliance measures on top of that. The fact that there is a requirement to maintain totally distinct bank accounts—a federal purpose bank account separate from any other bank account, including any state purpose bank accounts—means that these matters can be properly scrutinised if and as required.
Do you have a watchdog or something set up? What will happen when money is not used for a federal purpose? Does anyone get done criminally? Is there any sort of watchdog? Is any disciplinary action going to be taken? What's the go here?
The Australian Electoral Commission is the independent statutory authority that is responsible for the conduct of elections and for ensuring compliance with all aspects of relevant electoral laws. As I've indicated in my previous remarks, yes, there are penalties and compliance and integrity measures in place, including in this bill, to ensure compliance with these arrangements.
Before I ask a question, I want to make a couple of short remarks in relation to Senator Cormann's second reading speech. He was directing, in some sense, a criticism at the crossbench for having supported previous legislation. Of course, you'll find support for anything that pushes electoral donations to a position of greater integrity. The criticisms I made in my second reading contribution were not in relation to anything this bill is doing; they were in relation to what the bill is not doing. I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest anything other than that what I was suggesting was that the bill doesn't deal with certain things that are important to most Australians.
It's in that vein that I'm going to ask questions about the coverage of this bill, and these may go to some of the amendments, so, in terms of order, it may save time later. I'll start with a preliminary question. Minister, are you aware of the arrangements that take place whereby political parties organise dinners and members of companies or organisations or, indeed, individuals turn up to these political dinners and pay a price that would not reasonably be considered to cover off just the food? In actual fact, these dinners generate money which is used by parties to advocate their position in election campaigns. Are you aware of those dinners and functions that take place?
Firstly, I'm very happy to note that Senator Patrick has confirmed that he supports this bill. He just thinks the bill doesn't go far enough. I see him nod. Hansard doesn't pick up a nod, so I'm happy to hear from his contribution that that is his position: he supports the bill but he thinks there should be other things in it. We're always happy to talk about what else can sensibly be done. The long-established process in our parliament to deal with matters on a non-partisan basis when it comes to all aspects of the conduct of elections is to do it through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We're always open to pursuing these matters.
Of course it's a longstanding practice for political parties, individual candidates and people from all backgrounds who want to seek public office. Campaigns have to be funded—and I think that's well understood—so funds have to be raised. There is a transparency and disclosure regime in place to ensure that that is done in an appropriate fashion. I'm aware of the fundraising activities of my party and I'm aware of the fundraising activities of other parties. I think it is a democratic right for individual Australians, including individual Australian businesses, to participate in and support the democratic process. In fact, I think you'll find that many businesses that participate in these sorts of events engage with politicians from all different sides of politics because they've got something that they want people to understand. Also, some people just happen to be strong Labor supporters, strong Liberal supporters, strong Nationals supporters or strong Centre Alliance supporters. I put it to you that every candidate and every party participating in an election has to be able to finance their participation at election. It's a very important part of the process. How else would we get our arguments in front of the Australian people to ensure they can make an informed decision?
Thank you for acknowledging that these functions take place. Under the current legislation, if someone turns up to a Liberal Party dinner and pays $2,500 or $5,000 for a seat, are these amounts declared by parties? Are parties required under current legislation to declare the total earnings that might come from such a function?
All political parties, all candidates, need to declare the donations they receive, consistent with our laws. That's entirely a matter for them. Again, this bill has got absolutely no bearing in relation to this. If you want to move amendments because you're concerned about the way some of your political competitors conduct their fundraising, then that is obviously something that's open to you.
I do concede that these questions, in some sense, relate to amendments that will be moved. But, in my consideration of those amendments, I'm seeking to understand what is currently covered. If a political party were to hold a dinner and charge 2½ thousand dollars for 10 seats, would the $25,000 have to be declared as a donation under existing legislation or under anything that this bill seeks to introduce into law?
A gift is already defined in our electoral laws to include an amount without consideration. So, based on what you suggested earlier, the mark-up on a function above cost is a disclosable amount. This is not changed by the bill. Your apparent concern is already addressed by the current electoral laws.
[by video link] Minister, in clause 57 of the bill in subsection 200DI(1) it states that:
(1) A voting officer must put to each person attending before the voting officer, and claiming to vote in an election or elections (as the case requires), questions in order to ascertain:
(a) the person’s full name; and
(b) the person’s place of living; and
(c) whether the person has voted before in the election or elections …
Minister, why is a person not to be asked to show identification prior to voting?
This bill does not include a requirement to show voter identification. In this bill, it goes to the questions that an AEC official has to ask of voters. There are three mandatory questions before they hand out a ballot paper. This bill allows greater flexibility for polling officials about how they can word the three mandatory questions, to help the AEC communicate with voters who face language barriers or disability issues. The three questions are about name, address and whether the person has voted previously at the same election. But nowhere in this bill is there any new, fourth question permitting an official to ask a voter for ID documents.
Having said that, the introduction of voter identification is something that the government supports. It is something that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, chaired by Senator McGrath, is currently considering, and it is something that the government would be prepared to bring forward in a separate piece of legislation in the future.
[by video link] I raise that point because voting is the heart of our democracy, and, when a person votes, we have to know they are the right person that is voting. What we find at elections is that people get fined if they don't vote. We don't seem to fine people who are crossed off on the electoral rolls more than once, because we can't identify them. What I'm saying here is about not requesting a person's details or asking them to show identification such as a driver's licence, which most people carry, or maybe a Medicare card or even a credit card, to show that that is actually the person voting. When we go to the bank, we must show identification if we want to open up an account. When we go to purchase a mobile phone or a SIM card, we must show three forms of identification—just to get a mobile phone. Yet—and this has been the argument of a lot of Australians—we don't have to show identification when we go to vote.
It is a known fact that a lot of people go around from booth to booth and vote multiple times. Minister, when will you act on making sure that people have to show identification, rather than saying, 'We're working on it?' This has been going on for years and years and years. And I must point out to the people of Australia that it was the Newman government that introduced voter identification, but as soon as the Labor Party got elected in Queensland, under Annastacia Palaszczuk, the first piece of legislation she put forward was to get rid of voter identification, and I've got to ask the question: why? So, Minister, the people of Australia don't want 'We're looking into it.' This has been happening for years and years. There is fraud going on in our voting system. When are you going to take it seriously enough to make sure voters show identification? And will it be for the next federal election?
I thank Senator Hanson for raising what is a real and genuine issue. We do support the introduction of voter identification. This bill does not introduce voter identification, but we do support it. And it's good to know that One Nation, if a relevant piece of legislation was coming forward in the future, would be supportive of that. Obviously, we would need to convince some others in this chamber that this is a meritorious reform before we would be able to get it through the parliament. Multiple voting has been a longstanding risk that all electoral systems face, and the government welcomes constructive ideas like this one to address this problem. Voter identification forms, though, will require legislation. Some parties in the parliament have voiced stringent opposition to such proposals in the past. So, I guess the reason we are prioritising what can sensibly be done is that we recognise where the political realities are in the Senate at present.
What repercussions are there—what will happen—when money is not used for federal purposes? Are any legal requirements put in? We know we have no watchdog over this. We're down on AEC staff. Is any action taken over this sort of stuff?
As I indicated previously—and I did as part of my comments on the amendment that is in front of us—if somebody breaches the requirements of strict separation between funds received for federal purposes and funds received for state purposes then they lose the benefit of federal legal protection. It means that the current state laws, as appropriate—Queensland, in this circumstance—would apply; all the relevant state penalties would apply. And relevant integrity measures at the federal level would apply. The only way campaign donations will fall under federal electoral legislation, as is appropriate, is if there is demonstrated compliance with the strict separation requirements in relation to relevant funds received.
How many enforcement actions has the AEC taken in the past 10 years?
I'd have to take that on notice.
Yes, could you please, whether or not you inform the chamber. Do you intend on adding any more staff to the Electoral Commission so that we can keep an eye on this stuff and these changes?
I thank Senator Lambie for that question. The Electoral Commission is an independent statutory authority. We are always open to receiving advice and representations from the electoral commissioner, Tom Rogers, in relation to staffing requirements. We believe that as it stands, based on current settings, the Electoral Commission is appropriately resourced. But there are always a range of things that come up and developments that arise, and we will continue to make the appropriate judgements on the appropriate level of resourcing.
Have either of the major parties put any thought into enforcement of these rules at all?
Enforcement of these rules is not a matter for political parties; compliance with these rules is a matter for political parties. All political parties, all candidates, all relevant actors that are captured by the Commonwealth Electoral Act need to comply with the law, and compliance with the law is a matter for the Australian Electoral Commission.
Continuing the discussion, I thank you, Minister, for your previous answer indicating that, if we have a dinner function and 10 companies turn up and they pay well above the cost, the margin is, in effect, reportable. Does the contribution get attributed to those who attended the dinner? In this case, I suggested 10 companies turned up—company A through to company J. Is the margin attributable to each of the companies that attended?
That depends on whether it is above or below the relevant threshold. That is not a question that you can answer without information about the specific circumstances.
This question seeks to differentiate between senators and ministers of the Crown. Have you been to any of these fundraising dinners yourself where the ticket or the invitation mentions a dinner with the Minister for Finance or Minister Cormann, as opposed to Senator Cormann?
I'm one person and, like all of my colleagues on both sides of parliament who occupy relevant positions, I participate in the democratic processes of this parliament and in the community, including campaign fundraising events.
It's quite a specific question. In relation to you as the Minister for Finance, have you attended any dinner that might have been a fundraiser where the dinner was advertised as a dinner with Minister Cormann or the finance minister or the Leader of the Government in the Senate—so, in your capacity in the executive, as opposed to as a senator? I'm happy for you to take that on notice, Minister.
I don't have to take that on notice. I'm quite happy to confirm that I have attended fundraising events in my capacity as a backbench senator, in my capacity as a shadow minister, in my capacity as a minister—in any capacity that I've held as part of the democratic process consistent with all of our laws and consistent with all of the arrangements that appropriately apply. Of course I've attended events that support the democratic process.
You answered the first part of the question, but the specifics—and I apologise if I didn't articulate this clearly. I'm wondering about dinners that you have attended that were advertised as dinners with the minister, either the finance minister or Minister Cormann, as opposed to simply a dinner that was promoted as a dinner with Senator Cormann.
I did answer that question. I'm one person. I'm a senator for the great state of Western Australia. I'm also the Minister for Finance. I attend events. I don't believe that I'm ever responsible for sending out invitations. As I noted, anyone who operates either on the shadow frontbench or on the government's frontbench—or, I would suggest, even senior representatives of the Greens—would attend events that are designed to mobilise the required level of support to maximise their chances of being successful at an election. That is an entirely unremarkable reality of the democratic process.
Minister, you'll be aware that in the three arms of government—being the executive, the legislature and the judiciary—under our Constitution, there is an overlap' and that overlap exists in the circumstance where someone is both a member of parliament and a minister, so there's an overlap between the legislature and executive. I'm interested in the dinners that you have been to where the dinner has been advertised as a dinner with a member of the executive, as opposed to a senator. It's a reasonable question. I'm differentiating between you—I know you're the same person, but you are actually being characterised in two different roles under our Constitution: as a senator and as a minister, and it's the second one that I'm interested in.
I can confirm again for Senator Patrick that, like every other frontbencher on the opposition benches or on the government benches, I participate in campaign fundraising events, and all of us have to do so consistent with all of the relevant legal requirements. I am very confident that at all times I have participated in any electoral or campaign fundraising event in a way that's consistent with the law and consistent with the relevant parts of the ministerial statement of standards.
I appreciated your comments where you talked about the democratic process and how people are entitled to come along to these dinners and they get to engage with parliamentarians. I'll put on the record that anyone who wants to talk to me simply has to pick up the phone and arrange a meeting through my diary manager, and there's no cost associated with that. I'm just trying to establish whether there is a price associated with meeting with a minister versus meeting with a senator, what the intersection of that is with this legislation and how it might be treated—whether or not it's treated differently.
I was quite happy to provide good-faith, genuine, direct answers to the questions but I object to the imputation just now. People do not have to pay to get access to me. People who want to get access to me, can get access to me subject to time limitations. People don't have pay to get access to me, but people who want to support, including with financial donations, the campaign effort of one or another side of politics are entitled to do so, as long as everyone concerned complies with all of the relevant laws of the land, and nothing in this bill has any bearing on that, incidentally. The part of the bill where there seems to be a level of discussion is about strictly separating the federal laws, which should govern federal elections, from state laws, which should govern state elections. It should not be that state laws can interfere with the conduct of federal elections. We believe we must have nationally consistent federal electoral arrangements.
I appreciate that in some sense I'm asking questions that may be better suited to when the Greens and Senator Lambie move some amendments. Perhaps I'll leave it there and come back to these questions when those amendments are moved because they go to the very questions that I'm asking.
[by video link] Minister, would you agree that allowing property developers to give money to a Queensland state branch of a political party, even if it's transferred into a separate federal account, in fact maintains the support and the relationship between that developer and state party in a way that could potentially influence that state party's policy position?
No, I do not; I absolutely don't. As a matter of principle, I am of the view that all Australians should be able to participate in the democratic process. At a federal level, when it comes to federal elections, Australians should be able to participate in the electoral process based on all the rules and the laws at a federal level. And, at a state level, it should be governed by state laws. This legislation ensures that there is strict separation between the two. If the state parliament in Queensland wants to put in place certain arrangements in terms of how electoral arrangements are put in place and how company donations are to be organised, that is a matter for them and that is the law that applies in Queensland for state elections. A state parliament should not be able to impose different rules in one jurisdiction, when it comes to the conduct of federal elections, compared to those that apply in the rest of the country.
[by video link] Minister, do you support the restriction in Queensland on property developers donating to political parties, or do you think they should just be able to continue to donate willy-nilly?
I support that it is entirely a matter for the state parliament in Queensland. I am responsible for electoral affairs at a federal level, and that is why we are putting forward a reform proposal to the federal parliament.
Minister, what happens if a donation is given for federal purposes but used for state? Will the donor be liable?
All of the relevant state laws and state penalties would apply. As soon as there were a breach along the lines that Senator Lambie suggested, that would mean—this is a law of the Commonwealth electoral law—presumably, if it were by a non-permitted donor at a state level, that donor would be liable to the penalties applicable under state law. The only way that relevant donations would be protected through federal legislation would be if they complied with all of the requirements under the federal law, including the requirement for strict separation.
Minister, I'm just wondering if you might be able to explain to me how that's called out. How do they get caught for doing that? What is the process whereby somebody actually catches them out for doing that?
There's a regular program of returns and audits by the Electoral Commission, and, clearly, it's the normal, business-as-usual approach to compliance arrangements, a combination of risk-managed spot audits. Obviously, if somebody is of a view that something untoward has happened, allegations are made and investigated. But the principle here is that this bill, if enacted after passage through the Senate, will ensure that there is strict separation between campaign donations for federal purposes and donations for state purposes. There can't be any overlap. If there is any overlap at all then the state provisions will be enlivened.
I have to say, minister, I'm loving the tap dancing. Let's get straight to the point: how can any law hold a donor liable for the misuse of their donation if they have no control over that?
Well, I mean, with the greatest of respect, the point that Senator Lambie makes here applies to every and any law. So what you're essentially saying is that we should not impose integrity measures and penalties because they don't work anyway. Well, we don't agree. We believe that the arrangements put in place through this bill will be effective and that the management of our Electoral Act through the Electoral Commission is effective. It has served Australia very well for a very, very long time. We've got a very stable democracy. We are recognised globally as one of the world-leaders when it comes to openness and transparency and stable, proper democratic processes. This legislation, once passed, will contribute to that.
So are you suggesting, Minister, that every donor should be held liable for any illegal use of their donations?
Anyone who breaches the law should, of course, be subject to the penalties that come with that breach of the law. But you're assuming that everyone will just breach the law. I'm assuming that, overwhelmingly, Australians seek to comply with the law. Where that is not the case—of course, that's why the penalties are there. So they are enforced and imposed in these circumstances.
I'm just wondering, Minister, how many of those donors in the last 10 years have actually been done. Has a donor ever been done? Has any enforcement ever been brought upon a donor? You've got these stringent laws and they are so great. Has a donor ever been done?
This legislation obviously is only just being introduced. You can't have managed enforcement action in relation to provisions that haven't yet been passed by the parliament. But, in terms of arrangements previous to the passage of this bill, the Electoral Commission absolutely enforces compliance with our electoral laws as appropriate. We have full confidence in the effectiveness of the Electoral Commission to do the job that Australians rely on.
[by video link] Minister, in Queensland who runs the Liberal Party's federal campaigns? Is it your federal Liberal Party or is it your state LNP organisation?
The Liberal Party organisation is the national party, with state divisions. I think that is well known and well understood.
[by video link] I presume that by that you mean that your state organisation—at least in part—runs your federal campaigns, but correct me if I've misinterpreted your nonanswer. So is it the case that a property developer can still donate to that same state LNP that it couldn't donate to were it a state election? It's a point about the nexus and the relationship between the donor and the person receiving the donation.
The whole point of this legislation, compared to the one that you previously supported as part of a unanimous vote in the Senate in November 2018, is that it further narrows and imposes an even more stringent separation. So only where campaign donations are provided for the express and sole purpose of federal electoral matters and federal electoral expenditure is that donation covered by the federal electoral laws. Unless it is the case that a campaign donation is exclusively for a federal purpose, if it goes for any other purpose, it will be governed and will continue to be governed by state laws.
[by video link] So that property developer will be donating to the state LNP though—is that not correct?
To clarify again what I said before: if it's untied and not exclusively for federal purposes then the state law in that circumstance would apply. For relevant parts, federal law would apply, but not for this particular aspect of it.
[by video link] But the donor would be the same? It's the same state party receiving the money and still maintaining that relationship with the property developer, which is meant to be banned in Queensland for state electioneering, but there's still an exchange of money. That relationship is still maintained, and ergo that policy influence can still be exerted over that party.
I disagree with the basic premise of this proposition, but the point is: anyone who is eligible to participate—to exercise their democratic rights—in the electoral process, including by financially supporting their party of choice in Western Australia, in South Australia, in Tasmania, in New South Wales or in Victoria should have that same right in Queensland. State laws should not interfere with the capacity of an individual Australian to contribute to a federal electoral process. I think that that's an entirely unremarkable, uncontroversial proposition. You might have a view that federal electoral laws should be designed differently. I've heard you make these arguments before, and that's fine. But, in the end, federal law should govern the conduct of federal elections without inappropriate interference of any state law.
[by video link] We just have a fundamentally different view about where the line should be drawn. Yes, we do think that the federal law desperately needs reform, and, yes, we do think that donations, federally, should be restricted and should be properly disclosed. So I suspect we're not going to have a meeting of the minds on that issue. But, nonetheless, we will persist with moving our amendments to strengthen federal law, because it sounds to me like the back door is still there, and, if you've got that relationship between big donors and a state branch of a political party, it's pretty artificial to say that the mere existence of a separate bank account would somehow quarantine the influence that that donor would have on that branch of the political party. So that legalised corruption still remains. Even though it may be in a separate bank account, that influence is still being peddled, and that is exactly why we are seeking to ban donations from listed sectors and to cap donations from everybody else.
I would like to go back to whether or not the donor should be held liable for any illegal use of their donations. I'm going to give you an example of this in the real world here. If I give you money and tell you that it is not to be used for an illegal purpose and you buy illegal firearms with it anyway, are you really saying that I'm going to be in breach of the law for your decision to breach the law in the first place?
It is incumbent on the party to comply with the law. If the party does not act consistent with the requirements as proposed in this bill then it's the party that loses the benefit of that strict separation between federal and state electoral regimes. That is clearly a very significant incentive for parties to do the right thing. I suspect whoever the relevant political party—it's an entirely non-partisan statement—or politician is in this context would not want to find themselves in that situation. I think that there is a very significant inbuilt incentive to strictly comply with the requirements in this legislation.
I don't seem to be getting where we need to go here. I don't think this is very clear. Let me get this right: if the party misuses the donation, the donor is not to be held liable for that. I thought the opposite was the case.
Going through a hypothetical example, a donor that provides a donation to support a federal election or to support a party of his or her choosing in the context of a federal campaign effort has not done anything wrong. I don't know why you would want to impose a penalty on an individual Australian when all they have done is use their democratic right to participate in the democratic process. What you're suggesting is on what would happen if the party, subsequent to the donation being made, does not manage that donation in a way that is consistent with our federal and state legislation. If they don't observe the strict separation then the penalty imposed on that party is that they would lose the benefit of strict separation and they would become subject to the state laws, including, in the Queensland context, the relevant prohibitions that apply in Queensland. So you can't really blame an individual donor for any alleged or possible mishandling by a political party.
Question agreed to.
Progress reported.
We know the year has been filled with challenges that have affected all Australians in so many ways. This virus has disrupted so many parts of our lives in ways that seemed unimaginable just months ago. Sadly, the very nature of this virus means it has hit certain people, certain industries and certain businesses harder than others. One of the hardest hit is also one of the biggest employers in my home state, and that is tourism and hospitality. While travelling around Queensland, I have seen the incredible resilience of many small and medium businesses to pivot around coronavirus, to adopt COVID-safe practices to sustain their businesses and to keep their employees on the books, largely, in many instances, with the support of JobKeeper.
As we turn our minds towards how best to support the sector, we need to consider every measure we can to ensure we aren't providing a handbrake on this critical sector as we rebuild our economy. This rebuild should include consideration of duplicated regulation and impacts of taxes such as the fringe benefits tax. We must do everything we can to encourage and incentivise Australian businesses to support each other. The Australian Hotels Association and Tourism Accommodation Australia have proposed that the fringe benefits tax on entertainment expenses—for example, meals, beverages and accommodation—for all businesses and employees should be suspended for the next three years. This initiative would benefit businesses and employees—tradies, builders and hairdressers. For example, it would allow an employer to shout their staff, their team members, a meal, a few drinks or maybe a weekend away for the employee of the month. So I strongly support the FBT being suspended on entertainment expenses for the coming three years.
This is about jobs and stopping more businesses going to the wall. This initiative will encourage businesses to reward their staff in the hospitality, accommodation and tourism sector, which needs it most. At the same time, it would be supporting the retention of over one million jobs. This would be a win for employers and employees alike at relatively little cost to the government.
Apparently, I'm a 'noob'. This a gamer term for a newbie when it comes to video games. While I might be a noob, I know the Australian games industry has proven remarkably resilient through the coronavirus pandemic. The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association found that 44 per cent of game developers have reported either stable or increased sales revenue, with 84 per cent saying they are not planning on making any reductions in staff in the immediate future. During the pandemic, many Australians have turned to the games sector as a source of entertainment or mental stimulation. There was seemingly a global shortage of Nintendo Switches, and electronic shops around Australia were being swamped with shoppers. This shows the level of resilience within our video games industry and the potential for Australia to harness this to increase our export revenue.
Based in my home state of Queensland are the creators of Fruit Ninja, Halfbrick Studios, whose app has received more than one billion downloads—a great example of Australian and Queensland innovation. There are also a number of Australian sporting game developers, such as Big Ant Studios, the creators of high-quality titles such as Don Bradman Cricket and Rugby League Live. And there's Tru Blu Entertainment, which has published many Australian football video games. These games expand on Australia's sporting culture and encourage young people to stay engaged with their favourite sporting codes when they can't play on the field.
While I might be a bit of a noob when it comes to video games, there are a number of policy levers we can utilise to support our games industry more than we currently do. Something Australia should do, and I strongly support, is introduce a 30 per cent tax offset for video games to grow a new information based export industry, attract millions in foreign investment and create thousands of jobs. In many other countries, there are tax incentives for game development. These exist in Canada, where there is a 35 to 40 per cent offset, in Singapore, where there is a 40 per cent offset, in France, where it's 30 per cent, and in the UK, where it's 20 per cent. Australia already has tax offsets for the film, TV, post-production, digital and visual effects sectors but lacks this same support for domestic game development. Without stronger incentives to invest, our games industry risks getting owned by other countries.
Shamefully and wickedly, we're told there will be in Queensland a hard border closure no matter what. We've seen multiple sad, horrible and cruel stories of families who are struggling to get exemptions to access medical care. There is no compassion and no common sense from the state government in Queensland. Yet, late last night, we saw 400 people fly in from Melbourne ahead of an announcement that the AFL grand final will be held in Brisbane this year—an announcement I support. Parents who have been begging this state government to allow them to see their own children who have been in boarding schools are now watching the red carpet being rolled out for Eddie McGuire and his friends in the AFL. Media reports suggest these AFL bigwigs and officials won't be staying in government mandated hotels; they'll be quarantined in an industry hub on the Gold Coast. But, if you've had brain surgery and you return to Queensland, the state Labor government makes you stay in a hotel, gives you some Panadol, and says, 'You'll be fine.' If you know someone in George Street, you'll be fine and you don't have to stay in a hotel.
Surely, if the Queensland state government can work with the AFL to fly CEOs and football personalities from Melbourne for a media announcement, they can work with the families whose children are effectively locked away in boarding schools. If they can find exemptions for people who construct boxing rings for Jeff Horn, they can reach out through the Isolated Children's Parents' Association and come up with a plan to deal with the children who are locked away in boarding schools. If they can provide medical exemptions for TV celebrities to quarantine in Gold Coast mansions, surely they can find exemptions for people who have gone through brain surgery and provide exemptions for mums who need to go to maternity hospitals. No, not this state Labor government. Surely they can engage with these boarding schools in the same way to find a solution to this mess that doesn't leave parents separated from their own children or students forced into isolation.
Premier Palaszczuk, I join with the Isolated Children's Parents' Association to beg you to show some compassion to these children and to their parents and give us some consistency, some certainty and some compassion, Most importantly have some common sense when it comes to exemptions for your so-called hard border.
[by video link] Today I make my first remote virtual contribution to the parliament. In doing so, I'm pleased to speak in support of a strong, robust and vital component of our resources industry in Tasmania: our forestry industry. In particular, I would like to express Labor's ongoing support of the Tasmanian native timber industry. It is an industry which is able to operate within a sustainable and environmentally responsible framework allowing it to coexist with other key industries, such as tourism; contribute to bushfire hazard reduction and firefighting; and to form a key part of a comprehensive network of forest estates and reserves that manage and protect key cultural and environmental heritage.
The context of my contribution today should be considered against the backdrop of a crash in the broader jobs market and the absolute need for government to focus on creating jobs as its No. 1 priority. I am particularly concerned that, in the face of a national collapse in the jobs market, we may see that regional areas are overlooked and forgotten when it comes to developing policies to create new jobs. Sadly, it has been the case with this government that our regions are often forgotten. But our regions are so vital for the overall success of our nation. They provide our energy, minerals, food and fibre and many of the best tourism experiences to be found anywhere in the world. There is much that regions across Tasmania have to offer and much that can be done to support good, secure jobs in these regions—jobs that provide a livelihood workers and their families can rely on.
Now more than ever we must remain focused on the need to support existing jobs whilst also creating new jobs in multiple industries to ensure that the first recession this nation has experienced in 30 years is as short as possible. Unfortunately, the government has been slow to react to this need and appears far too willing to withdraw support too early and not willing enough to make the timely investments necessary to grow our way out of this recession. Indeed, the government expects 400,000 Australians to lose their jobs between now and Christmas, yet many months into this pandemic we are yet to see any substantive plan to create new jobs. What we need from the government is a plan—a jobs plan. What regional Tasmania needs from the government is a plan to support and grow industries that can supply jobs in regional areas and across key supply chains.
The forestry industry can deliver on both of these fronts whilst also contributing significantly to a rebound in sustainable, environmentally friendly domestic manufacturing. The forestry industry already makes a significant contribution to Tasmania. It supplies over 3,000 direct jobs in primary and secondary processing, and more than 2½ thousand indirect jobs are generated as a result of demand from the forestry industry. These jobs are spread throughout every corner of the state and particularly throughout our regions. In 2018-19 Tasmanian forests produced more than 1.5 million tonnes of wood fibre.
At this time when so many jobs are being lost the last thing we need to be doing is attacking or tearing down our reliable and sustainable industries like the Tasmanian native and plantation forest industries. So it is disappointing that the Bob Brown Foundation has chosen this time to attack the industry through litigation by challenging the validity of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. The Bob Brown Foundation's action is designed to shut down this important industry, which provides an income and livelihood for many thousands of Tasmanians while sustainably providing quality and essential product to the world. Tasmanians, particularly regional Tasmanians, are fed up with these sorts of actions. They don't want this industry shut down. They want us all to work together to grow our forest industry, alongside other key industries, like agriculture, energy, tourism and hospitality.
The workers and families who rely on this industry are tired of these never-ending attacks from an increasingly extreme green movement that is out of touch with the aspirations of most Tasmanians. It is also out of touch with the reality of the situation when it comes to conservation in Tasmania. Modern Tasmania's record of conserving areas of natural significance is amongst the best in the world. More than half of Tasmania's landmass is protected, the majority managed by the Parks and Wildlife Service. Nearly half of Tasmania's landmass is forested—3.35 million hectares. These forests are conserved, managed and harvested under a system that includes a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system; sustainably managed forests outside reserves; and the maintenance of a permanent native forest estate. Our forestry industry operates within this robust regulatory framework to strike the right balance between the environmental, economic and social objectives.
The federal Labor Party is prepared to work collaboratively to ensure that the RFA framework is not undermined by the Bob Brown Foundation's latest attack on Tasmania's timber industry. It is an industry that Tasmanians should be proud of—indeed, the vast majority are. From Scottsdale to Geeveston, Smithton to Triabunna, New Norfolk to Mowbray, truck drivers to harvesting contractors, small timber mills and specialty timber product producers to large-scale paper and veneer mills, and even the housing industry and our ports, forestry in Tasmania underpins many towns, regions, families, workers and businesses.
Labor is a strong supporter of regional forest agreements. We want to see this framework remain in place so that it can continue to deliver on outcomes across a range of key indicators, including important conservation outcomes. We recognise the critical role wood has to play in a sustainable future for global manufacturing and construction. It is important that Australia plays an active role as a world leader in this field, promoting the sustainable management and harvesting of both our native and plantation forestry industries and promoting the role of wood in manufacturing and construction through investment in research and development and industry partnerships. Australia's native forest industry is already amongst the most sustainable in the world. The industry uses the equivalent of just six trees out of every 10,000 annually. Ultimately, every tree is replaced as harvested areas are regrown and regenerated.
Labor took a strong suite of policies to the last election aimed at strengthening and growing our forest industry and creating new jobs in expanding markets. Indeed, our policies at the last election were well received by industry, particularly our election commitment to remove the government's water rule so that more trees could be planted, grown and sustainably harvested. Removal of the water rule would represent a win for jobs, industry, sustainable markets, the environment and greenhouse gas abatement. In this way, we demonstrated a real, practical commitment to growing our plantation estate by more than one billion trees—a key goal of the industry.
However, this sensible, evidence based election policy was at the time met with fierce opposition from the agriculture minister, David Littleproud. He went so far as to declare that removing the water rule would be 'reckless'. Now we know that, in recent months, the government has been forced to back-pedal on its hardline position against growing our plantation estate, dangling out the possibility that the water rule would be removed for certain areas. But the announcement really amounts to spin over substance. It requires the agriculture minister to specify in writing which regions would be excluded from the water rule. It is not a national approach and it will not provide the clear policy mechanism needed to grow our plantation estate.
The government is long on rhetoric in its support for the forest industry, but unfortunately, as with so many things, when it comes to delivery they are so often left wanting. For example, the promised forestry specific concessional loans announced during the 2019 election still don't exist. They are always there for the photo-op but never there for the follow-up. I implore the government to do all it can to not only provide rhetorical support for the industry but also follow through with a policy package aimed squarely at securing its future and creating jobs, particularly in our regions. Labor is committed to listening to our regions. Indeed, regional policy and, in particular, regional jobs will be a key focus for Labor up to the next election. These jobs will come in many areas, including aged care, health, tourism, mining, transport, agriculture, aquaculture and renewable energy. But, for Tasmania's regions at least, sustainable native forestry, as well as growing plantation estate, will always be a key source of income. Tasmania's regions can rely on Labor to support the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement and commit to growing the industry, so that it can continue to create new jobs and support many families for generations— (Time expired)
[by video link] I want to start today by talking about a particular concern in relation to the Senate's Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants—the sports rorts inquiry. It's bad enough that the Liberal and National parties rorted hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, but it gets worse. We are seeing an increasingly concerning pattern where the coalition is desperately trying to cover up their rort by hiding the evidence as much as they can. There is a long list of documents that the Morrison government has refused to provide to the inquiry. They redacted key emails that we've requested between officers who were involved in the rorts. They refused to release the letter that Minister McKenzie sent to the Prime Minister on 10 April 2019, seeking his approval for round 3 of the program. We haven't seen the advice requested from the Solicitor-General by the Attorney-General in relation to the Minister for Sport's authority to direct the Australian Sports Commission. The minister for sport has also refused to provide the legal advice that Sport Australia sought about its powers under the act. And, of course, we still haven't seen the copy of the Gaetjens report that Prime Minister Morrison and his government tried to use repeatedly to argue that the program wasn't a rort.
But more concerning still is that we heard evidence recently that the minister's office is forcing Sport Australia officials to clear their answers to our inquiry through his office. We have heard many criticisms in recent days of how the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport has handled the COVID crisis. I am terrified at the thought that his office might have been more focused on the COVID crisis if they weren't busy covering up for their rorts by micromanaging the input of public servants for our sports inquiry. Additionally, I am concerned about the minister approving these questions and withholding crucial evidence, when Sport Australia is an independent statutory authority. This is very concerning to us and it is something we will examine further. So there's a continuing pattern here: they rorted the program, and now they are trying to cover it up by withholding documents. Sadly, the rorts don't stop there.
Just within sports funding, there are three rorts that we're aware of: the original Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, $100 million; the Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream program, $150 million; and most recently—we've uncovered—the community development sports grants stream, $45 million. Together, they total a staggeringly-high almost $300 million in sports rorts. And that's before you talk about rorts in other portfolios, like the Collinsville coal-fired power station grant—talk about a rort!—stacked with Liberal and National old mates, with no experience, for a project that is already dead in the water. The truth is it's not just sports rorts; the whole Morrison government is a rort. Their marketing is flashy but, behind the scenes, it's a rort. It's been a rort since Tony Abbott first lied about cuts in the 2013 election and it hasn't stopped. The coalition should come clean. If they won't, it's up to us to stop them.
I now want to move onto something much more uplifting: celebrating the amazing trans and gender-diverse people in our communities. I want to speak about these powerful, inspirational people because they've been under attack again in recent times. We have seen pretty nasty rhetoric about transgender and gender-diverse people continuing to be spouted by certain media outlets, who seem more invested in stirring up moral panic to sell papers or get clicks than they are in actually reporting real news. I'm also aware of a pretty disgusting and insulting poll conducted in the ACT by a conservative lobby group in response to the recent ACT bill to prevent gender and sexuality conversion practices. This week we had a very thinly-veiled dose of trans and queer phobia served to the Senate in the form of a bill from a certain red-haired crossbencher who shall not be named. If you don't know the bill that I am talking about, don't worry. It didn't go anywhere and it's not worth the few minutes it would take to google it. I could speak for hours about the unbiased claims and untruths, and highlight the harm and ignorance of the journalists, lobby groups and politicians. But you know what they say—don't feed the trolls. Instead, I'd like to spend the rest of the time I have to address the Senate today attempting to balance things out.
For the rest of my speech, I will highlight the strength, the diversity and the sheer excellence of trans and gender-diverse people and communities in Australia. Trans and gender-diverse people have a long, rich history of peer support and mutual aid. In my home state, Seahorse Victoria was founded in 1975 as a support and social group for the transgender community. It is the longest-running organisation of its type in Australia. Seahorse was a great support for my late wife, Penny Whetton, helping her through her journey of embracing and affirming her gender identity. I recently spoke at an online Seahorse meeting on Penny's and my journeys and I was moved to see that, 20 years on from when Penny was an active member, they are continuing their critical support to transgender Australians.
And then there are newer organisations, like Ygender, who are creating spaces for community and support for new generations of trans and gender diverse people. Ygender is run by trans and gender diverse people for trans young people. They run regular social events and discussion groups for trans and gender diverse young people to talk to each other, feel more connected with their communities, and hang out in safe and inclusive spaces. They also create incredible resources for trans young people who want to know more about their rights, and for allies to better understand gender diversity.
There are many and varied arts projects that are creating visibility and celebrating trans identity. One example is Campfire Stories, which is a live streamed monthly open mic for queer and trans people to explore and to express themselves. Campfire Stories is curated by an all-trans team that aims to build kinship and collective resilience through self-expression and accessible community entertainment.
The positive impact of initiatives like this cannot be overstated, nor can the positive inclusion of trans people in mainstream entertainment. When Georgie Stone pitched her role to the producers of Neighbours, she knew how much it would mean for young people like her if they could see themselves reflected in a trans character on-screen. Now Georgie's a regular on the Australian TV soap, not only playing the role of Mackenzie but also ensuring that the character development stays true to the transgender experience.
When it comes to a joyful celebration of diverse gender identities, you really can't go past the stage show Gender Euphoria, which made waves at the Midsumma Festival last year. I attended it with a dear old friend, and we were both so moved; in fact, I was in tears for much of the show. It was only a few months after Penny had passed away, and to see trans and gender diverse stories being told so powerfully onstage was almost overwhelming. It made me realise just how much I wanted to stay connected to, and keep advocating for, these powerful, feisty people and communities. The review written by Andy Connor for The Guardian summarised it so beautifully:
As the chorus of voices lifted in the final kaleidoscopic song of Gender Euphoria, the first mainstage all-transgender show in Australian history, something rare and vital was communicated. So many trans stories are tragedies; it's easy to miss the triumphs. So much of the world is still so stigmatising and cruel to trans people that it's easy to overlook the joy. More than just relief at having escaped something, the show tells us, being trans is also about having found something. "Goodbye gender dysphoria," proclaimed cabaret star Mama Alto, "Hello gender euphoria!"
This is the note that I want to end on. These are the stories I want the Senate to hear today—the stories of triumph, of strength, of joy, of community. To any trans and gender diverse people listening to this: I want you to know that you are loved; you are seen. I know I can't take away the hurt caused by the words of others, but I can assure you that you will have a friend and an ally in this parliament for as long as I am here.
The two biggest tax rorts in this country are thanks to none other than Paul Keating, whose reckless neoliberal policies have destroyed Australia's economic sovereignty. I could talk all day about just how bad Paul Keating was, first as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister. Who could forget the 20 per cent interest rates—
Senator Rennick, could I ask you to refer to Mr Keating with his title as former Prime Minister?
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating—should I say 'former Prime Minister Paul Keating' or just 'former Prime Minister', because there are lots of former prime ministers?
'Former Prime Minister'.
Okay: 'former Prime Minister Paul Keating'. Who could forget the 20 per cent interest rates or the 11 per cent unemployment? I'd love to discuss them with the man himself but he's been too gutless to reply to my request that we debate his destructive policies.
If we look at table 1 in the budget papers and the two biggest tax concessions, they are capital gains tax on housing and the concessional taxation of superannuation.
Who benefits the most from these concessions? I'll tell you who: the wealthy. If you were going to design a tax policy, wouldn't you want to give concessions to low-income earners rather than giving tax concessions to the wealthy? You would think you would give it to the low-income earners so they would be able to keep working and keep bread on the table. For some reason, the Labor Party seem to have walked away from its base, the working class, and has instead for the last 35 years been more interested in giving tax concessions to the inner-city champagne socialists.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for creating wealth, but it needs to be taxed evenly at the margins to create wealth rather than accumulate wealth. By that I mean every dollar should be taxed at around the same rate with an exemption for low-income tax earners, who should get a tax-free threshold for the cost of living. At the other end, for those PAYG earners—the guys who get paid millions to run companies—by the time companies are paying their executives millions of dollars, the executives are usually running the companies into the ground rather than growing them.
I fail to see how someone can make millions of dollars in capital gains from housing, which is often the case in the wealthier suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, and pay no tax, while hardworking Australians pay 20 cents on their hard-earned income above $18,200. When Keating exempted housing from capital gains tax, he gave a tax break to wealthy Australians and an incentive to pump way too much money into housing at the expense of manufacturing. As a result, today house prices are out of reach for younger Australians and a burden for working Australians whose mortgage repayments are a lead weight in the saddlebag of their weekly income—not to mention manufacturing, which was gutted under Keating's reckless now Liberal policies.
Let's look at the other rort in the news this week: superannuation. We've got the Labor Party—in particular former Prime Ministers Keating and Rudd—telling us that superannuation is going to provide a decent retirement. I can tell you: there's nothing further from the truth. If you go and look at the ASFA Superannuation Statistics, the median balance for women aged 55 to 64 is $118,000; the median balance for men is $183,000. There is no way that you can live for the next 20 years in retirement on that type of balance in your superannuation. You are never going to reduce the reliance on the pension with balances like that.
Furthermore, the irony of all this is that former Prime Minister Paul Keating also gave independence to the RBA because he thought there'd be a better decision-making process and that the RBA could somehow manage monetary policy better than politicians. Guess what? We've now got interest rates running at zero, record foreign debt and record house prices. When someone goes to retire with $118,000 in their super, if they're a woman, or $180,000, if they're a man, how are they going to live on one or two per cent interest on that type of balance? That works out at about $1,000 or $2,000 a year. You'd be lucky to live for a week on that, let alone an entire year. This whole concept that superannuation is going to provide a better retirement is a fallacy.
To have a decent nest egg for low-income earners they'd actually have to put about 50 or 60 per cent of their income into superannuation. Low-income earners can't afford to put in 9½ per cent. They need every cent they make today. Even the Henry tax review explicitly recommended against lifting the superannuation guarantee because of its punitive impact on lower-income earners in that wages are foregone when the superannuation levy is lifted. It's not just my opinion. The former opposition leader, the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, when he was asked, said:
Because it's wages, not profits, that will fund super increases in the next few years. Wages are the seedbed of the whole operation. An increase in super is not, absolutely not, a tax on business.
He goes on to say in another interview with Neil Mitchell that superannuation will be absorbed as a part of people's pay rises. So the hardworking people of Australia don't get to see their income. It goes straight to Labor's mates in the unions so they can clip $40 billion a year in fees, on top of the $40 billion in tax concessions—that's $40 billion a year in fees ripped out of the pockets of hardworking Australians. The tragedy in all of this is the fact that we've hardly had a reduction in the number of people on the pension. It's reduced from about 74 per cent to about 70 per cent for the pension or part-pension.
Let's not forget with those numbers that, since superannuation was increased, the pension age was increased from 65 to 67. Who did that? Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. If you were to put the people who should have gone onto the pension at 65 back into those numbers, the number of people on the pension would probably still be about 74 per cent. So we're giving $40 billion in tax concessions and $40 billion in fees for nothing. We've still got the same number of people on the pension, except—wait for it!—the number who now retire with a mortgage has increased from 40 per cent to 70 per cent. So we've got more working Australians in hock to the banks for interest throughout their entire working life, and they can't even retire with the security of knowing they own their own house.
The Liberal Party was founded by a guy named Robert Menzies, and in his 'Forgotten people' speech he mentioned the word 'home' no fewer than 23 times. There is no better form of retirement than your home. There is no better standard of living than to own your own home so that you've got the security and peace of mind that every night you can go home to your house. You can go home knowing your children have a bed to sleep in, a roof over their heads and a happy home environment to give them the self-belief that they need to be successful in life.
What is interesting about this as well, touching on the Keating legacy, is that, when he gave independence to the RBA, he let the foreign banks in. We now have inflated house prices, and we've got to the point where we've got very high house prices compared to average incomes. The RBA came out yesterday saying—it was snuck through in the minutes, which no-one can read because it's like watching paint dry; but those of us who worked in capital markets know what to look for—that they've increased the funding facility to private banks for $200 billion. So, instead of actually going out there and funding the building of infrastructure that will give Australians jobs, they're continuing to reward what they call the ADIs, the Australian deposit institutions. That can be any bank that takes deposits here in Australia, so it can be domestic banks or foreign banks. Remember, the former Prime Minister Paul Keating let in those foreign banks, which inflated house prices. I think that's a real shame, because right now we need development in infrastructure. We need dams. We don't necessarily need more power generation, but we certainly need more power transmission and lots of transport corridors. And that would be a great way to grow the economy and drag us out of the recession.
In concluding, I'd just like to remind the people that we are supposed to be living in a liberal democracy. There was never a pledge by any politician that said, 'We are going to raise superannuation to 12 per cent by 2025.' (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the importance of investing in our manufacturing industry as we emerge into a post COVID-19 world. Government policy needs to adapt if we're going to take advantage of opportunities presented to us. For the first time in 29 years, Australia is in a recession. This is not a landmark to take lightly. The health, social and economic circumstances of this pandemic will be felt for years to come in my home state, which is already experiencing the economic effects of the downturn. Our industries have been devastated by the effects of social isolation—in particular, retailers, restaurants, cafes, pubs, clubs and small businesses across many industries—and they're still hurting. Some organisations and businesses will not survive.
Nearly 30,000 Tasmanians are unemployed or underemployed. These figures are devastating to the individuals and to their families. There are some 34,392 people on JobSeeker in my home state. Unemployment hasn't reached this level in Tasmania since the 1970s. Then there are the youth unemployment figures of above 15 per cent, and expected to go above 20 per cent by Christmas. Tasmania's overall youth unemployment rate is 15.1 per cent. This figure is distressing to many young Tasmanians, who are concerned they may not be able get employment in our state either now or into the future. Our slogan during the pandemic, and post this pandemic, should be: let us leave no Australian worker behind. No Australian should be forgotten or neglected.
While the question of how did we get here is relatively straightforward, COVID-19 and the lack of this Liberal government's planning for the future is leaving Australians wanting. The solutions to how we get out of this economic mess are harder to produce. However, there is at least one solution that is tried and true and perfectly rational: revive Australia's manufacturing now. The contribution of Australian manufacturing to national GDP has slumped from 30 per cent in the 1960s to a mere 5.7 per cent in 2018. We have the lowest level of manufacturing self-sufficiency compared with other developed nations, a statistic no government of any persuasion should be proud of. To add insult to injury, Australian Industry Group's latest Australian Performance of Manufacturing Index indicates that manufacturing has deteriorated to its worst level since the GFC. Sales, production and employment have reported record monthly declines in the index's 28-year history, indicating an industry in need of resuscitation.
Ironically, COVID-19, although it is a tragedy, could potentially lead an Australian manufacturing renaissance. There are a few reasons why COVID-19 may lead to this. Firstly, as almost all Australian supply chains depend on imports, this pandemic serves as a fantastic learning opportunity to expose the dangers of over-reliance on global supply chains. It is without a doubt that Australian-made goods are just as good as any imported supplies or even better. The main reason for outsourcing our supply chain has been, primarily, the lower cost. However, running an economy in the eye of a pandemic storm has shown that the guarantee of undisturbed supply from Australian suppliers is increasingly persuasive within the industry groups. If Australia is to cut itself off from the rest of the world, partially or absolutely, can we still rely on our pre-COVID supply chains to the same degree? I say we can't.
Secondly, it can create jobs to address Australia's staggering unemployment rate. Under the Liberals' watch, the Australian unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 7.5 per cent, the highest level seen in 22 years. This is also not taking into account that so many Australians and Tasmanians are reliant on the JobKeeper payment. To get Australians back into jobs, these jobs need to be created from somewhere. We need a jobs plan. The federal government, state governments and businesses should all, collectively, be seeking to reset supply chains to source from local manufacturers, to a partial extent if not completely. If this concerted effort was put into this policy, there would be a tremendous opportunity to create jobs, very well-paid jobs, that would see more Australians back in work. Already the COVID-19 taskforce has earmarked approximately 500,000 new jobs that can be created in advanced manufacturing if the right policy settings are applied.
Thirdly, having a supply chain reset to prioritise Australia will result in greater economic and political sovereignty. China is Australia's largest trade partner. Although international trade offers more benefits than drawbacks, Australia needs to get the balance right. In May, the Chinese government raised new trade barriers against Australia. They have done this again to a third Australian export, and they are also signalling that Beijing may be looking to diversify its import of iron ore. This is a result of a diplomatic rift stemming from the Australian government's call for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19. With the Chinese government increasingly willing to flex its economic muscles against Australians who won't fall in line, Australia needs to achieve greater independence and flexibility on the global stage.
Fourthly, a revived manufacturing sector can and will drive our economic transformation post-COVID-19. With the Australian dollar weak, there is a real window of opportunity to seize advantage of that to foray into advanced manufacturing exports. Developed countries like Germany, Japan and South Korea all have world-leading advanced manufacturing export industries, with Germany and Japan accounting for $740 billion each and South Korea accounting for $417 billion in total output in 2019. In comparison, Australia's total manufacturing output in 2019 was only $79 billion. We need to rebalance that.
With borders remaining shut for the foreseeable future, Australia's reliance on tourism and international education will not be sufficient to buttress the economy. We need to revive manufacturing as a matter of necessity. My home state of Tasmania can lead this charge. Economist Saul Eslake has earmarked the potential for northern Tasmania through advanced manufacturing and renewable energy. The opportunity to expand manufacturing products interstate and internationally will allow Tasmania to diversify its economic pot, leading to greater resilience and prosperity for all Tasmanians. Projects such as the renewable hydrogen production facility proposed for Bell Bay could become an internationally competitive hydrogen-exporting hub. This project would be a major employer, and the flow-on effects to other service providers would be fantastic for our economy.
We have already displayed the resilience of our manufacturing sector during this extraordinary crisis. Tasmanian companies, like Incat and Definium Technologies, have shown they are up to adapting to the COVID challenges. They have illustrated ingenuity and capacity to innovate. Hobart based Incat has a global reputation and a track record of building fast, industry-leading and advanced-technology notable ships. Tesla has linked with Incat, with Incat's technological prowess potentially being sought to build rocket launching pads for American companies. Incat has also been tipped to play a role in building the new Spirit of Tasmania ships. Definium was recently engaged by Victorian company Gekko to manufacture ventilator control systems. These Tasmanian businesses illustrate the capacity of home-grown companies to innovate and exploit opportunities interstate and internationally. We should be so proud, because these particular companies demonstrate that we can lead Australia and explore new opportunities both nationally and internationally.
We have to do this together, and the message is that we cannot leave anyone behind. We have to ensure that there are opportunities in our home state of Tasmania for our young people. We do not want to see, when the borders reopen, a brain drain from our state. That's the last thing that we need. Manufacturing is an essential part of every country's economy. We have to invest and we have to innovate, and the federal government should be doing whatever they can to support this new development in manufacturing in this country. (Time expired)
The year 2020 has been devastating for Australia. Between the bushfires and the pandemic, we have very much been tried and tested. We've had to rise to challenges that we've never had before. For the most part, we've done so successfully. But there have been many mistakes along the way—mistakes that we need to acknowledge and mistakes that we need to learn from. One such lesson is the importance of preparedness.
Arguably, the current lockdown in Victoria could have been avoided if that state had employed more contact tracers before the crisis or if it had scaled up its contact-tracing teams faster. The Victorian government could argue that they weren't needed before COVID, which is quite a reasonable point, but it also shows that the value of preparedness was underrated before the pandemic and that we need to adapt our thinking to be ready for the next crisis, because there will be another crisis.
Another example comes from the bushfires that swept the country before the pandemic struck. At the end of last year and again at the start of this year, I asked ministers in this chamber if we had adequate firefighting aircraft. Both times, I was assured that we did. Well, the immense scope of the bushfires showed that that claim was false and this too has been borne out by two very recent reports—in fact, in the last two weeks. The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements reported that the Commonwealth's approach to procuring firefighting aircraft was very much inadequate and it needs to be reassessed. Similarly, the New South Wales bushfire inquiry found a lack of aircraft hampered firefighting, including the essential task of extinguishing new fires before they grew and before they spread out of control.
As with the Victorian case, I don't necessarily blame the government for this. I don't believe anyone anticipated the scale of the bushfires which confronted us last summer, but we must acknowledge that we had insufficient firefighting assets and we need to incorporate this lesson into our preparedness for future bushfire seasons. There are signs that the coming summer will not be as bad as last year, which is good news. Much of the fuel that has been building up over the last few years has fortunately now been consumed. Rainfall throughout the winter has reduced what fuel remains on the ground, and there are signs, at least at this point, that a La Nina event may mean a wetter summer—way wetter—than we experienced last year. So we may be spared another bushfire crisis but just 'may'. I do worry that this will make us complacent. I worry it will provide an excuse for investments in preparedness to be deferred.
Both the royal commission and the New South Wales inquiry made the point that fire seasons around the world are growing longer and are far more intense. Northern and southern seasons are converging and they will soon overlap. The current business model for firefighting aircraft involves them being used in places like Canada, Greece and the United States during the northern summer, particularly July and August. Then, of course, they are transported to the southern countries, like Australia, during the southern summer. But recently, we've seen Californian wildfires persist later into the year and we've seen Australian bushfires start much earlier in the year. This means that firefighting aircraft are increasingly needed in two distant places at exactly the same time. As these aircraft are typically owned by private entities, they're leased out on contracts. When countries invest more money in preparedness, they will be able to contract for more aircraft and will be better protected when fires break out.
We very much need to think seriously about a strategy for ensuring access to firefighting aircraft in a world where they are increasingly sought after. There are several options available to the government. The first option is to continue with the current model. This model has state agencies contracting their own aircraft, and the Commonwealth funding additional shared aircraft through the National Aerial Firefighting Centre. This is the approach that the royal commission found to be inadequate. I share that view. It is clearly not working. The government has committed more money to the NAFC and has indexed the funding to provide them with some certainty. That is a good thing, but it's not enough. We need to very seriously consider the alternatives that are available.
The second option is that the government procure its own aerial firefighting fleet. This would not be a fleet that is flown into Australia when the contract begins, regardless of when we actually need the aircraft. It would be a fleet that is owned and based in Australia, a fleet that would provide Australians with an assurance that the government actually had the resources it needs to protect Australians in times of need. Obviously this is an option that I support. I do understand that the capital costs of a firefighting fleet will be substantial, but the costs of the current approach are way more substantial. Those costs are borne not just by the federal budget but by every individual Australian whose home or business has been lost, sometimes unnecessarily, to bushfires.
The third option is one recommended by the New South Wales inquiry, which suggested that the Commonwealth trial the feasibility of retrofitting RAAF C-130 aircraft with modular airborne firefighting systems. This would mean that our existing C-130 aircraft could be converted to firefighting aircraft at relatively short notice. It would provide us with what is called aviation surge capacity, something that was lacking in the last bushfire season. When I raised this question yesterday in question time, the minister responded by saying that the RAAF pilots are not qualified or certified to fight bushfires. Now, I don't doubt the truth of what she says, but: so what? Senator Reynolds has spoken highly about the skill and professionalism of RAAF pilots. I am certain that they have the skills and the ability to be trained in piloting firefighting aircraft, and I suspect that many of them would welcome the opportunity to serve their country during a time of disaster and contribute to protecting homes and livelihoods, just as they would during times of war and conflict.
The challenge of preparedness is that it's hard to tell the difference between efficient expenditure and waste. Paying for insurance can feel like a waste of money—until you need it. Spending money on bushfire or pandemic preparedness might have looked like a waste a year ago, but now we all wish governments had been better prepared. The simple fact is that we weren't as prepared for 2020 as we could have been. Being prepared wouldn't have stopped the fires. It wouldn't have prevented COVID-19 from reaching Australian shores. But it could have lessened the impact; there is no doubt about that. We need to learn that lesson, and in two, three or maybe four years time, when a natural disaster hasn't struck and a firefighting fleet or a pandemic stockpile starts to look like a waste of money, we need to remember that 2020 was a year of devastation. There will be other years of devastation, but if we learn the right lessons the next one won't have to look as bad as 2020 has been.
Before I begin my remarks on the topic I want to cover today, I'd just like to say that I really did enjoy the contributions from Senator Griff, Senator Polley and Senator Rennick. They cover a broad spectrum, but I really did enjoy the contribution each of them made. And there's one other preliminary point I want to cover before I go to the substance of my statement. I was just informed that Dr John Volep, a history teacher of mine from my old school, Ipswich Grammar School, has passed away. He was an outstanding history, English and German teacher. He put his heart and soul into teaching his students. In my first speech in this place, I talked about the significance and the importance of our early educators, and I think Dr John Volep's family and friends should reflect on that legacy as they mourn his passing.
In my first speech in the Senate I also said that the decisions we make here matter. They have a profound impact on people's lives. We must never forget it. The same applies with respect to decisions made by state governments and state parliaments. We have seen this in recent times with the impact of Queensland's border restrictions. At a press conference held on 18 August 2020, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk was asked about a woman from northern New South Wales who nearly lost her baby after being denied access to health care in Queensland. Premier Palaszczuk said:
People living in New South Wales, they have New South Wales hospitals. In Queensland, we have Queensland hospitals for our people.
Let me say it again:
People living in New South Wales, they have New South Wales hospitals. In Queensland, we have Queensland hospitals for our people.
Those comments were met with outrage and disappointment across this country, including in my home state of Queensland, and for good reason. First, they do not reflect the reality of the situation. Thousands of Queenslanders receive treatment in hospitals outside of Queensland every year. Likewise, thousands of people from New South Wales receive treatment in Queensland hospitals. Their state of origin or place of permanent residency is irrelevant. All that matters is their need for help. Second, the Commonwealth provides billions—that's billions with a 'b'—of dollars to public hospitals every year, money provided for the benefit of all Australians. But, much more than that, those words do not reflect who we are as Queenslanders. We are better than that.
Those words came back to haunt Premier Palaszczuk following the tragic case of a lady from northern New South Wales who lost an unborn twin. A decision was made by her health providers in New South Wales that she should travel to Sydney for treatment instead of driving just a few hours to Queensland. Now, I'm prepared to accept that perhaps the Premier misspoke on 18 August 2020 when she said:
People living in New South Wales, they have New South Wales hospitals. In Queensland, we have Queensland hospitals for our people.
Perhaps the words did not come out properly. We all make mistakes, especially in the flow of a media interview. Moreover, other states are also grappling with these issues. Over the last two weeks I've heard tragic examples from colleagues in other states. But, when faced with the most recent tragedy, the Premier didn't demonstrate any contrition. Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk doubled down. For me, as a senator representing Queensland, that was truly the low point in this debate about border restrictions. There was no contrition from Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. There was no awareness—
Senator Scarr, can I just remind you of standing order 193(3) about personal reflections, including on members of other parliaments. Your comments have not yet reached that but are coming close. You have the call.
If you could excuse my passion for this subject, Queenslanders are truly outraged at the comments of our Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.
There appeared to be no awareness of how cruel the original comments appeared, especially in the context of the most recent tragedy. As reported by the ABC, when reporters asked Premier Palaszczuk whether she regretted her earlier choice of words—and I'm going to give the full quotation so it cannot be alleged that I've taken these words out of context, so the full quotation will be on the record of this place—Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said:
No, because these are really difficult decisions and … people deserve the best health care, and … if they can get the health care locally, then that is good. If it is an emergency or if we have the expertise, of course we will do that.
As I said, I have provided the full context of the Premier's response. I'm not selectively quoting from Premier Palaszczuk, because I want her own words to be judged in their entirety. Premier Palaszczuk's words and related commentary from the Queensland health minister Dr Steven Miles did not reflect the reality of the situation. In the face of tragedy, when the appalling result of the Queensland Labor government's mismanagement of this issue was laid bare for all to see, the Queensland Labor government reverted to what it does best: blame shifting and spin. It must have been the fault of someone else. The New South Wales health authorities had got it all wrong. Of course Queensland would have helped.
To that, I have three responses. First, if emergency assistance was available in this situation without a bureaucratic process, why was that not clearly spelt out in the Queensland government's own health directive? I have it here: Border restrictions Direction (No. 12). There is no reference to emergency health care. In fact, paragraph 35, the provisions relating to health care, speaks of the need to schedule appointments. Since the date of its publication, the Queensland government has had to set up a new unit and a new hotline to deal with these issues.
Second, if there was some informal understanding outside of the health directive or if it went without saying that help would be provided by Queensland, why were the health authorities in northern New South Wales unaware of it? Surely, in the height of a pandemic, this is a key piece of information? Was there no communication, or did the health authorities in New South Wales simply act in accordance with what was the true situation?
Third, above all else, what message did the Queensland Labor Premier think her rhetoric would convey? Words matter. Cruel words lacking empathy matter even more, and Premier Palaszczuk's words sent a message that the people of New South Wales should seek assistance from their own hospitals. When given the chance to demonstrate contrition—any contrition to clarify and to soften the message—Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said no. As the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Ms Deb Frecklington, said:
This is absolutely tragic.
My heart bleeds for the family and everything they have been put through.
When it comes to medical emergencies and border exemptions, the Premier needs to be more compassionate and consistent—not have one rule for the rich and another rule for everyday Australians.
That reflects the views of millions of my fellow Queenslanders. That statement by the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Ms Deb Frecklington, is a true articulation of our Queensland values.
I rise today to make comment on the press release that came out this morning from the Council on the Ageing. I want to speak in some detail about what's in that release, because it should give pause to the warriors on the other side when an august institution like the Council on the Ageing, normally a measured contributor, feels the need to put out a statement of the kind that came out today.
Their chief executive, Ian Yates, expressed COTA's deep concern that the objective work of the expert Retirement Income Review is being politicised before the public has even had a chance to look at it. This is what Mr Yates said:
Our retirement income system is too important to all current and future retirees for its future to become a political football…
In a pretty clear message about what he thinks should happen next, he went on to say:
The Government has had the report for over a month and should release it, without a policy response. The Australian people deserve the chance to see, consider and discuss the Review's, data and findings.
That's all pretty sensible, isn't it? What could be preventing this? What could it be that is stopping the Australian people from having a sensible debate of the kind that Mr Yates calls for? Well, he is very clear about this. The press release notes:
Mr Yates has urged the Federal Government to haul in hyperactive backbenchers spruiking ideological agendas that are not informed by the Review and has also urged all other political actors to stop arguing their case before they have seen the work of the most important review of the retirement income sector for a generation.
It's a pretty clear message, isn't it?
Where is this review? According to the minister, it's sitting on her desk. It's sitting on Mr Frydenberg's desk and it's sitting on Mr Sukkar's desk. Why can't we see it? According to Minister Hume, it's because it's 600 pages long and it's taking a little while to go through it. Perhaps the rest of us would like to chance to go through it as well.
Who could these hyperactive backbenchers be that COTA is so concerned about? Could it be a senator in this place? Could it be Senator Bragg? Here he is on his way into the chamber. Senator Bragg has got a lovely book out. I do note that, according to the media, the Senator's entertaining book has sold, I think, a total of 34 copies. Is that right—34 copies? Obviously not all of his colleagues are interested in purchasing this marvellous book. Two of these copies, one assumes, are the copies in the Parliamentary Library. But what is Senator Bragg doing? He's out there undermining the super system—perhaps he's seen the Retirement Income Review—arguing to make it voluntary for low-income earners and arguing it that ought to be used to buy a home. He's trailing his coat about a range of reforms to undermine Australia's world-class systems.
Mr Falinski, another backbencher, is out there with an agenda that has been described by Mr Yates as ideological, calling for the superannuation increase to be abandoned and for workers to go without the increase to their superannuation. He's calling for workers to go without the money that will deliver them a secure and comfortable retirement.
Looking a little closer to home here in the Senate, is it any wonder that COTA despairs about the comments of Senator Rennick? It was only the other day that Senator Rennick, in what could only be described as an ideological contribution, invoked the statement 'Give me liberty or give me death' and invoked the revolutionary spirit in the fight against Marxism and communism. He talked about little red books and about conspiracies—which is not unusual for Senator Rennick—in an ideological campaign being run right here in the chamber under the nose of the minister, who has just walked into the chamber herself.
Perhaps it is the minister that COTA is concerned about because the minister has the Retirement Income Review and she's not willing to share it with us. But she is out there, saying that she's ambivalent about a legislated review—a legislated increase to workers' retirement incomes. In the middle of the greatest recession in a century, the minister is refusing to commit to a legislated commitment that would provide retirement security to millions of Australian workers. That ambivalence could cost a 30-year-old nurse $121,000 by retirement. That is how the Morrison government seeks to repay the front-line workers who are working through this pandemic to save lives. This is the same minister who bungled the early release scheme, ignored warnings about fraud and dismissed the warnings from industry experts with knowledge of how superannuation actually works.
I think people ought to listen to COTA. I think it is time to abandon the ideological campaign against super. It's time to release the Retirement Income Review because, as COTA says, the consumer organisations, the financial services sector and academic experts have put a huge amount of time and effort into contributing to the review. They have every right to have their efforts respected by the public release of the review report in a timely fashion so that it can inform public discussion.
My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. I refer to the national accounts released today. Can the minister confirm Australia has plunged into the worst recession since the Great Depression, almost a century ago?
Today is a very hard day for Australia. Many Australians have gone through a very difficult period over the last six or seven months as a result of this once-in-a-century global pandemic. The coronavirus pandemic has hit economies around the world very hard. It has hit the Australian economy very hard, and it has had a devastating impact on the livelihoods of too many Australians.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I'm disappointed that the flavour of the interjections from the opposition again demonstrates the level of political smearing that, frankly, completely—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The Labor Party again tries to suggest there's no context to what is happening here. We are where we are as a direct result of the coronavirus pandemic. What we have today is because of the coronavirus pandemic. It is a very sad day for Australia, but that is the reality of it. I know that the Labor Party doesn't want to hear this. As bad as things are for Australia, we went into this period in a stronger position than others. We have gone through this period in a stronger position than others, and the impact on our economy is much less severe than it has been in other parts of the world.
The United Kingdom has experienced a contraction of more than 20 per cent in one quarter. That's the inconvenient truth that the Labor Party is not interested in. The Labor Party wants to come into this chamber and pursue a base political strategy, using this tragedy which is caused by an external event that is beyond our control as a way to score party-political points. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. The Australian people can see what you're doing. We know why we're here. The Australian people know why we're here. And we know what we need to do to— (Time expired)
Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
The national accounts released today show that the economy has contracted by seven per cent. Can the minister confirm this is the worst quarterly result since records began, plunging Australia into the first recession in three decades and ending 29 years of continuous economic growth?
Yes.
Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
With the worst recession since the Great Depression, almost a century ago, and the worst quarterly contraction since records began, can the minister explain why the government has no plan for jobs and no plan for economic recovery?
That is a ridiculous proposition. I completely and utterly reject the premise of the question. As soon as this crisis hit, our government not only made decisions to protect the health of fellow Australians but also made decisions to support the economy and to support jobs. We have provided unprecedented levels of crisis-level fiscal support to the economy, trying to save as many businesses as possible and making sure that as many businesses survive through this period and that as many jobs as possible are saved through this period and indeed to ensure that as many Australians as possible remain connected to their employers. We are making decisions to encourage businesses to invest in their future success through our skills agenda. Senator Cash is the very effective minister pursuing our skills and training agenda— (Time expired)
My question is also to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister further update the Senate on the economic challenges facing Australia as a result of the global coronavirus pandemic?
The national accounts released today show what Australians already knew: our economy has been hit hard, very hard, by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Australian economy contracted by seven per cent in the June quarter, which is indeed the largest quarterly fall in real GDP on record, since records were kept. This was driven by large drops in household consumption, dwelling investment and business investment. The largest contributors to the decline in consumption were hotels, cafes and restaurants, which were down 56.1 per cent, and transport services, which were down a staggering 85.9 per cent.
But the numbers today show that Australia is performing comparatively well when compared to other countries around the world facing precisely the same challenge. The IMF is expecting that 157 economies will contract this year, with unprecedented falls in many. COVID-19 has been a wrecking ball through the global economy. The impact in the June quarter has been staggering, with GDP falling by 20.4 per cent in the UK, 13.8 per cent in France, 11.5 per cent in Canada and 9.1 per cent in the United States.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order!
The decisions our government made prior to this crisis improved our budget position by more than $250 billion over the 10 years to 2022-23. That put us on a better, more sustainable fiscal trajectory for the future as we went into this crisis. It has enabled us to provide record levels of crisis support into the economy—to business and to working families. If we had not done what we did in our first six years in government, we would have had less fiscal capacity to respond and our economy would have been less resilient—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
and today our economy would have been weaker. It is because we repaired Labor's—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
mess in our first six years in government that Australia is in a better position today than we otherwise would have been.
Order on my left! I will call Senator Brockman when I can hear him.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong! Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?
Minister, can you inform the Senate how the government's historic level of support is helping Australians on our road to economic recovery?
I thank Senator Brockman for that question. As I've said, we came into this crisis in a stronger, more resilient position as a result of the budget repair work done by our government during our first six years in government. That allowed us to commit to $314 billion worth of support for the Australian economy, nearly 16 per cent of GDP. According to Treasury, that support has helped save 700,000 jobs—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Seven hundred thousand jobs! The unemployment rate would have been around five per cent higher than it is today—
Government senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Birmingham and Senator Watt, before I call Senator Wong I will insist on both of you being quiet. Senator Wong on a point of order?
A government senator interjecting—
He did. I heard what he called him. I'd ask him to withdraw.
I'm afraid I did not hear. There was so much—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong, please! There was complete disorder across the chamber. I was struggling to hear Senator Cormann. I'm going to ask you, Senator McGrath, to withdraw that.
I heard him, and he didn't actually say that.
Do you want me to put it on the record? He called a senator a moron. I'm asking him to withdraw.
I did not hear it. I can't attest to it. What is conventional in these opportunities is that if a senator wishes to withdraw a comment they may, but I cannot order a withdrawal for something I did not hear. I'm going to ask Senator McGrath to withdraw the comment he made.
I withdraw.
A government senator interjecting—
I heard that one. Senator Cormann.
Thank you very much, Mr President.
Sorry, Senator Birmingham is seeking the call.
Mr President, I stand by the question asking which planet Senator Watt's been on all year, but if I said that I withdraw it.
Thank you. Senator Cormann, please continue.
I've got to say that's a very good point by Senator Birmingham—that question that he just raised. But Senator Watt is certainly not Robinson Crusoe, because everyone on that island that is called the Labor Party these days is in complete denial of what is actually happening on planet Earth. Here is a message from planet Earth, Senator Watt— (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
I'll call Senator Brockman when there's silence. Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?
I thank the minister for that answer. Minister, can you inform the Senate how the government is giving employers the flexibility they need to keep workers employed while they fight back from this economic shock?
This is another important part of our plan to protect jobs during this pandemic. The temporary JobKeeper provisions in the Fair Work Act have provided essential flexibility that has been vital for struggling businesses to survive the impacts of COVID-19 and keep their employees in jobs. It allows employers receiving the wage subsidy to make key changes to their operations. These include adjusted employee work hours and altering duties or the location of work. While this support will be essential for businesses that remain eligible for JobKeeper, greater workplace flexibility will also be vitally important for many businesses that no longer qualify for JobKeeper post September. This will allow those businesses to keep as many of their employees as possible as they continue to recover from the worst of the crisis.
Opposition senators interjecting—
And again the Labor party is not interested in everything that is being done to protect jobs. They want to pursue base political attacks from a different planet.
Order, Senator Cormann, the time for the answer expired.
My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Today the National Accounts confirmed we're in the deepest recession since the Great Depression almost a century ago, and we've recorded the worst quarterly contraction since records began, of seven per cent. Isn't this the worst time for the Prime Minister to be cutting JobKeeper, cutting JobSeeker, cutting wages and freezing the pension?
Well, Senator Gallagher is mixing up a whole range of different things here.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Order! Senator Watt.
When it comes to the pension, the pension will continue to rise in line with inflation. We have not made any decisions whatsoever to change the indexation arrangements for the pension. I think that that question, the way you're framing it and the way you seek to scare vulnerable Australians, is very dishonest indeed. When it comes to JobKeeper, of course we need to phase out of these historically unprecedented, transitional, crisis-level support arrangements. That is what none other than Mr Albanese used to say. In May, June and July he was on the record saying we've got to phase out this historically unprecedented level of support. He is right, because we need to allow the economy to adjust so that it can get into the new normal and start growing again from the new baseline. That is what we need to do.
Quite frankly, we were hit with a crisis. We needed to pause and put in place all the appropriate support mechanisms. But now, moving forward, we've got to allow the economy to transition out of the crisis into the new normal and for those businesses which have the opportunity to be successful, viable and profitable into the future to have the best possible opportunity to succeed. That is why we are pursuing, again, our pro-growth agenda which the Australian people voted for before the last election. That is why we're providing—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
tax incentives to business to encourage them to invest more in their future success, so that growing businesses will hire more Australians. That's why we're pursuing an ambitious free trade agenda, giving our exporting business better access to markets around the world, and lower electricity prices, better skills and indeed less regulation and faster approvals for our projects so that we can ensure we get more projects and more jobs off the ground. These are all the things that we are doing and will continue to do to create more jobs.
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
The National Accounts show that household spending levels collapsed in the June quarter, demonstrating lack of confidence in the economy. Why is the government reducing support to households now, at a time when they clearly require it?
In one of my earlier answers—
Senator Watt interjecting—
Order! Senator Watt.
I pointed out that consumption levels had dropped, in particular in cafes and restaurants and for travel. Message from planet Earth again: governments around Australia imposed restrictions, restaurants were not allowed to open, cafes were not allowed to open, planes were not allowed to fly. I mean, what do you expect would happen in that context?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! On both sides of the chamber.
Honestly, even on planet Mars they would understand, I think. They would understand that when you have a global pandemic that requires restrictions which prohibit restaurants from opening, cafes from opening, planes from flying, that will—
Senator Gallagher interjecting—
Senator Gallagher.
have an impact on the consumption in relation to those areas—of course. That is absolutely logical.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
The only people who don't seem to understand the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic are the Australian Labor Party.
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. I do have—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong, I'd like to hear Senator Gallagher's question.
a supplementary question. Won't the government's decision this week to cut JobKeeper, cut JobSeeker, cut wages and freeze the pension make the worst recession in almost a century even deeper and even longer than it needs to be?
We now have Senator Gallagher criticising legislation she voted for.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Order! Senator Keneally. Senator Wong, a point of order?
Mr President, I know this minister doesn't want to answer the question. He has continued to talk about the opposition.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Can I hear the point of order?
The senator asked a question about the minister's decision this week. He wants to talk about Senator Gallagher and her voting record. There are plenty of other opportunities for him to do so, but he was asked a direct question. I ask him to return to the question.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! We won't get through many questions if this keeps up.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! We will just sit here and waste time. We're on broadcast; I don't think this is a particularly good example for the Senate. On the point of order, the question was very broad. The minister was eight seconds in. The point raised by Senator Wong and the interjections supporting Senator Wong were matters for debate. In my view, the minister is being relevant, particularly as he was eight seconds in. Senator Cormann.
Thank you, Mr President. We stand by the legislation that we put to the Senate and which the Labor Party supported and we absolutely stand by the decisions that we have made.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong is actually not interested in answers; she's interested in disorderly interjecting.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, please. I need to hear Senator Cormann.
We will continue to implement our plan for the strongest possible economic and jobs recovery and for phasing out the level of JobKeeper wage subsidy as the economy recovers at the end of a 12-month period of historically unprecedented support. We need to allow businesses to adjust and to allow the economy to adjust so we can maximise the strength of the recovery on the other side.
My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Minister, happy Early Childhood Educators' Day! But perhaps it is not so happy for the educators. The United Workers Union has come to parliament today to meet with the Minister for Education and to deliver a petition of more than 30,000 signatures. The petition calls for the federal government to provide a wage guarantee to workers in early childhood education and care throughout COVID-19. The union says that the employment guarantee provided by the government doesn't prevent part-time staff and casuals from facing drastic cuts in hours. The vast majority of the sector is part-time or casual. They are among the lowest-paid workers in Australia. Why won't the government commit to a wage guarantee for our critical early childhood educators and carers?
I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. I do acknowledge that early childhood education providers, carers and educators across the country provide an essential and very important service to many, many families, and an important and essential educational opportunity and benefit to many young Australians. My own children received outstanding care in early childhood education from wonderful carers and I'm sure that is the case for many others in this chamber. We acknowledge their hard work, the care they provide and the foundational start they give to young Australians in their education and wellbeing. It is why our government has been pleased to expand opportunity and access for families to be able to reach early childhood education and care services, and we saw record numbers of children and families accessing the services as we entered the pandemic this year. We value the work of those carers, who, of course, have their wages determined through standard industrial relations processes, as indeed do all Australians as part of the award system. But, increasingly, we have pleasingly seen the number of children accessing valuable care services grow, increasing some 1.8 per cent last year to 1,339,970 over that period of time. The number of families is increasing as well. That growth is a testament to the fact that, under our government, prepandemic, our childhood education reforms had provided for families to be able to access care, with support from the government for those who needed the most hours of support getting the most amount of hours of subsidised care. For those earning the least, they were getting the greatest rate of subsidy under our reforms, and that helped drive more families into a system to receive such care.
Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?
Minister, we are seeing growing enthusiastic support across our community for universally available early learning. Just this week, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner identified an overhaul of childcare as a key priority for women's equality, and research from the ANU and Grattan Institute has shown the huge benefits of greater public investment in early learning. When will the government admit that the current system is broken and commit to fee-free, well-funded early learning for all families?
We won't admit that, because we don't agree that's the case. In fact, our belief is that our reforms have strengthened the current system. Our reforms saw investment grow. Investment is forecast to be around $9 billion a year in Australian government support for funding early childhood education and care services, growing to $10 billion a year over the next few years. This is a significant rate of growth in expenditure in these areas. In the growth of expenditure, we have made sure that we target that expenditure. As I said before, under the reforms our government enacted, families who can least afford care receive the greatest level of subsidy and support to access that care. Indeed, the most vulnerable families receive an entire subsidy—all fees are paid and covered in those circumstances. Those working the longest hours receive the greatest entitlement to subsidy, whilst guaranteed hours are there for children in relation to their preschool access.
Order! Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?
Minister, the Thrive by Five campaign for universal access to early learning launched this week, with everyone from Michelle O'Neill and Jay Weatherill to Julie Bishop and Nicola Forrest saying that universal early learning is a great idea. Why is the government dragging its heels and refusing again and again to commit to making our childcare system universally accessible?
Our childcare system is universally accessible. It is universally accessible on a range of levels. Firstly, in the provision of preschool opportunity for children, not only has our government continuously worked with the states and territories to ensure that there is universal access and right to attend preschool services but we continue to try to work with the states and territories to better benchmark attendance at those preschool services. Far too often, the reports we get back are about enrolment in preschool but fail to address the gap in attendance, where often the most vulnerable children who will most benefit from attendance are the ones least likely to be attending. The work that our government sought to do has been to engage states and territories to try to ensure the funding we provide for the delivery of preschool services gets to the children who need it most and delivers them the support that they deserve in terms of being at child care, being at preschool and getting that educational opportunity that they will benefit from.
My question is for the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government's record economic response of over $300 billion to the COVID-19 pandemic is keeping small businesses in business and their employees in work through the economic effects of the pandemic?
I thank Senator McGrath for the question. As the Minister for Finance has stated, COVID-19—a global pandemic—has had a devastating impact on not only the global economy but of course the Australian economy. When a government has to shut down parts of the economy, it is going to have a detrimental effect. We know that it has had a devastating effect on many small and family businesses around Australia, but that is why the government took decisive action and continues to take decisive action to respond to both the health aspects of the pandemic and of course the economic aspects. Small and family businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy. In particular, they support rural and regional economies around Australia. That is why we are investing a record stimulus of in excess of $300 billion in the economy to ensure that we can support them.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Watt!
When we look at—
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Watt!
the support that is actually flowing through to small business—
Order! Senator Cormann, on the point of order? It might be what I was about to say.
Interjections are always disorderly—even more so when there is total disregard to interventions by the President.
I am going to revert to my rule of asking people to count slowly to 10 after they're called to order, especially those who have been particularly voluble today, Senator Watt. Senator Cash.
Thank you, Mr President. And—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Watt—
Honourable senators interjecting—
If someone has been as voluble as Senator Watt has been, they probably need to learn a little bit of patience. I've called him out more than anyone else today. I will call those to my right to order in a minute, but—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Goose and gander—when I've called Senator Watt more than a dozen times in 25 minutes, he can bite his tongue. People shouldn't bait those who are known to have short fuses, either. Please, if I call you to order, at least show some respect to the chair and your colleagues by not continuing it immediately.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order, across the chamber! Senator Cash.
Thank you, Mr President. The economic support is flowing through to small and family businesses around Australia. We know that the JobKeeper program is supporting around 3.5 million Australians to maintain that really important connection with their employer. Yesterday legislation passed this place that will ensure that that support continues until March next year. The cash flow boost is also flowing through to small and family businesses around Australia. Over 785,000 businesses are now accessing over $24 billion in assistance, with that important money flowing through to them. At this time, the apprentice wage subsidy is supporting over 51,200 employers, most of which are small businesses around Australia, to retain almost 90,000 apprentices and trainees. Small and family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy, and the Morrison government will continue to support them.
Senator McGrath, a supplementary question?
How has the government's strong record of supporting small business created the conditions for economic recovery on the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic?
On the government side—the coalition side—of the chamber, we understand that putting in place policies that will support small and family businesses to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians is essential for a strong economy. We've had a record of doing that since we were elected to government. In particular, though, we are fast-tracking tax relief for small and family businesses around Australia because we know that it's their money. The more we can give back to them, the more they can invest back into their businesses and create more jobs for Australians. We are, of course, ensuring that small businesses are paid on time through a range of initiatives but, in particular, through the government's own payment policies. We are cutting red tape for small business. Red tape is a blocker in terms of job creation, and we are absolutely committed to cutting red tape where we can. Investing in mental health resources for small businesses is so important, given the devastating impact of COVID-19 on the economy—
Order! Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question?
How will the government's JobMaker plan support small businesses to create jobs and support their communities as the economy recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic?
The Morrison government understands that small and family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. We understand that we need to put in place—and we have put in place—policies that will enable them to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. In terms of our plan for economic recovery and getting Australia and Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic, every minister and every department is working to put job creation at the centre of everything we do. We will continue to build on the measures that we have already implemented to help the economy and to ensure that small businesses are able to create jobs. As the Minister for Finance has stated, this includes undertaking important skills reform and ensuring that Australians are skilled in areas of the economy that are creating jobs. The important industrial relations reform that the Minister for Finance referred to includes removing unnecessary red tape through deregulation and, of course, streamlining project approvals—a key factor in job creation. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Cormann. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott gets two taxpayer-funded staff members, a driver, an office, a private vehicle, free travel, and a pension worth over $300,000 a year. Mr Abbott has accepted a role advancing the interests of a foreign nation. There is a strong probability that Mr Abbott will be employed to assist the UK to negotiate trade deals that may not necessarily benefit Australia's sovereign interest. Is the Prime Minister really going to allow Australian taxpayers to pay Mr Abbott, pay for his office, pay for his travel, pay for his staff, and pay for his car while he's working against the interests of the same Australian taxpayers that are covering his bills?
An opposition senator interjecting—
I thank Senator Lambie for that question. I'm somewhat disappointed that a Labor senator has just felt it appropriate to say that that was a good question, because in Australia we have a great tradition, in a non-partisan fashion, of treating our former Prime Ministers with respect, from both sides of politics—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order!
and the work expenses available to former prime ministers, be they Labor or Liberal, are precisely the same, and organised in an entirely non-partisan fashion.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left! I'm having trouble hearing. Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. This is no reflection on Senator Cormann; I can't hear what he's saying.
An honourable senator interjecting—
Really? When I say I can't hear a minister answering the question, the retort to the chair is: 'He should answer the question.' I'm asking to be able to hear the minister answer the question. He does not have a quiet voice, and I can't hear it. Senator Cormann.
Despite my voice, I don't think any of my colleagues are falling asleep as I'm answering this question today. We treat our former Prime Ministers with courtesy and respect. The work expense arrangements for all of them are the same. I believe that all of them pursue alternative opportunities to contribute, internationally and domestically. I don't believe the information Senator Lambie has, that Mr Abbott is paid for work that he is conducting to facilitate international trade. I don't believe he's paid for that role. I don't think it is appropriate to make the sorts of reflections that were just supported by a Labor senator in this chamber—disappointingly—in relation to any of our former prime ministers.
Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Whether he was paid or not, I was kicked out of the Senate in 2017 under section 44 of the Constitution, for dual citizenship. The thinking has always been that dual citizens have dual allegiance, to Australia and to another country. If another country was paying me to promote their interests, potentially over the interests of Australia, would that be considered a dual allegiance? And, if so, would I, like Mr Abbott, still be entitled to an annual salary from the taxpayer?
Firstly, Mr Abbott is no longer a member of the Australian parliament, so the constitutional arrangements around eligibility for federal members of parliament do not apply to Mr Abbott. Mr Abbott, like any former member of parliament or any former Prime Minister under the old parliamentary pension arrangements, obviously qualifies for the arrangements that have been in place for all on the same basis. I think it's entirely inappropriate to make the suggestions that are being made here. I think it is deeply personal and inappropriate, and—
Senator Wong interjecting—
No, Senator Wong, quite frankly, everyone after they leave is entitled to pursue other career opportunities and the retirement income arrangements under—
Senator Lambie, on a point of order.
My point of order is that what I'm asking is: does the minister not think that that gives Mr Abbott a dual allegiance? We are paying him, yet he may be going into trade, and against the taxpayer—
Senator Lambie, I've allowed you to restate part of the question, but that was not a point of order. I think the minister is being directly relevant to the question as asked. There's a chance to debate it later. Senator Cormann.
I answered the question directly. The analogy that Senator Lambie sought to make with her circumstance when she found herself in breach of constitutional eligibility requirements is not valid, because Mr Abbott is no longer a member of the Australian parliament.
Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?
What would the Prime Minister like to say to the thousands of veterans whose compensation claims have been denied in the courts every year, each amounting to far less than the $700,000 a year we're paying the former Prime Minister to work against Australia's national interest?
I'm disappointed that Senator Lambie chooses to pick on one former Prime Minister. The arrangements are the same for all our current former prime ministers, except the most recent ones, and anyone who has—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, if you are suggesting that we should change retirement income arrangements retrospectively, then please say so and move a piece of legislation along those lines.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister outline how the recent agreement between the United States Department of Defense and the Australian company Lynas to supply critical minerals from its Mount Weld mine in Western Australia will benefit Australia?
I thank Senator Canavan for his question. He is, of course, a consistent advocate for Australia's resources industry, as the entire chamber knows. Lynas is an Australian-listed company and a great Aussie success and export success story. It is a key component of the global rare-earth supply chain and, I understand, supplies around 13 per cent of global rare-earth element production. Lynas owns and operates a rare-earth mine in Mount Weld, WA, and ore from Mount Weld is shipped and processed at Lynas Advanced Materials Plant in Malaysia.
On 27 July 2020, Lynas announced that the US Department of Defense and Lynas had signed a contract for phase 1 work to deliver a US based heavy rare-earth processing facility. But this, I'm pleased to say, is not Lynas's only facility development. Lynas is also investing around $500 million to build a processing plant in Kalgoorlie that will use Mount Weld ore. Lynas is committed to using a residential workforce instead of FIFO workers, creating about 500 jobs in the construction phase and about 100 permanent roles. Lynas has a proven record in the processing of rare-earth elements, and this is an important milestone in delivering more diversified global supply of heavy rare earths.
Critical minerals featured again in the recent AUSMIN held by my colleagues in Washington. This highlighted the importance of work Australia and the US are progressing to diversify critical-mineral supply chains. The current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted potential issues associated with concentrated supply chains, but we know that Australia is well placed to lead the diversification of critical-mineral supply chains across the globe, as we're the leading producer of some of the most sought after critical minerals, including rare earths, lithium, zirconium and titanium. These are critical minerals found in our phones, laptops and advanced technological products, and, of course, across defence industries as well. That's why we're so committed to working with our partners to help diversify that supply. (Time expired)
Senator Canavan, a supplementary question?
Why is it important for our mining and manufacturing sectors to deliver to diverse export markets?
Australia's resource industry is world leading. The world needs our raw materials and mining, and we have been a proud, consistent and reliable supplier of such minerals right across the world, in terms of support for the growth of others. Australia is the world's largest producer of iron ore, metallurgical coal, LNG and bauxite and the second-largest producer of gold and thermal coal. Australia also has extensive resources of nickel, copper and zinc, metals that will be key for the future economy. We're increasingly looking to and working with companies like Lynas in the value-adding of our resources. Our mining equipment, technology and services industry is world leading, itself exporting around $27 billion worth of Australian know-how and expertise to support resources projects across the globe.
Australia has many robust trading partners. We export our resources to many of the world's major economies, meeting their demands and their needs, but, in doing so, creating jobs, and opportunities for Australians and for Australian businesses to grow. (Time expired)
Senator Canavan, a final supplementary question?
Minister, how will expanding our minerals exports to nations like the United States help secure long-term, well-paying jobs in regional Australia on our road to economic recovery?
The resources industry is one of the most important industries for regional communities right across Australian states, including Senator Canavan's great home state of Queensland. Whether it's Karratha, Mackay, Mount Isa, across Queensland or right across the country, the resources sector underpins good jobs, reliable jobs, high-paying jobs for families, particularly those living in regional areas, and it creates economies and communities that provide further job opportunities right across regional Australia.
It is of course also, I am pleased to say as trade minister, a leading export sector in terms of the contribution it makes generating income wealth for our nation. As I was saying before, it is not just the extraction of resources but increasingly areas of processing and the use of Australian skills, know-how and capabilities that we see now assisting projects around the world and again generating more high-paying job opportunities for Australians, which will be ever more important in our economic recovery. (Time expired)
[by video link] My question is also to Senator Birmingham, representing the minister for resources. Last week the New South Wales Liberal member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski, called on the House to oppose oil and gas drilling off the coast of Sydney and oppose the renewal of the petroleum exploration permit PEP 11 licence. Is the federal government aware of the reasons the member for Mackellar doesn't want to see new oil and gas exploration off the New South Wales coastline? And does your government agree with Mr Falinski?
I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for the question. I did not see Mr Falinski's comments. He's welcome in the Senate if he wishes, but he does a fine job in his electorate already. Since I didn't see his comments I'll take on notice any details that might be necessary to add in relation to that. But I would make the point that we have well-established approvals processes in relation to oil and gas exploration where that is offshore, working through NOPSEMA, an agency that has had its expertise and credibility demonstrated time and again, most recently by work that Australia's chief scientist did following the last election to review NOPSEMA in terms of the approvals processes to ensure that the way they assess environmental risks and other factors occurs in a most thorough manner.
Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question?
[by video link] The permanent holders of PEP 11, Asset Energy and Bounty Oil & Gas, want to go straight from seismic testing to drilling, a change of permit that would require and skip community consultation. Given that the New South Wales Liberal government also opposes any extension to PEP 11 and that the ultimate decision rests with the federal minister, will your government listen to your federal and state colleagues rather than a few oil and gas interests and step in to protect the New South Wales coastline from a potentially deadly oil spill and a divisive— (Time expired)
I can say that what our government will do is not listen to a few interests, on any side of any one debate, but we will apply the law fully, thoroughly and rigorously, as it's intended to be. We will let our independent agencies, who operate under laws passed through this parliament, undertake the assessments of any applications for permits, changes in permits or otherwise, without any political interference but on the basis of the merits of those cases, including of course the thorough and proper environmental consideration that will be given to any such applications or requests.
Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question?
[by video link] Minister, there's little to no scientific research on the impacts of oil and gas exploration, especially seismic testing, on our oceans and fisheries. The limited research we do have suggests significant risks, with caution to be applied. Minister, do you appreciate why commercial fishing bodies and stakeholders right around the country, from Ningaloo in Western Australia to the Great Australian Bight to King Island off Tasmania to the Otway Basin, are up in arms over new offshore oil and gas exploration acreage— (Time expired)
I suspect that Senator Whish-Wilson exaggerates somewhat what he describes as those who are 'up in arms'. I again restate, as I did in answering the primary question and the first supplementary question, that when it comes to any applications for seismic testing, offshore drilling or any such activities they go through a very thorough assessment process. That assessment process is designed to ensure that the scientific evidence is heeded, that safeguards are met and, indeed, that it involves opportunities for communities, stakeholders, or others to have their say as part of that assessment process and to present evidence to those assessments. That's precisely what will occur in the case of any of the types of hypothetical circumstances that Senator Whish-Wilson raises. It will be done properly in a way that balances those interests and assesses the evidence but also still provides an opportunity for job creation to occur in Australia where projects meet the appropriate safeguards.
My question is for the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck: Former Prime Minister Abbott says elderly people with COVID-19 should be left to die 'while nature takes its course'. Why hasn't the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians already condemned this heartless remark by this former Liberal Prime Minister?
I had not heard that comment made by the former Prime Minister, but I do not agree with that. I do not agree with that statement. I simply do not agree with it. All of the government's actions demonstrate our desire to ensure that all senior Australians, COVID-positive or not, are treated with respect and get the care that they deserve. There is no way I think anyone in this chamber, on either side, would agree with those comments of former Prime Minister Abbott. I absolutely do not agree and I would condemn the comments, because that's not what I believe and I don't think that's what anyone in the chamber believes. Our desire—all our planning, all our work—is to ensure that all senior Australians get the care that they deserve and they need regardless of the COVID-19 circumstances. So I simply do not agree with the statements of the former Prime Minister.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Last month the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, said the view that elderly people should be offered up to COVID-19 is 'an absolutely amoral, hideous thought'. Does the minister agree that Tony Abbott's prepared remarks in a speech last night are amoral and hideous?
I just condemned the remarks of the former Prime Minister with respect to senior Australians or any Australian who has COVID-19. I do not agree with the remarks that were made last night.
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
I note the minister's condemnation of former Prime Minister Abbott's remarks. Does the minister's dismissal of deaths by neglect as a function of the aged-care system reflect his view that elderly Australians should be offered up to COVID-19 and left to die while nature takes its course?
It is really quite offensive that Senator Keneally continues to misrepresent the remarks that I've made in the chamber. I have never done that. I have never dismissed any of the deaths. I have consistently offered my condolences to every family that has lost a family member with respect to COVID-19. The misrepresentation of my comments by the opposition on a number of occasions is dishonest and it's offensive. All of the efforts of the government right through this pandemic have been focused on providing support to senior Australians through the COVID-19 outbreak. We continue to do that. I find that the comments and the suggestion of Senator Keneally quite offensive.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister outline the government's support to vulnerable Australians whose return to Australia has been impacted by COVID-19?
I thank Senator Smith for his question. We're certainly aware that many Australians are facing hardship overseas because of the global travel restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Many Australians have been able to return—more than 379,000—since the government advised Australians to reconsider their need to travel overseas. However, about 30,000 people are registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as being overseas and of those about 20,000 have expressed a wish to return. The government, through its network of DFAT consular staff, has been helping those Australians, with a focus on people who are most vulnerable because they have no means to support themselves or perhaps have medical conditions.
Today the government has indicated that we will provide further support through an expanded hardship program, which will build on our existing traveller emergency loans program. These are one-off loans which will be available to cover emergency living costs until a person is able to return. Loans will also be available to help with the cost of airline tickets to return to Australia. Loans will be made to the most vulnerable Australians, and applicants will need to meet strict eligibility requirements, including, for instance, being able to show that they have attempted to return to Australia. This financial assistance is available to Australians, much like the traveller emergency loans, as a last resort. For further information, we of course continue to encourage people to visit smartraveller.gov.au. We understand that many Australians have found themselves in difficult circumstances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions globally, as I said. The program we are announcing today will alleviate some of this hardship.
Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise what steps the government has taken to protect the health of the Australian community, including those Australians overseas?
I thank Senator Smith for his supplementary question. The government did act early to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Australia by recognising this as a pandemic and restricting entry to the country. Without these measures, taken based on clear health advice, the pandemic would have hit our communities much harder. Around 4,000 Australians continue to return each week. The states' and territories' incoming passenger caps remain in place through the national cabinet process to protect the Australian community; although, as the Prime Minister has advised, they are being regularly reviewed. The situation in Victoria has illustrated how dangerous a compromised quarantine system can be. Today's national accounts data also underscores the fact that, as well as the tragic loss of life, the economic damage is unparalleled in our recent history. We acknowledge that domestic caps are making it harder for people to return but we ask that Australians understand that there is a balance which has to be struck in the circumstances.
Order, Senator Payne. Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister advise the Senate what further support and guidance the government is giving to Australians overseas and their families?
I think it is important to note that this is a global pandemic which is far from over. There is no guarantee about when international travel, for example, will return to some form of normalcy. DFAT continues to work with airlines and other governments to assist Australians in returning, but it is going to be some time before flights are available. In that context, we encourage Australians seeking to return to stay in close contact with their airlines, their travel agents to confirm plans as they are able to do so. For those who are unable to obtain flights, we continue to encourage them to ensure they have arrangements in place to allow for a possible extended stay. The support announced by the government today is designed to help the most vulnerable Australians overseas maintain those arrangements. Australians overseas are also able to follow the advice of local authorities, of course, and continue to monitor the government's advice on Smartraveller.
My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston: Australians are living through the worst recession since the Great Depression almost a century ago. Today's national accounts show household spending has collapsed, and we have record high unemployment, with one million Australians out of work and 400,000 more expected to lose their job by Christmas. Isn't this the worst time to be cutting back support?
I thank Senator Green for her question. Quite clearly, the figures that we received today indicate the devastating impact that the COVID pandemic has had not only on Australia and on our economy but, most particularly, on the lives and livelihoods of many Australians, and that is why this government has put in place an unprecedented package of supports for Australians. So far, $314 billion has been put into the economy to make sure that Australians have a cushion to support them through this unprecedented pandemic that has hit the entire world but has also impacted Australia.
But what we did say at the time this pandemic first hit, back in March—everybody here was in the chamber at the time—was that we needed to put in supports to assist Australians from one side of this pandemic to the other. Clearly, we are not through that pandemic yet. But we all agreed at the time that we would put in place supports and, in my area of social services, those supports related to the coronavirus supplement. We made a decision in July and we announced to people in July that we were going to extend that support past the end of September, because we recognise that Australians are still doing it tough. But across much of the economy, we are starting to see the green shoots of our economy opening up. We are starting to see jobs occur.
It is the responsibility of a responsible government to make sure that we manage the balance between providing increased levels of support to support people in a shallow job market while at the same time recognising we have to put the incentives back in place so people start engaging with the job market, so that they can start getting themselves back into the job market. In addition to that, we also provided assistance through the income-free— (Time expired)
Senator Green, a supplementary question?
In March, the Senate gave the minister extraordinary powers to increase support to those on support payments. What is the economic impact of the minister's refusal to use her extraordinary powers to give the one million Australians without work the support that they need?
I would point out to Senator Green that I have actually used my powers. There is an instrument laid in this place at the moment to extend the coronavirus supplement from the end of September to the end of December, recognising that the jobs market is still very shallow. But, in addition, we do want people to start re-engaging with the jobs market, because we understand that people who have any form of income in addition to their unemployment benefit are more likely to come off payment. I find it really quite extraordinary; I mean, it is almost like you guys want to have an each-way bet.
Order! Senator Watt, on a point of order.
On relevance. The question was asking the minister what the economic impact of her refusing to use her powers is, and she hasn't addressed that point.
The minister has been addressing the use of the powers; that was directly relevant. I'm listening to what the minister is saying. I consider it to be relevant to the question, referring to both the powers and the economic impact, which were phrases used in the question.
Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, it is almost like those opposite want to have an each-way bet. In one instance you are telling us that we need to extend things and, in the other, you are telling us we need to transition out of it. Clearly, those on the other side really don't actually know what they want.
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Direct relevance: after the point of order was raised, the minister then went to a commentary on the Labor Party. They are in government; they answer the questions. I would ask you to ask the minister to return to the question.
It would be easier if there were no interjections and if ministers did not take them. That would be easier. The minister has five seconds left. I will encourage her to be directly relevant and for there to be no interjections to provide her with bait.
Thank you very much, Mr President. I have used my powers.
Senator Green on a final supplementary question?
Why is the minister not only refusing to act but also cutting back support from the economy and the jobs market, making it even harder for the one million Australians out of work right now to find jobs and to put food on their tables?
As I said in the answer to the primary question that I received from Senator Green, everybody in this chamber was in the chamber in March when we made a decision to put in place a supplement, called the coronavirus supplement, for a period of six months. That period of six months expires on 24 September this year. The decision of this government—the government of which I am the social services minister—which we announced in the July Economic and Fiscal Update, was to extend the supplement past the September deadline until December and, at the same time, put in place an increased income-free area which allowed people to earn an additional $300 before any of their payments were cut back. In effect, we have said that we are transitioning people back into the economy, but we recognise the job market is shallow, and, for that reason, we have extended the supplement for a further three months at the same time as putting in an income-free area supplement.
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wong today relating to the economy.
Today we had the National Accounts released. What they've shown is that we have the deepest recession since the Great Depression, we've got the worst quarterly contraction since records began 60 years ago, household spending has collapsed, business investment—already in decline since 2018—has tanked, one million Australians are unemployed, 400,000 people are expected to lose their jobs by Christmas, 1.6 million Australians are receiving income support through JobSeeker or youth allowance, about 3½ million Australian workers are on JobKeeper and we have record levels of debt and will have deficits for a decade. What's this government's response to this disastrous set of numbers released today—numbers which tell the distressing stories of businesses lost, jobs lost and households under enormous stress? Where is the government's plan for economic recovery? Where is their plan for jobs? We've known for some time that the Treasurer is very quick to go out and tell everyone how bad the economy is and how terrible the impact of COVID-19 has been, but he's not as quick to get out and tell us what the plan is for recovery, and that's what people want to hear.
People know the economy has suffered. They know jobs have been lost. Each one of us knows someone who's lost their job and who's struggled to make ends meet. We all understand that. The more relevant thing for the government to be focusing on is what they are doing. The only thing they've been clear about since July when they provided the economic update is a plan to cut economic support—to cut JobKeeper, to cut JobSeeker, to cut wages, to cut super and to freeze the pension. They're all decisions that this government has taken. We know what they're prepared to cut and what they're prepared to withdraw; what's less clear to us is what they're going to do to drive economic growth, to drive jobs growth and to support businesses that are under pressure in the recovery stage. That's what we are looking for, that's why we asked our questions today, and that's why we want to know whether this is the right time for the government to be withdrawing the support that's been provided in the last six months.
It's not just Labor that want to know this; the Reserve Bank governor has made it clear on many occasions that fiscal policy will remain an extremely important element of any economic recovery, and he has warned against withdrawing fiscal support too soon, because the consequences of that will be a longer and deeper recession. And the unemployment queues will grow longer than they should or need to if the government gets this wrong. That's the point that Labor is making. That's why we are asking the government: what is your plan for jobs? How are you going to grow jobs and grow the economy? That is what Australians expect of their government. That's what they elect them to do—not to tell them how bad everything is, how it's not their fault, how it's everyone else's fault, the states' fault, and how we're better than every other country. When you do those international comparisons, I think it's pretty cold comfort, frankly, for the million people who have joined the unemployment queue or the 1.6 million surviving fortnight to fortnight on JobSeeker or youth allowance. I don't think they make the international comparison. They want to know what the plan is for jobs.
We know this government puts a lot of emphasis on the spin. There's a lot less emphasis placed on the substance. So we have announcement after announcement—JobMaker, JobTrainer and HomeBuilder. Then when you drill down into those programs that were announced 10 weeks ago, three months ago, what do you find out? You find out that there's no idea how many jobs will be created under JobMaker. The employment department didn't know, other than that they weren't in charge of it. On JobTrainer, we don't know the skills priority list. I think they may have released something today, but when it was announced 10 weeks ago they didn't know. They had to wait for that work to be done. And HomeBuilder was supposed to drive the construction industry—nothing spent and no applications approved. We want more than spin. We want substance and we want a jobs plans from this government. (Time expired)
When we think back to the last election, I recall in the week before the election the Labor Party put out their picture.
Senator Gallagher interjecting—
Senator Wong interjecting—
It's a good one! I've got the picture; it's a good one. It's in my office. You're in it, Senator Wong. Senator Wong was in the picture. Mr Bowen was in the picture. Mr Shorten was in the picture. Mr Chalmers was in the picture. What they said is, 'We're ready.' I think about that election when I see what the Labor Party go on about in opposition and the way they behave. I think about the reasons for that. There's been a lot written about it, about their economic plan. The wrecking ball they wanted to take to the Australian economy with their higher taxes plan was part of that. The line of questioning that we saw in question time today which we're debating now—the questions that they put and the answers that were given to those questions—fundamentally goes to the disdain the Australian Labor Party have for the Australian people. They have absolute disdain for the Australian people.
We saw it with the claim that you could raise taxes by $387 billion and that would have no impact, that you'd be able to have this magic money tree and distribute money wherever you liked and that would have no impact on the economy. We saw it in question time today and the attacks that the Labor Party are launching. They showed such disdain for the Australian people. They think that they won't notice that when they attack us as we face this economic downturn and they ignore what is going on around the world and what is going on in Australia in terms of this thing called COVID-19, coronavirus, and the wrecking ball that that has been for the world economy.
Opposition senators interjecting—
We have Labor senators interjecting about this. They seem to think that the Australian people are too dimwitted to notice that there are these things going on and that governments around the world are seeking to deal with it. This Australian government, this coalition government, has put forward policies right throughout to shield Australians from the worst of the economic impact. Can we stop all of the economic impact? No, unfortunately, we can't. That's why days like today, when we see those figures out there and we see a number put on the challenges and the suffering that so many Australians are going through as we deal with this health crisis and economic crisis, are tough days. We are thinking about those people who have lost their jobs.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Again, we get these ridiculous interjections. But the Labor Party would like us to pretend that this is all happening in a vacuum, that the drop in GDP that has been announced today, that we take seriously, that we've been working so hard—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
Senator Pratt, order!
As Minister Cormann pointed out, when you have states and territories doing a pretty good job, in most cases, dealing with the health crisis and shutting things down and saying, 'You can't move here,' and, 'You can't move there,' and, 'This business can't open,' that has a serious impact on economic activity.
But the other lie the Labor Party seeks to perpetrate and thinks the Australian people are too stupid to notice is that somehow we went into this with an economy that wasn't doing well. That's not what the RBA governor was saying. He was forecasting economic growth of three per cent and more going into 2020 and 2021. He was forecasting unemployment to drop below five per cent, so that was the starting point the Liberal-National government had brought the country to.
The other starting point we had was a balanced budget. Having inherited a $48 billion deficit from the Labor Party, we balanced the budget, which of course has given us more fiscal firepower to be able to support Australians with JobKeeper and JobSeeker. Can you imagine if the deficits that had been run up under the Labor Party had continued, as they would have? We would have $40 billion and $50 billion deficits. So we had balanced the budget, we were strengthening our economy, unemployment was headed below five per cent, and now we're dealing with this challenge together as a nation. We'll deal with it. We'll come through this, because we will make changes. We will be nimble as an economy, as a government and as a country. That will help people get back into work, that will assist them with the skills they need and that will cut the red tape that gets in their way. We will get out of this together. But we are not going to be lectured to by the Labor Party living in a fantasy land, pretending the crisis doesn't exist.
Well, let's just start with a few facts; it would make a nice change from what we just heard from Senator Seselja. The facts are that today we learned that Australia is facing its worst recession in nearly 100 years, the worst recession our country has faced since the Great Depression. We have seen the worst quarterly contraction of our country since records began. If there's one thing this government has set a record for, it's for setting new records of poor economic management. Even before this crisis hit, we saw the worst wage growth that this country had ever seen, since records began, and today we saw the worst contraction in the economy in any one quarter since records began. It's the first recession in 30 years. It is 30 years since growth started under a Labor government, which got the economy moving, got the economy growing and got people into jobs. Now it's all been brought to an end by a coalition government starving the economy and starving the Australian people of support that is desperately needed.
I might just point out that the government is very keen, as it's wont to do, to flick responsibility for what has gone on here. It points to the COVID pandemic, and of course that is a factor in this economy. But I didn't see anyone on the government benches running those kinds of excuses when Australia faced the GFC. All around the world after the GFC, the global economy went into freefall. All developed economies went into recession for years, except for one—Australia. Australia was the only world economy that did not go into recession after the GFC and that was because of the policies that were brought in by the Labor government of the day. This government could take a few lessons from that Labor government about how you deal with external economic shocks and protect your own population from the harm they can cause.
Just as we saw a Labor government take an expansionary approach to the economy after the GFC, we need this government to take an expansionary approach to the economy after the COVID crisis. Unfortunately, we are seeing the opposite. All of these facts and figures have human consequences. It's not just about percentages and records and things like that; it's about the human consequences. All around Australia we're seeing families losing jobs, unable to pay bills. We're seeing businesses that have been developed over decades collapsing and we're seeing Centrelink queues the like of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. These are the human consequences of this government's failure to properly protect Australians from the COVID epidemic and its economic consequences.
What's even worse is that, rather than protecting the Australian people, this government's policy decisions are actually making things worse. They are making this recession deeper. They are making this recession last longer than it needs to and they are holding back the recovery. We just heard this nonsense from Senator Ruston that we're now seeing green shoots in the economy. On the day we have plunged into the first recession we've had in 30 years—green shoots? I'd hate to see a dry lawn if that is 'green shoots'. This economy is in freefall under this government, and their own decisions are making it worse. They excluded casuals and all sorts of other people from receiving JobKeeper. They've set up a system where people are having to raid their own superannuation funds just to stay afloat because not enough support has been provided by this government. In the same week that we hear that this is the worst recession in Australia for 100 years, they now plunge on with their plan to cut JobKeeper, to cut JobSeeker, to freeze the pension and to cut the planned superannuation increases. So their own policies are making this worse and holding back the recovery.
What the government should be doing is coming out with some kind of a jobs plan. I was challenging the government through question time as to where their jobs plan is. It's a blank sheet of paper. It doesn't have a website. It's www.nojobsplan.com. Get on with it. (Time expired)
There are a number of matters that separate one side of the chamber from the other. The most critical at this moment seems to be that, on this side of the chamber, most—if not all—of our members can manage to stay awake for the entire course of parliament. But, of course, we know that's not true on the flip side of parliament because we've seen Senator Carr nod off. It seems to me that are many, many more who may well be—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, this doesn't relate to you. We're talking about Senator Carr's nodding off yesterday. But he's been asleep for longer than we think, as, obviously, has Senator Watt, because what we—
Senator Antic, please resume your seat. Senator Polley.
Deputy President, I draw your attention to the issue before the chair and the need to draw the good senator to the topic at hand, which is not to run a commentary on other senators.
Thank you, Senator Polley. I am listening carefully. I'm waiting for Senator Antic to take note of the answers from Senator Cormann.
We are now something in the order of 25 seconds in, which is not an unreasonable prelude, because the point I was going to make was that you would have to have been asleep for the better part of 12 months to not know that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. Obviously, that propensity to doze off has infected that side of the chamber, because we on this side of the chamber all know that the COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented event in our lifetime. It has sent a wrecking ball through the economy.
In fact, we heard earlier from Senator Watt that there were concerns about the suggestion that we are now seeing green shoots. Let me take you to the words of the RBA governor, who said yesterday, in relation to the situation that Australia finds itself in:
As difficult as this is, the downturn is not as severe as earlier expected and a recovery is now under way in most of Australia.
We know that side of the chamber loves evidence based politics. We hear it all the time: evidence based policy, evidence based politics. This is the RBA governor talking. We know this is a difficult time. We on this side of the chamber know this is a difficult period. We have seen COVID-19 do what nothing else in our lifetime has done. The IMF is actually expecting 157 economies to contract this year, and many will experience unprecedented falls. So the impact in the June quarter on GDP across the globe has been staggering. There is no other way of putting it: it's staggering.
Let's look at some more evidence based assessments for the other side. There was a 20.4 per cent GDP fall in the United Kingdom; 13. 8 per cent in France; 11.5 per cent in Canada; and 9.1 per cent in the United States. These are ostensibly the biggest economies in the world. The situation in Australia needs to be read as the facts show, and the RBA governor's comments are very, very relevant. While the market is expecting falls of less than what we've seen overseas, the national accounts will confirm what Australians already know: the economy has been hit hard. That is very, very clear. And we can't rule out, of course, the effect of the Victorian stage 4 lockdown. This has been an enormous drain on the economy coming, of course, from the Labor-run state of Victoria.
As part of our economic plan, the Morrison government are providing unprecedented support. The suggestion that there has been no support or that JobKeeper is being wound down unnecessarily is an absolute nonsense. It's a Labor-run furphy. The business—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
There's the $314 billion in support to keep Australian businesses in jobs. We can run through some of that. Our jobs plan is, without question, sound and fundamental. We have the economic support packages.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
I'm going to give Senator O'Neill some more evidence, because we know that, being a Labor senator, she loves evidence based policy. Our economic support package of $305 billion represents—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator O'Neill, order!
There's no question that she's awake; that's good. It represents 15.3 per cent of annual GDP. Now, let's go through it. We need to break this down, because some people in this chamber are asleep at the wheel. There's $101.3 billion for JobKeeper—$101.3 billion! There's $31.9 billion for cashflow boosts for business; $16.8 billion for income support for individuals, including the $550 fortnightly coronavirus supplement; and $9.4 billion for two rounds of the stimulus payments. Then there's the skills and apprenticeships program, with the new National Skills Commission, which we've spoken about at length in here. This is going to help young jobseekers to better understand the skills needed by employers.
What more can this government do? Once again, for those on the opposite side of the chamber who are awake, which Senator O'Neill very clearly is—Senator Carr has gone off for a nap, I think—we are going through the continual list of achievements. (Time expired)
Thank you, Senator Antic. May I remind you of the words of the President earlier in the week about not referring at this particular time to senators who are not in the chamber, because we have so many senators paired and using the video link.
That contribution to our debate after question time was an embarrassment for a government that has no plan. The only plan that was referenced there at all was the announcement schedule, where the government goes out and makes an announcement day after day. But Australians are starting to wake up to this government. They are desperate to hear that the government has a plan, because they know it will affect their life, but there is no plan.
I rise, like my colleagues, to take note of answers given by the Minister for Finance regarding this truly terrible day for the Australian people impacted by what's going on in our economy. As was forecast in recent days, the economy has headed into a recession for the first time in nearly three decades. The jobs figures are more diabolical than even I feared, with another 400,000 Australians predicted to lose their job by Christmas. This is indeed, as Senator Watt said, the worst recession in nearly 100 years. Memories and images echoing the Great Depression are acquiring a 2020 makeover in the lives of our citizenry right now. So many Australians—far too many Australians, including my own children and their friends—have a recession in sight now. They have no idea what it's like. We've had 30 years of growth constructed by great policymaking by Labor leaders, kicked off by Hawke and Keating. Right now, we are witnessing—our children are witnessing—the long, long queues outside Centrelink, right across this country. They're driving down main streets and seeing small businesses shuttered, right across the country. They're coming to know and see that the Australians who they believed would always have a job don't have a job, and businesses are disappearing overnight.
Today, it's been confirmed that the GDP, the gross domestic product of this country, has collapsed by seven per cent through the June quarter. That figure, a seven per cent decline in the wealth of our nation, has been unheard of since the Great Depression, over 90 years ago. The pandemic has, indeed, caused a steep drop in private household expenditure and that has had massive economic impacts. And I will go to what Senator Cormann said that was of incredible concern to me. He said, 'Yes, private household expenditure has dropped.' He said, 'People have stopped going out to restaurants and they're not going to cafes,' as if that's all that's wrong with the economy. If that's all that Senator Cormann thinks is wrong with the economy when we have a seven per cent contraction in GDP, then we're in for some bumpy times. I'll tell you what he gave away today. He predicted what the next steps in the government's response are going to be. Watch out for these words: 'adjust', 'new normal' and 'new baseline', because that's what Senator Cormann said today. He said that this is the new world and we're going to have to adjust to a new kind of Australia. When he says that you need to adjust, what he's saying to my children and their friends and people who have lost their jobs—the millions of Australians who've lost their jobs; the 400,000 people who are set to lose their jobs before Christmas—is: 'Get used to it.'
The Liberal-National coalition, the government of Australia, the one that goes out and tells you they're all about jobs and growth—they've got a new normal coming your way. They heralded it today. Get ready for the adjustment. Get ready for the new normal. Get ready for the new baseline where you and people you care about in your family are unemployed for a long time. And to get you ready for that we had Senator Ruston indicating that, even though she has the powers—she was given those powers by delegation, by legislation that went through this chamber and the other place earlier this year—to set the amount of money to be given to Australians, she gave no hope, no heart, no succour to the troubled world of Australians who are trying to balance their books— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Minister Birmingham) to questions without notice asked today.
Today is early childhood educators' day but I don't think it's that happy a day for the educators. The United Workers Union representing early childhood educators came to parliament today to meet with the education minister and deliver a petition signed by more than 30,000 people. The petition calls for the federal government to provide a wage guarantee to workers in early childhood education and care through COVID-19. The union says that the employment guarantee provided by the government doesn't prevent part-time staff and casuals from facing drastic cuts in hours. The vast majority of the sector is part time or casual. There is no safety net. The government must commit to a wage guarantee for our critical early childhood educators and carers.
Just this week, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, identified an overhaul of early learning as a key priority for supporting Australian women and for gender equality. Recent research from the ANU Menzies Centre for Health Governance and the Grattan Institute has also revealed the huge social and economic benefits of public investment to slash the cost of early learning, particularly for women. But, after a brief reprieve with free childcare, most families are now back to paying expensive fees in the middle of a pandemic and a recession, when people are doing it incredibly tough.
The government is dragging its heels and refusing to commit to making our childcare system universally accessible. What we need is free early learning for every child and every family. What we need is proper funding so that educators can be fairly compensated for the essential work that they do. I urge this government to make sure that early childhood education is universally accessible to every single family and that it is fee-free.
[by video link] I rise to take note of the answer by Senator Birmingham today to a question without notice on offshore drilling. Australia truly is a nation girt by sea. Most of our people, most of our populations, live on or near our coastlines. Australians love our beaches, we love our coastlines, and they are such an important part of our culture. And Australians know that this government is out of touch if it continues to push ahead with risky offshore oil and gas drilling.
I asked Senator Birmingham why the member for Mackellar, Mr Falinski, moved a motion in the House last week opposing offshore oil and gas drilling off the Central Coast of New South Wales. The reason that Mr Falinski opposed the PP11 licence renewal and the reason he moved that motion is that thousands of people in his electorate are rising up and getting in touch with him and saying: 'This is just madness. In a time of a climate emergency, why are you risking our oceans? Why are you releasing new acreage? Why are you letting a few profit-driven interests put our lifestyle at risk? We don't want to see seismic testing off our coastline. We don't want to see oil and gas drilling. We don't want to see controversial, divisive, industrial development when we go to the beach.' And it's not just off the Central Coast of New South Wales. We saw tens of thousands of people right around the country before the last election turn out to paddle-outs at oceans and beaches around this country to say no to new drilling in the Great Australian Bight.
I also asked Senator Birmingham about the fishing industry. Well, he might think that I'm exaggerating when I tell him that the fishing industry in this country is up in arms about new acreage being issued for seismic testing and for oil and gas drilling. Let me tell you what we discovered at the last hearing in our Senate inquiry into risky seismic testing. We heard that Tasmanian commercial fishermen were so desperate to stop this oil and gas drilling and this seismic testing in their productive fishery that they were prepared to blockade seismic boats. They were prepared to put their own fishing boats and their own bodies on the line. Senator Birmingham, that sounds pretty desperate to me. We've had submissions from your home state from the tuna fishery, we've had submissions from the Western Australian fishing industry and we've heard evidence from the Victorian fishing industry already that they do not want to see more seismic testing in their fisheries. They're not happy with the process. They're not happy this is going ahead. You will be in for a rude shock if you don't listen to the Australian people on this most critical of issues.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to notice given yesterday, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Dairy) Regulations 2019.
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the Senate notes that—
(a) Adelaide Oval is a world-class stadium;
(b) South Australia has a long and passionate history as an Australian Football League (AFL) loving state;
(c) Port Adelaide is currently top of the AFL ladder;
(d) Adelaide Crows fans were robbed of the inaugural AFLW home grand final in 2017 which was held on the Gold Coast;
(e) South Australia has been COVID-19 free for months;
(f) Queenslanders have little appreciation for the great sport of AFL; and
(g) the AFL Grand Final should have been given to South Australia.
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That 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:
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation and superannuation, 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 the explanatory memorandum related to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
And I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Increased consumer choice underpins the Coalition Government's plan for a stronger economy in ensuring all Australians get a fair go, especially in retirement.
This Bill delivers on a commitment made in the 2018-19 Budget to increase the maximum number of allowable members in self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) and small APRA funds from four to six.
SMSFs are often used by families as a vehicle for managing their own superannuation savings and investment strategies. For families with more than four members, currently the only real options are to create two SMSFs (which would incur extra costs) or place their superannuation in a large fund. This limits their choice and flexibility.
By allowing groups of five or six people to participate in an SMSF or small APRA fund, the Bill supports greater consumer choice. It provides increased flexibility for Australians to manage their retirement savings, particularly those Australians with large families.
I commend the Bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) pays tribute to former Australian Prime Minister John Howard for having delivered on his 1998 election commitment to preserve the cultural and historical significance of the Sydney Harbour foreshore;
(b) acknowledges the final report of the independent review of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust and thanks the reviewers along with the Trust board, chair and chief executive officer for their work;
(c) welcomes the recommendation, consistent with Senator Bragg's submission, that the historic former defence sites remain under Commonwealth protection in perpetuity;
(d) recognises recommendations 17, 18 and 19 with respect to the need for a refreshed vision and long-term plan for North Head Sanctuary;
(e) notes recommendation 15 and the importance of recognising and celebrating the Indigenous heritage of the Harbour Trust sites; and
(f) commends the Minister for the Environment for having commissioned the independent review and sought the twenty-one recommendations.
by leave—I move the following amendment to the motion:
Omit paragraph (f).
After paragraph (a), insert:
(aa) pays tribute to former Minister the Honourable Tom Uren for his tireless advocacy for the protection of Sydney Harbour and its foreshore, and recognises the work of former New South Wales (NSW) Premier Bob Carr and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service;
Question, as amended, agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to franchising, 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 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—
Thank you, Mr President.
I rise today to speak on the Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020. This Bill is a practical response to the work that was started in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services "Fairness in Franchising Inquiry".
This Bill proposes urgently needed and necessary reforms to add appropriate and meaningful balance to a multibillion-dollar industry that was shown to be inappropriately regulated, with an ineffective code of conduct and rife with unjust practices.
The franchising sector produces almost 7% of our GDP and is ubiquitous across this country. I would struggle to name a town or suburb in Australia that does not feature one franchise business or another, whether it be a petrol station, a café or a fast food restaurant. This sector has been the subject of 17 inquiries over the last 30 years due to the chronic and endemic issues that are continually played out in the media and through the trials and traumas of hundreds of Small and medium businesses across the country. We cannot delay reform anymore.
We don't need another inquiry, we don't need another taskforce or roundtable. This Bill takes long overdue action.
As the Inquiry Report noted "the evidence to this inquiry indicates that the problems, including exploitation in certain franchise systems, are systemic…the franchise agreement embeds the power disparity between franchisor and franchisee for the duration of the contract, including the exit arrangements."
The Committee received a raft of evidence about how the abuse of contractual power can manifest in a franchise agreement. Further, the Committee also received evidence that pointed to shortcomings in the current regulatory responses such as the duty to act in good faith and the unfair contract terms provisions.
The inquiry uncovered rampant examples of wage theft, bankruptcy, bringing about family and marriage breakdowns, lasting mental ill health and financial strain.
It also found disgusting business practices like churning and burning were commonplace. Churning refers to the repeated sale at a single site of a failed franchise to a new franchisee, whereas burning refers to continually opening new outlets, some of which are unlikely to be viable, to profit from upfront fees, while leaving existing outlets to struggle and close. Both those practices, while making money for the franchisor, leave franchisees emotionally and financially battered and their dreams of owning their own business in tatters.
While disclosure of these issues helps, the inquiry noted that "the extent and breadth of misconduct and exploitation by franchisors within the franchise sector demonstrates that disclosure and transparency alone, while vitally important, are an insufficient response to power and information asymmetry." We cannot continue to dither.
It recommended that arbitration between franchisees and franchisors be enshrined in legislation, to end the threat of expensive, damaging and one-sided litigation. This reform is at the heart of this Bill.
Arbitration works, it is less expensive and divisive than litigation and will encourage compromise and cooperation. This will empower the Ombudsman to recommend arbitration in the same way that that it is able to for the Dairy Code.
The inability of franchisees to effectively pursue disputes or breaches of contract through the current framework was one of the key findings of the Inquiry. It also noted many cases of bullying and intimidation by franchisors to silence franchisees into burying their complaints. Justice in the courts was only available to the most powerful and wealthy of franchisors and allowed malpractice to go unpunished and franchisors free to bully franchisees. We must address this power imbalance if we are ever to fix the systemic dysfunction in this sector. Issues like high fees, royalties, rebates and draconian refurbishment costs that are pushed on franchisees are never going to be stopped until we remove the belief in franchisors' heads that they can act with impunity.
This Bill will provide an optional binding alternative dispute resolution that is determined by an expert in the field.
The reforms proposed in this Bill are interdependent and form a holistic framework to reshape the landscape of the current franchising sector. Oversight of the franchise sector will be added to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman which will not only empower them to recommend arbitration but also to offer advice and support to both parties in areas of dispute.
This Bill will increase the quantum of penalties for breach of the Franchising Code in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 from $66,600 to $10 million, 10% of the annual turnover of the corporation or 3 times the benefit that the corporation directly or indirectly obtained from the breach, whichever is higher. In 2019, the ACCC recommended to a Parliamentary Inquiry into Franchising to increase the penalties for breaches from $66,600 to $10 million to deter bad behaviour from franchisors. The Committee in its final report to this inquiry made this same recommendation.
The Government announced in their response to the Franchising inquiry they would increase the penalty from $66,600 to $133,200 but this was poorly received by stakeholders as it would not deter the poor conduct and exploitative behaviour which the committee found in the sector. My Bill will give real teeth to enforcement of these regulations, rather than this Government's slap on the wrist. This reform will deter any franchisor or franchisee that breaks the industry code and will bring certainty and stability to the sector.
The imbalance of power that the inquiry found was unfortunately accompanied by an imbalance in education. The upgrade of the Ombudsman will allow them to address this by providing a trusted and unbiased location for information and help. The Ombudsman has been in favour of these changes for two years, as are key stakeholders COSBOA, Australian Automotive Dealers Association and the Association of Australian Franchisees.
Small businesses are being driven into economic peril by a sector that has shown it is incapable of self-policing or renewal. As was reported in the Inquiry "there are deeply rooted cultural problems that will not be resolved by a franchisor replacing a few senior executives".
Franchisees have waited long enough for the Government to get its act together and implement the recommendations in the committee's report. We cannot rebuild our economy when such a large sector remains institutionally broken and unjust. The actions of certain franchisors have done serious reputational and real reforms need to be enacted to bring back confidence in the sector.
Franchising is still a growing sector in Australia's business community. We should be supporting the growth of the industry in a sustainable manner rather than one that acts in a parasitic way. Dodgy franchisors should not be able to trick or abuse franchisees. Franchisees should not see "indentured servitude" or "slavery" as the only way to turn a profit due to restrictive and predatory contracts. Workers should not be the victims of wage theft to prop up this unfair and vicious system.
Labor believes in small business and we know, now more than ever it needs support. I myself like so many first-generation Australians, come from a family that came to Australia to build a future. They did that by building a business. They worked hard and they relied on fair and ethical business with other Australian business. Small business and franchisees rely on trust and the knowledge that there are independent government arbiters that can resolve disputes between parties.
The reforms that this Bill proposes are recommended by a bipartisan parliamentary report, already in practice in other economic sectors, and broadly supported by most major stakeholders. The evidence received by the Franchising Inquiry was just as egregious and just as horrifying as what was heard in the Royal Commission into the Banking Sector. This economic crisis has put more businesses than ever against the wall and without proper regulation issues these practices of exploitation will start again.
I urge the Government and crossbench to stand with Australian franchisees and pass this Bill. These small but significant changes will make the world of difference to small businesses facing down big franchisors. The Government has shown that they are deaf to the cries of franchisees working 80 hours a week only to sell their business at a loss. The Government is deaf to the plight of long established and successful car dealers losing their businesses overnight when a foreign company decides to arbitrarily withdraw from the market. Labor will not stand by and hear another story of a family home lost, a marriage ruined or a mental breakdown.
The problems facing people in engaged in franchising in Australia are not insoluble. The government could have chosen to fix these problems. The reform roadmap from the report has sat in front of us for over a year. We know the horror stories of wage slavery, bankruptcy, mental and emotional breakdowns that have become all too commonplace in this sector.
We are in the first recession in thirty years. Franchisees need help and they need it now in this time of economic strife. No more delay. I urge all Senators to support this Bill, bring justice to the sector and help put franchising in Australia back on track.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I inform the chamber that Senator Ciccone will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators McCarthy and Ciccone, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that:
(i) Northern Territory (NT) farmers are at crisis point, facing a shortage of mango pickers for the imminent mango season,
(ii) the NT mango harvest is worth $125 million to the NT economy and plant-based industries combined are worth $355 million,
(iii) the NT is the country's largest grower of mangoes, producing around 52% of the national mango crop,
(iv) between 2,200 and 2,500 workers are required for the mango picking season in the NT,
(v) worker shortages of seasonal workers have been exacerbated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic limiting national and international travel, and
(vi) the National Farmers' Federation warned the Morrison Government, pre-COVID, that 'agriculture's workforce deficit is one of the largest constraints to our sector's productivity growth and we need solutions for agriculture to reach its potential of being a $100 billion industry by 2030'; and
(b) calls on the Government to urgently act to come up with creative and innovative solutions to support farmers facing this seasonal worker crisis.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Morrison government is committed to helping the agricultural and horticultural industries in Australia to thrive. We're assisting growers with accessing the workers they need and ensuring the essential food supply sectors of the Australian economy are supported. In addition to employment services, the government supports targeted agricultural workforce programs such as the Seasonal Worker Program, the Pacific Labour Scheme and Harvest Trail Services. A trial to bring up to 170 seasonal workers to Australia has been announced to assist with upcoming harvests in the Northern Territory. The cap of 170 workers was set by the Northern Territory government. We look forward to working with the government of Vanuatu on the trial.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 772, standing in my name. The amendment has been circulated.
Leave granted.
I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the interim report of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements stated that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is a trusted broadcaster of emergency messages and warnings during bushfires and that ABC managers should be embedded in all state and territory emergency management centres to ensure delivery of critical information to the public,
(ii) emergency reporting during the bushfires cost the ABC an additional $3 million,
(iii) the ABC has been an essential source of news during the COVID-19 pandemic with digital, television and radio broadcasts all seeing a dramatic increase in ratings, and
(iv) the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has cut more than $783 million in funding from the ABC, and the ABC is currently operating with its smallest budget since 1996;
(b) expresses gratitude for the essential role that the ABC has played in keeping Australians informed and safe throughout the bushfire season and the COVID-19 pandemic; and
(c) calls on the Morrison Government to reverse the indexation pause on ABC funding and guarantee stable and adequate funding for the ABC.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The ABC does an excellent job transmitting information to Australian communities during emergencies. The ABC, along with the entire media industry, plays a vital role in making sure the community is provided with timely and accurate news, particularly in relation to nationally significant matters such as COVID-19 and the recent bushfires. This news is vitally important in the regions. The ABC continues to be exempt from the government-wide efficiency dividend and the ABC continues to receive secure funding of over $1 billion over the triennium, rising each and every year.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young as amended be agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Sterle I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in April 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) dairy inquiry produced a report to government which concluded that:
(A) farmers lack of bargaining power means that they are unlikely to benefit from an increase in the retail (or wholesale) prices, and
(B) even if processors were to receive higher wholesale prices from sales to supermarkets, this does not mean the processors will pay farmers any more than they have to, to secure milk,
(ii) on 26 August 2020, the Treasurer and the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management announced an ACCC inquiry into:
(A) harmful imbalances of bargaining power between farmers, intermediaries, including processors, and retailers in the domestic supply chains of perishable agricultural goods in Australia, and
(B) the effectiveness of the new Dairy Code of Conduct;
(b) recognises that the ACCC Agricultural Commissioner, Mr Mick Keogh, has confirmed that the current dairy code 'doesn't make any requirements in relation to notions of fairness about the price that's received by the farmer'; and
(c) calls on the Government to expand its ACCC inquiry to investigate how it can regulate the price of milk per litre paid by processors to dairy farmers to ensure a viable dairy industry.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The domestic retail sale of many Australian farmed products is concentrated among a small number of businesses. The ACCC has been tasked with taking a broad look at bargaining power imbalances throughout the supply chains, including in the relationships between farmers, processors and major retailers. It's disappointing that Labor's economic policy continues to be drawn straight from One Nation's playbook. Intervention on prices would have a range of unintended consequences for our agricultural industries, including dairy. What is more effective is competition and a well-operating market. This allows farmers and other parts of the supply chain to shop around for the best price for the product that they supply.
Question agreed to.
Before moving general business notice of motion No. 774, I inform the chamber that Senators Polley, Sheldon and Griff will also sponsor the motion. On their behalf and on behalf of Senators Walsh, Lines and Watt I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that aged care workers provide essential care and support to older Australians every day;
(b) notes that aged care workers are working on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic;
(c) agrees that saying thank you to aged care workers for their hard work and dedication is not enough;
(d) acknowledges that our aged care system is in crisis with:
(i) not enough aged care workers,
(ii) inadequate training, and
(iii) low pay and insecure jobs for the workforce; and
(e) calls on the Government to urgently address the aged care crisis by introducing:
(i) minimum staffing levels,
(ii) better staff training, and
(iii) enhanced job security for the aged care workforce.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian government acknowledges the significant contributions of Australians working in aged care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We've provided targeted support to the workforce during this time, including a retention bonus for care workers, grants to assist workers needing to work on single sites and additional funding for staffing needs. New staffing and funding models are currently being explored by the royal commission, and work is progressing in the Department of Health about what the best model will be. The government will not pre-empt the findings of the royal commission. It's important to get the aged-care model right.
The question is that motion No. 774 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges:
(i) that superannuation is money which ultimately belongs to the fund members who make contributions,
(ii) the importance of the strict application of the sole purpose test for superannuation, and
(iii) that the New Daily is an online news service funded by industry superannuation funds; and
(b) calls on the New Daily to disclose:
(i) disclose their financial records, and
(ii) disclose payments to related and third parties, including journalists who are public figures.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that this is the last sitting week before the Federal Budget will be handed down on 6 October 2020;
(b) recognises that the poverty rate for people on JobSeeker Payment dropped from 67% to 6.8% after the introduction of the $550 Coronavirus Supplement;
(c) acknowledges that, when the Coronavirus Supplement is cut by $300 a fortnight on 25 September 2020:
(i) the number of people in poverty will increase by 740,000,
(ii) people in our community will be in mortgage stress and rental affordability will plummet to 0.2% for people on JobSeeker Payment, and
(iii) more than 1.1 million children will be living in households that have their incomes cut;
(d) recognises the importance of leaders showing support for unemployed workers during these times; and
(e) calls on the Government to:
(i) maintain the rate of the Coronavirus Supplement of $550 a fortnight to ensure people on income support do not slip into poverty during this pandemic and recovery; and
(ii) include adequate increases to income support in the October Budget that ensure that people on income support can live above the poverty line.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is providing enhanced support to the Australian community through a three-month extension of the coronavirus supplement to 31 December 2020.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor won't be supporting this motion. We note that the Greens have moved motions like this over the past fortnight and have used them to campaign against the Labor Party. My suggestion is—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Order, Senator Siewert!
My suggestion is that the Greens and the Australian Labor Party work together to hold the government to account to permanently increase the rate of Newstart and use the powers that the parliament has given them to determine the adequate rate of the coronavirus supplement. I think that would be a much better thing to do than to get a short little buzz on Twitter by campaigning against the side of progressive politics. But we think it's up to the government to determine the rate. We think the rate should be permanently increased and we think the government need to determine what the coronavirus supplement should be. Don't let them off the hook!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator McKim! Senator Siewert! I called during question time for people to at least heed the chair. This is clearly what happens when people don't go home for the weekend! The question is that motion 777 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the significant fiscal interventions in response to COVID-19, which have been supported by the entire Parliament;
(b) notes that the National Accounts confirm Australia is in a recession;
(c) further notes that:
(i) unemployment is at 7.5%, with over a million Australians out of work for the first time in history,
(ii) the Treasurer has acknowledged that the unemployment rate is expected to increase to 10% in the December quarter,
(iii) the Government announced it would reduce the rate of JobKeeper and the Coronavirus Supplement on 21 July 2020,
(iv) the Government announced that the Coronavirus Supplement will end on 31 December 2020 and JobKeeper will end on 28 March 2021, and
(v) a further 400,000 Australians are expected to lose their jobs by the end of this year; and
(d) calls on the Morrison Government to immediately outline a comprehensive jobs plan for Australian workers, including the 400,000 Australians the Treasurer has acknowledged are expected to lose their jobs by Christmas amidst the first recession in Australia in 29 years.
[by video link] I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation will support this motion. A century ago Australia had the world's highest per capita income. COVID exposed our slide down the rankings, in terms of manufacturing and agriculture, that gutted our economic sovereignty, economic independence and security. Labor and the Liberal-Nationals think we need to get back to where we were in February this year. One Nation, though, has always called for a plan to provide an economic environment that drives Australian investment for Australian employers and Australian jobs—lasting, sustainable, secure jobs—a plan for investment in infrastructure to restore our productive capacity, in dams for reliable water, in coal fired power stations to cut $1,300 from annual household electricity costs, and in Australian owned transport; a plan for comprehensive tax reform to stop giving unfair advantage to foreign multinationals who are avoiding company tax; a plan for exiting international agreements that are handicapping industry. Australians have the talent and deserve a plan.
The question is that motion No. 778 be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators McKenzie, Canavan, Davey and McDonald, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the importance of the Northern Territory onshore gas industry and in particular the development of the Beetaloo Basin, which has the potential to generate billions of dollars for the Northern Territory economy and create over 6,000 jobs for Territorians;
(b) acknowledges the Northern Territory's Economic Reconstruction Commission's first report, which notes that the 'Beetaloo sub-basin shows significant potential to provide gas and liquids for energy use and to underpin a petrochemical manufacturing industry in the territory – driving significant economic benefit';
(c) welcomes Territorians' resounding rejection of Territory Alliance's anti-gas policies, which would have further devastated the Northern Territory's economy, undermined the creation of new jobs for all Territorians and prevented the Northern Territory from realising its potential to build a petrochemical manufacturing industry;
(d) congratulates the Country Liberal Party (CLP), led by Lia Finocchiaro, for their clear and positive economic and resources policies, which assisted the CLP to regain significant public support; and
(e) calls on the re-elected Northern Territory Labor Government to urgently work with the Federal Government and industry to ensure that the potential benefits of developing the Beetaloo Basin are fully realised.
[by video link] I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Today's motion is brought to us on behalf of gas giants Santos and Origin, who have collectively donated far more to the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor than they have ever paid in tax. If we allow fracking in the Beetaloo Basin, not only would it be some of the most expensive gas in a country full of expensive gas but Australia may as well tear up the Paris climate agreement. This project would increase Australia's pollution by a whopping six per cent—even more if we measured actual leakages of toxic methane from gas fields in this country. Fracked gas is as dirty as coal. While COVID-19 has driven emissions down to their lowest level in 22 years, gas pollution has risen to its highest-ever level. Traditional owners, farmers, conservation groups and the Greens oppose these fracking plans in the strongest possible terms— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
May I have the Greens' objection noted?
So noted.
Could we record our opposition also?
The Labor Party would like the opposition's opposition to the motion recorded.
I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name for today, until the next sitting day.
Leave granted.
I inform the Senate that at 8:30 am today 19 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Chisholm:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Government's failure to deliver on a plan for jobs and economic recovery while more than a million Australians are currently unemployed and a further 400,000 Australians will lose their jobs by Christmas.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
This matter before us goes to the core of government and leadership, that matter being the government's failure to deliver on a plan for jobs and economic recovery while more than a million Australians are currently unemployed and a further 400,000 Australians will lose their jobs by Christmas. As of today, we've had the news that Australia is officially in its first recession for almost 30 years. The June quarter GDP numbers show the economy went backwards by seven per cent, the worst fall on record. That's more than three times the previous biggest fall of two per cent in 1974. The scale of this downturn is vast when compared to Australia's last official recession, when the economy shrank by 1.3 per cent and 0.1 per cent over two consecutive quarters. This is the single biggest immediate challenge that the Morrison government faces.
The Australian people expect leadership on this matter and they have not seen it to date. In fact, they have seen the opposite. In my home state of Tasmania, unemployment is disturbingly high. More than 50,000 Tasmanians are looking for work or for more hours. Tasmania has lost 15,500 jobs since February—6,700 of them are full-time jobs. Youth unemployment is frightening, and a deeply worrying number of mature-aged workers are also out of work or searching for many more hours. Because of the nature of this recession and the sectors that have been hardest hit, we have seen a disproportionate number of women thrown into unemployment. Deloitte Access Economics' Business outlook report indicates that Tasmania's economic situation is set to get worse before it improves. The report said Tasmania's earlier boom was driven largely by the international education and tourism sectors and that Tasmania was deeply exposed to the impact of coronavirus related travel and operating restrictions. As JobKeeper payments are reduced, we will see the full force of that impact. Deloitte expects unemployment to rise in Tasmania to 8.6 per cent in 2021. That means tens of thousands of Tasmanians unemployed and struggling, looking for a way forward—a way forward that government should be showing them.
But what have we seen from this government? Instead of a jobs plan, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and Treasurer Frydenberg want to wind back JobKeeper, cut super and freeze the pension. This recession will be deeper and unemployment queues will be longer because the Morrison government is leaving too many people behind. The trouble is we're dealing with a government struggling with its own ideological base, a government that is facing a backlash from its own backbench for spending the money that is keeping so many people in jobs. It was dragged kicking and screaming into providing wage subsidies through JobKeeper and is now like a rabbit in the headlights. All it can talk about is dropping the rate of JobKeeper and then phasing it out. It is inevitable that this recession will be deeper and unemployment queues longer because the Morrison government is just leaving those people behind.
We have seen ACOSS warning of a social and economic catastrophe once most COVID-19 government supports are removed. That process will start later this month. Tens of thousands of businesses with their workforce sustained on JobKeeper are looking to the government for the next steps. On the west coast of Tasmania, 41 per cent of businesses applied for JobKeeper support. In Burnie, 39.4 per cent applied. In Devonport, 40.1 per cent applied. On the east coast of Tasmania, over 51 per cent applied—over half. That's how very serious the situation is.
Last night I spoke in this place about the impact of the COVID crisis on north-west Tasmania. I spoke about the viable businesses that cannot recover until tourism and travel restart and borders reopen. The car hire company on King Island and the magnificent Cape Wickham golf course on the northern tip of that island represent just one sector that needs a plan. All cutting JobKeeper will do for employees of businesses like those is make it even harder to pay their bills and buy food. Without a plan for jobs, that money being stripped out of local economies will be disastrous. There are many businesses in a similar situation on King Island, hundreds like that in north-west Tasmania and tens of thousands in our country. They're absolutely viable and waiting for coronavirus restrictions to ease, but it will take a plan for them to truly spring to life again. All of this is happening against a backdrop of increasing inequality, presided over by this government—the Morrison government.
Before COVID hit, according to research released by ACOSS and the University of New South Wales today, the incomes of those in the top 20 per cent were six times higher than those in the bottom 20 per cent. This is worse than in 2015-16, when the ratio was five times higher. So I have a tip for those opposite struggling for ideas: your plan needs to address this growing inequality. It needs to have a focus on long-term, secure jobs with decent wages. But, instead of working on this plan, Prime Minister Morrison and Treasurer Frydenberg want to wind back JobKeeper, cut super and freeze the pension.
This government is busy shirking its duties. It's so busy avoiding accountability in this area, still dreaming of some kind of magical snapback to the way things were and hoping it will wake up and find that this has all been a terrible dream. Well, I have news: this is not a bad dream. It is the new reality for Australia, and hundreds of thousands of Australians are terribly, terribly frightened that they have no future, that they won't find work, that their businesses won't be able to recover and that their kids will never have a decent, secure job. They need to know the government has a plan—a plan for jobs; a plan that protects and boosts viable businesses and their employees; a plan that helps people in less viable businesses refocus and innovate; a plan to retrain and reskill; a plan that shakes up grasping and falling job service provider networks; a plan that turns Centrelink into a safe place where the skilled staff who have suffered under this government's policy and punishment ethic can now show their real skills in helping people navigate the system and in pointing them in the direction of opportunities and support; a plan that works with school leavers and TAFE and university graduates to identify work opportunities and move towards them; a plan for arts and entertainment; a plan for the university sector that doesn't involve making university degrees unaffordable; a plan to support mature-aged workers who have joined the unemployment queue in their thousands back into work; a plan for women; a plan for young workers; a plan to help people who have drained their superannuation accounts rebuild their retirement savings; a plan that is developed sector by sector, taking into account the subtlety and needs of each one; a plan for tourism; a plan for hospitality; a plan for manufacturing; a plan for communications; a plan for energy; a plan for early childhood education; a plan for aged care; a plan for skills and education; and a plan for primary industry. Let's see that plan for jobs and industry from this government before the toecutters get to work on JobKeeper.
This government is at the crossroads now. They can have a vision for healing this country, for developing real jobs and for addressing inequality or they can continue on with their pathetic, ragtag, piecemeal, bandaid approach, bickering amongst themselves about ideology and watch this recession—this new reality—deepen, worsen and go on for longer than it needs to. I say to the members opposite: you have so much work to do, and it's time you got on with it.
I said last night in this place to the dysfunctional gathering on the other side: you have shown the country that you are spectacularly good at breaking things. You've already broken Centrelink and you absolutely broke aged care. You have punished the unemployed, lumbered them with illegal debts, disrespected them and kept them in abject poverty, and now our economy is broken. People's hearts and lives are breaking as they face years without work and the poverty that ensues. Others face the demise of businesses they've dedicated their working lives to building as their children join unemployment queues and face despair. It's well past time for you, the Morrison government, to demonstrate to the Australian people that you are up to the job, that you are capable of fixing it and that you have a plan for the future of Australia—a well thought-out plan—that picks up all the people along the way.
We have heard today confirmed what we really already knew: that the global pandemic that has smashed the world economy has not left Australia untouched. Our economic situation is almost as dire as it's ever been, thanks to this global pandemic which has shut down international travel and called for the need for serious restrictions on Australian businesses. Of course that is going to lead to significant economic decline. Unfortunately, very, very many people have lost their jobs in the last few months in this country because of the pandemic.
All sides of politics were calling for levels of restrictions—in fact the calls for restrictions and lockdowns were probably louder coming from the other side of the chamber. It seems to me today that those making complaints about the economic situation don't seem to be referring back to the fact that they were very loud in calling for a lockdown, calling for restrictions to be placed on Australian businesses and calling for restaurants to close and tourism to shut down. Well, guys, it's pretty clear that when you shut down businesses and you make people lock down in their own homes there are going to be people who lose their jobs. There are going to be businesses that go out the back door. Unfortunately, that's been the consequence of what we've had to do.
It makes it important that we work hard. Today's figures show clearly it's very important that we work hard and cooperatively across the whole of Australia to reopen our economies, because the best way of getting people back into a job is to get back to an open economy as soon as we can. I very much hope that later this week the Premiers drop all this ridiculous political state of origin they seem to be playing and work together to get those jobs back. That's the most desperate thing we need.
In the long-term, how are we going to create jobs in this country? How are we going to rekindle our labour markets and for people to get back into work? It's pretty clear it's going to have to come through the private sector—that's where jobs have been lost. There haven't been jobs lost in the public sector. There's only a limited number that the public sector can employ at any one time. It's going to have to come from providing confidence to private businesses in this country to reinvest in the economy, to re-employ people to grow their businesses. We're going to need the confidence in businesses to make those hiring decisions.
How are we going to do that? To give businesses confidence, you make it easier for them to do business. It's not rocket science. If you make it easier for people to do business, they will do more business and they will employ more people, and we will be able to get back on our feet sooner rather than later. It's a pretty simple recipe. We should be focusing on things like lowering taxes. We should be focusing on getting rid of red tape on businesses so they can set up businesses and employ people. We should be investing in infrastructure that can help grow our economy and provide returns.
On every one of those fronts the Australian Labor Party in the last few years has been an absolute barrier to achieving those aims and ends. So let's just remind people of the history of the past few years and of what the Australian government wanted to do pre the coronavirus. We wanted to lower taxes. We wanted to lower company taxes. We wanted to lower personal income taxes, and the Labor Party has opposed various tax measures through the last few years. In fact, they opposed the company tax measures completely. They didn't want to put lower taxes on businesses.
Now they come to this place and say we should create jobs. Well, if we had lower taxes we'd be in a much better position to create jobs, but the Labor Party opposed that. And on personal income taxes they've opposed various measures that were put in place to lower personal income taxes as well. Maybe we'll see the Labor Party reconsider its position on taxes, but I didn't hear any of that in the previous contribution. I didn't hear one mention of the word 'tax'. If you're not going to lower taxes, how are you going to create jobs?
The other way we could make business easier in this country is to reduce red tape—get rid of regulation—another thing I didn't hear from Senator Urquhart. Is the Australian Labor Party now going to support efforts to take regulation off the backs of Australian businesses and unlock potential and hope for the Australian economy? Again, over the past few years, the Australian Labor Party has consistently opposed these attempts in this place. Right now there's a test for the Australian Labor Party on the Notice Paper. We want to make it easier for projects to be approved in this country. We want to make it simpler and easier for those who want to invest in this country to achieve approval under our environmental laws, here in Canberra and at the state level.
In fact, they're very similar measures to the ones we put in place after the 2013 election. We were elected on a platform to establish a one-stop shop so that environmental approvals in this country could be done at just one level without the duplication and, potentially, delay that occurs for people who just want to create jobs in this nation. We were elected with that mandate. And what did the Australian Labor Party do after the 2013 election? They teamed up with their mates in the Greens—it's basically a Greens-Labor party in this place now; they're basically in coalition with each other. The Greens-Labor party joined together to oppose that reduction in regulation, and we have seen environmental approval times blow out over the past five years. The Productivity Commission report released earlier this year, right after the coronavirus started, showed it was taking around two years to get approval for a major project, and it's now over three years; it's now over 1,000 days to get something approved.
So, we're going to come back and try to get that reduction in red tape. I haven't heard yet what the Australian Labor Party's position on that is. I don't believe they've completely rejected it yet. The Labor Party comes in with matters of public importance on the Notice Paper, saying they want to create jobs and they want a jobs plan. Well, here you go, guys; here's a plan. Here's a plan to cut red tape, decrease the time it takes to get things approved and create jobs. Are you going to agree to it? We don't know yet.
In the past couple of weeks the Labor Party's also opposed investments in infrastructure. We saw this week the Labor Party stand up and try to stop investments in coal fired power here in this country—another election commitment that was made by the federal government last year, and the Labor Party are trying to knock off that investment that's been put forward by a traditional owner company in North Queensland. The Labor Party are again teaming up with their mates in the Greens and trying to knock that off. The Labor Party's also been opposed to dams being built in this country. That's a real key thing we can do as a nation to create jobs: unlock our water resources, invest in our agricultural capacity and create jobs in farming. Again, that's something the Labor Party has been opposed to.
The one thing I heard from Senator Urquhart that I did agree with is, 'Let's get back to manufacturing.' It was a brief mention—very brief—about having a plan for manufacturing. We do need that; we desperately need that. But that is not going to happen unless we reduce energy prices, so we need the Australian Labor Party to listen to Mr Fitzgibbon on their side, listen to those who have common sense about energy, because they're divided over things like coal and gas. If we're not going to use our natural resources, like coal and gas, we will not get back to making things. The US is getting back to making things; they're doing it. They're bringing jobs back to the United States. How are they doing it? They're using their natural resources. They're unlocking their gas resources in the Permian Basin in Texas, and that is driving their country ahead. But the Labor Party hasn't quite worked out yet whether they're going to support that plan to get manufacturing going again.
I've been working with my Nationals colleagues as well to do more to rekindle that manufacturing industry. A number of us think we should do more. We should look to take greater countervailing action against countries that abuse the international trading system, including the People's Republic of China, who are currently subsidising the export of pesticides from their country. We need to look into that so that we save the New Farm factory in Melbourne. We should be looking to set up a development bank again in this country, to help support manufacturing industries. And we should be looking to provide investment allowances and lower taxes for those who expend and invest in manufacturing in this country. Those are all forward-thinking things that we should be looking at, and I hope the Australian Labor Party brings forward that sort of practical idea and leaves their partnership with the Greens at the door. In all I heard there before in terms of what they think should be done, the only cogent thing I heard from Senator Urquhart in her contribution was that we need to keep JobKeeper going.
The support we've provided through JobKeeper has been absolutely essential but is not a long-term plan for jobs. It cannot be sustained for much longer at the cost of roughly $10 billion a month in recent months. It is not a plan to keep jobs on life support forever. You cannot keep someone on life support forever. We need to look beyond that and we need the Labor Party to look seriously at this. Are the Australian people going to believe that the Labor Party, who are in lock step with the Labor Environment Activist Network, founded by Senator McAllister over there, are going to team up with us to lower taxes, lower regulation and invest in nation-building infrastructure like dams? I don't believe it and I don't think the Australian people believe it either.
I rise to contribute to the debate on the government's failure to deliver a plan for jobs and economic recovery while more than a million Australians are currently unemployed and a further 400,000 Australians are going to lose their jobs by Christmas. They sort of have a plan—that is, to trash the environment and trash universities and students' chances of going to university, while the government are fostering a fossil-fuel, gas-led so-called recovery, which of course it won't be. That is not a plan; that is the road to disaster for both people and our planet.
While the government seems to be willing to stop at nothing in order to achieve that, we are deeply concerned that they are condemning Australians to live in poverty come September. What will life look like for millions of Australians after the rate of coronavirus supplement is cut by $300 a fortnight at the end of September? And there is no plan for what happens after December. People don't know what happens after December. It could go to $40 a day after December.
An additional 740,000 people are going to be pushed into poverty come the end of September because, once that $300 is cut from the coronavirus supplement, it takes that payment below the poverty line. The poverty rates for people on JobSeeker and youth allowance will return to 23 per cent. And 1.1 million children will be living in households where the income support payments are cut. More than 400,000 Victorians will have their income support payments reduced. People will be pushed into rental stress and default on their mortgages. And what does that do to our economy? I'll tell you what: it sends it into a nosedive. When you take that money out of our economy, you are into a nosedive.
Today's national accounts are devastating news for Australians and for the Australian economy. Senator Canavan said there are no great surprises there, but it is indeed very bad news: a seven per cent fall in economic activity, the biggest on record, the biggest contraction since the Great Depression. There are now a million people unemployed, and there will be circa 1½ million people unemployed by Christmas. So record unemployment now will be getting much worse by the time we get to Christmas. It is likely unemployment will be circa 10 per cent, and there are no prospects of a real recovery until 2022. That's the picture outlined. I want to give a clear outline of my view and the Labor view, reflecting our priorities, our values. I think that the government's response reflects their priorities and their values.
Firstly, the Australian economy was in deep trouble in 2019. Profound structural weaknesses were neglected and glossed over by this government. There was no growth in wages. There was falling productivity, anaemic levels of growth, a hollowing out of the labour market so there were no good jobs left anymore—just casual jobs being produced in the economy—and a decline in Australia's capacity to make things and in our export complexity.
The response of the government at the beginning of this year was slow and uncertain. That has made things much, much worse today than they should be. At the beginning of the stimulus package that they were dragged to, kicking and screaming, the government had a focus. I know that the Prime Minister said today in question time that he didn't hesitate to implement JobKeeper and JobSeeker. He said, 'We did not hesitate.' Well, he was reported as having said, 'I'm not going to have a bar of it.' They were still desperately trying to keep their 'back in black' surplus promise. There is a big gap between what the government say they did in March and what they actually did, because I, along with my Labor colleagues, was here making the argument for a fair dinkum stimulus package and a wage subsidy package that would keep Australian workers and their businesses connected and I remember the howls of derision and the outright rejection that came from the other side of this parliament.
The jobs crisis is being made much, much worse now and will be much, much worse than it should be because there is no jobs plan from this government. We know what the impact of long-term unemployment is, particularly in our regions and our suburbs. People opposite may not feel it and they may not see it, and they may not be able to empathise with the impact of long-term unemployment, but on this side of the chamber we do.
The government's management of this economic crisis looks an awful lot like their management of the aged-care system. The political strategy, at least, is identical. We all know that the coronavirus pandemic will have a very significant effect on global growth. The World Bank says that there will be a contraction of about 5.2 per cent. But today the government and Senator Cormann blame the pandemic. They blame the states. They blame anybody else but themselves, minimise the role of government, minimise the responsibility of government—possibly because they can't imagine government having a role in dealing with this crisis—duck accountability and avoid parliament. That has been a key feature of this government's political response this year—avoid the parliament, run from accountability in the parliament and then make a series of announcements with no delivery. You can take the marketing manager out of Tourism Australia, but you will never take the marketing bias out of this Prime Minister.
There are big challenges coming with the coronavirus pandemic. The wave of infections in Victoria illustrates that we are all vulnerable. All parts of Australia are vulnerable. The crisis in Victoria has occasioned a whole lot of cheap pointscoring from the other side of this chamber. There are senators on the other side of the chamber who are for open borders one week and for closed borders the next. They decry public health requirements one day and demand them the next. This hyperpoliticisation of the crisis is a key feature of why this government is unable to deal with, manage and find a plan for the Australian economy and Australian jobs. It's pretty straightforward: follow the health advice, roll your sleeves up, do some work and develop a credible plan that can lift the Australian economy out of the torpor that it's in.
Senator Canavan really did set out the government's position, which is to cut taxes, cut wages, cut red tape—by which he means, I think, just remove environmental protections—and cut services, like their 2014, 2015 and 2016 budgets all did, particularly in regard to aged-care funding. These are the people who've adopted, as the Treasurer said, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as their role models. Contrast that with what the Australian government did in 2008-09, when the global economy contracted by nearly three per cent because of the global financial crisis: strong early action—going households, going hard, going early—that delivered confidence. And the Australian economy did not contract over that period.
What are Australian families to make of this: no prospect of recovery with this government until 2022, families who can't keep their heads above water now, JobKeeper and JobSeeker being cut, and the prospect of looming unemployment? When will they have a government that's in their corner—that backs them, backs Australians—and is capable of doing the right thing?
Thank you so much, Senator Ayres; I haven't had a chuckle like that for a while. To be honest, the fact that you could deliver that with a straight face was really quite extraordinary.
This week and last week, I've responded to some pretty ridiculous accusations from Labor. Labor has consistently made claims about the Morrison government that are not only blatantly hypocritical but blatantly false and, like we just heard from Senator Ayres, sometimes even a little bit entertaining. But the absolute gall demonstrated by Labor in this parliament today is as unprecedented as the times we now face as a country. They're a bumbling, stumbling, woefully inadequate opposition whose handling of this crisis in Labor-led states is destroying businesses and directly contributing to job losses.
We know Labor are not about job creation, not about the private sector. They're all about making sure that the socialist Left within their party are being looked after and that the magic pudding somehow will just keep giving and giving. They're not about supporting workers, not about supporting economic growth and job creation. Yet all they can do is accuse the Morrison government of not doing enough to maintain jobs in this country. They should be ashamed of not supporting strategies that support Australian workers. It's no wonder even the unions are walking away from Labor.
And why wouldn't Labor be getting desperate? Why wouldn't they want to distract the Australian public from their mishandling of this crisis under pressure? It takes real leadership to prevail. They want to talk about jobs—awesome! Let's talk about jobs. There has been no relaxation of restrictions in Queensland, where tourism and hospitality businesses are going to the wall. I probably should make sure that I do cover off on that: restrictions are being relaxed in Queensland—if you're a footballer. Restrictions are being relaxed if you're Dannii Minogue or a celebrity. And restrictions are being relaxed if you're working on some TV show that's currently a hotspot or you're Eddie McGuire. Of course they're being relaxed, because we know Labor love to suck up to celebrities as much as they possibly can.
Of course, we're talking about everyday Australians. We're talking about the people who live on the New South Wales border, who are so deeply impacted by these restrictions. We're talking about the fact that 80 per cent of tourism to the Gold Coast is generated from Victoria and New South Wales, yet Premier Palaszczuk, in a bid to protect her own job, is destroying the jobs of all of those hospitality and tourism workers on the Gold Coast. Let's have a look at some of the figures, because perhaps they're not fully understood by those opposite. Tourism and hospitality are two of the most labour-intensive sectors and therefore create more jobs—again, guys, for your benefit, they create more jobs—in the private sector than any other sector for every dollar spent.
So what happened in April of this year in terms of overnight spending? How much money was spent in the hospitality and tourism sector in April 2020 compared with April 2019? We saw that the spend was 91 per cent down. Only nine per cent of what was spent in April of the previous year was spent in April 2020. As we started to see restrictions relax, things did improve a little bit. Things came back ever so slightly, so that they were down in May by only 82 per cent. Then Premier Palaszczuk blocked it all off and shut down this industry and is absolutely refusing to support what would have been considered a pretty big part of the economy in Queensland, I would have thought. There's that expression 'beautiful one day, perfect the next', whereas now it's 'beautiful one day, paradise lost the next', certainly for all those small business owners in the tourism and hospitality sectors.
This issue doesn't just affect those in the tourism and hospitality sector. It's not just the hotels and restaurants. The tourism sector is bigger than that. It's also about the travel agents, the petrol stations and the roadhouses. It's about the shops in airports and all of those businesses that are so desperately impacted by the closure of the hospitality and tourism industry. So why would these restrictions be so tight? In areas where there are no COVID-19 infections, some businesses are closed and others are boarded up. Workers are at home and, as each week passes, they are less likely to have a job to return to. We should all be working together to ensure that our nation is able to stop the virus and maintain jobs. I realise that might be like walking and chewing gum at the same time for those opposite, which is probably not one of their top 10 skill sets, but it would be worth giving it a go at some point. The best that Labor premiers can do is stubbornly maintain a series of poor positions that are purely designed for political gain and are definitely not about preserving jobs. In the dictatorship of the Republic of Palaszczuk, the Premier won't even let the sick and dying go to her hospitals—hospitals for Queenslanders. I wonder if she is thinking about giving back any of that federal money that is being spent on those hospitals that are for all Australians. Of course, she would prefer to see the death of an unborn twin than risk her career.
What chance do the tourism operators, bar and restaurant owners, store owners and other business owners in this great tourism state have now? Businesses along the coast and regional areas are seeing zero trade. They have no tourists, no business and no jobs to return to. And now we learn that Premier Palaszczuk is refusing to talk to the New South Wales Premier. I will come to Premier Dan Andrews and what's happening in Victoria and why ultimately I think the second wave there is fundamentally responsible for the size of our economic downturn, but Annastacia Palaszczuk is not going to let Dan outdo her. Premier Andrews is working constructively with Premier Berejiklian on increasing the exclusion zone around the borders, ensuring that health treatment is accessible and ensuring that teachers and kids at school who live two or three kilometres from a border are able to cross over, attend school and participate in a learning environment—but not our friend, Annastacia. She won't even talk to the Premier of New South Wales. It's a little bit frightening considering the success that New South Wales is having with contact tracing. It would be a pretty good idea, I would say, for Premier Palaszczuk to pick up the phone to Gladys.
I will come back to Victoria. Premier Andrews is certainly doing his best to emulate Mao Zedong at the moment, with his handling of this pandemic that's costing our nation billions every week and putting the futures and livelihoods of its workers on the line. Competent leaders don't just manage the pandemic. It's a delicate balancing act requiring intelligent and measured decision-making. Decision-making needs to be focused on problem areas so that Australian lives and jobs are protected. Premier Andrews failed to focus on the importance of problem areas when quarantining Australians from overseas in a hotel in Melbourne, and, sadly, poor management and poor leadership has cost Victoria a great deal. The number of lives that have been lost is now, tragically, documented daily. The lack of measured focus has cost Victorians a great deal.
In fact today I have been contacted by the Restaurants and Catering Industry Association, incredibly concerned about the restrictions that the Victorian government is seeking to impose on businesses there and the discussion around allowing only outdoor dining. Premier Andrews, come on! It's Melbourne. You don't quite have the harbour of Sydney or the fabulous weather. Who's going to want to sit outside? You are destroying business, Premier Andrews, and you need to apologise to Victorians for the way that you have handled this. There is a word called 'sorry' you might want to use at some point.
Labor are destroying jobs in the country. They are mishandling the health crisis in the states, and they should not be suggesting that this government is failing to protect Australians. Caring about Australians should come first. Australian businesses and jobs have taken absolute precedence under our incredibly competent leaders, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. Both of them are doing their utmost to rebuild our economy while working in tandem with our incredibly competent and steady Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, as he works to bring COVID patient numbers under control and to save Australian lives. Thank God for their leadership to counteract the incompetence of Labor's state performers, who are now directly contributing to the decline— (Time expired)
Senator Chisholm proposes that we discuss the government's failure on jobs and economic recovery. I'm not sure this government has actually failed given these unprecedented times. Certainly there have been mistakes and missteps, but I don't believe we can lay the blame for this recession solely at the feet of this government. No country affected by COVID-19 has escaped recession, but Australia has done comparatively well, outperforming most other developed countries in the last quarter. Nonetheless, we are in recession, and state and federal governments must work together rather than attack each other, which is a very commonplace activity, particularly in recent weeks.
The path back to growth starts with reopening domestic borders and keeping them open, and many speakers have already said exactly the same thing. I accept that the lockdowns were necessary in the early stages. In fact, they were critical in the early stages to ensure the pandemic was not going to spread to the extent that it did in other countries. But, as cases decline, state governments need to unlock their economies. They need to let businesses operate and let them serve customers, hire staff and scale up their operations. To get back to growth, we need to mobilise our population. We need to get people out of their homes and doing the ordinary—going for coffee, taking holidays, visiting local shops and regaining the confidence to spend the money they have been frightened into hoarding. Once that happens, we will have a clearer view of the economy. We will be able to see which industries are in trouble and where support may be appropriate. So I call on all states to open up so we can rebuild the economy and our collective resilience.
This year has been tough—tough for those who have lost their jobs, tough for the businesses that have closed and tough for our essential workers. This government is not delivering for those who are doing it tough. It is too focused on the press releases and it is not focused on the details. We need to get this recovery right, a recovery that focuses on rebuilding good, secure jobs and a recovery that works for all Australians. We need the plan for this recovery right now. Why right now? Because a million Australians are unemployed, 1.5 million Australians can't find enough work and another 400,000 Australians are predicted to lose their jobs by Christmas. That is a lot of people relying on this government, the Morrison government, to deliver a plan for jobs now.
Let's talk about today. Today the national accounts have recorded Australia's biggest ever fall in GDP, and we are in the worst recession in almost 100 years, a recession that will be deeper and longer if the government decides to leave people behind. What is the Prime Minister's plan for Australians who've lost their jobs, who fear losing their jobs, who are leaving school in just a few months time and are looking to this government for some hope for their future? Is it a plan to boost manufacturing? No. Is it a plan for big, nation-building infrastructure? No. Is it a plan to create more-secure jobs? No. It's a plan to cut people's incomes and support—a plan to cut JobKeeper and JobSeeker while people are still struggling and while they are looking for some hope from this government.
Australia is in the worst recession since the Great Depression, but this still isn't enough for the government to deliver a jobs plan. Australians need the government's help to get back on their feet. They need a plan for jobs, not a plan to cut their income. We've all heard the stories: a small factory employer who had 200 applications for one job in 48 hours. We've seen the stats: there are at least 13 job hunters per job vacancy right now. But earlier this week the government insisted that people need to re-engage with the workforce. You can only re-engage with the workforce when there are jobs there to re-engage with.
The Prime Minister needs to stop with the slogans and deliver a real plan—a plan that delivers what this government promises. He is pretty big on announcements—I'll give him that—but he is small when it comes to delivery. This government has promised $314 billion in support to Australians—sounds good, right? But the government has delivered a quarter of this. How about their plan to support small business, which promised $40 billion? That also sounds pretty good. How much of that has been delivered? Do you want to take a guess? It's five per cent. What is the government waiting for? We are in the worst recession in 100 years. We have a million people unemployed and 1.5 million people underemployed. What are you waiting for? Now would be a good time to deliver what you've promised. Now would be the right time to make good on the string of announcements that you've put forward, because these failures to deliver are costing jobs now.
Let me say—because it seems that you on the government benches need to hear it—a real jobs plan does not include bashing the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews, into easing restrictions too early. Victorians see straight through this. They're doing it really tough right now but they know—we know—that the current restrictions are what's needed to keep the COVID numbers down. We don't want it to be for nothing. So beating up on the Victorian Premier to open up despite the health advice is not a jobs plan. It's a distraction. You know it's a distraction, and you know that it is a dangerous distraction. I'll tell you what Victorians actually want. They want a real plan from the Morrison government for jobs. That's what they want. They want backup and support from the Morrison government.
So here are some ideas. How about rebuilding and revitalising Australian manufacturing? How about getting started on some big, transformative infrastructure projects that will improve people's lives and deliver jobs? How about reversing the decline in job security that you have presided over for the last seven years of your government? We have had seven years of insecure work under this government. There was no plan from you prior to the pandemic, let alone now, to rebuild secure jobs in this country. There was no plan to get wages moving even prior to the pandemic.
The pandemic has shown that it's too often our most essential workers who are in the most insecure work—and we've relied on them in this pandemic to get us through. They need much more than our thanks; they need to see change. Today is Early Childhood Educators' Day, and we need to celebrate the amazing work that they've done. These essential workers have been there for families throughout this crisis. But the government hasn't been there for them. They cut them off JobKeeper three days before they said they wouldn't be cutting anyone off JobKeeper. Early childhood educators are the people you decided to cut off JobKeeper, and then you did nothing to secure their jobs during Victoria's stage 4 lockdown. One Victorian educator, Kerrie, put it best. Referring to the Prime Minister, she said: 'He treats us with contempt and shows no respect.' I know that many aged-care workers feel the same way. They've faced appalling conditions and their calls have been ignored.
I thank Senator Walsh for her contribution. For once in this sitting fortnight—once—a Labor senator has actually mentioned the name Dan Andrews, the Premier of Victoria. Why have they been hiding from mentioning this up until now? I can tell you why: 19,000 cases of COVID and 500-odd deaths in Victoria. Premier Dan Andrews has failed Victorians and crushed the economy. You ask: how did he do this? I know Senator Ayres is very keen to learn all about this, because his great state, New South Wales—also Senator Keneally's state—has managed to avoid this. It did this—
Madam Acting Deputy President, I would just draw to your attention that it is not appropriate under the standing orders to refer to senators who are in or out of the chamber in your remarks.
I happily withdraw.
Thank you, Senator Van.
There's no need to mention my good friends across the chamber, other than to say that they've been absolutely silent on the devastation that Premier Andrews has wrought in Victoria. How did he do it? He failed to lock down quarantine. When you have a pandemic, there are four things you can do. You can keep it out of your community, and you do that through quarantine. You can make sure that if it's in the community you can test for it and trace it. He's failed to do that. You can lock it down. Now, that's the one trick that he's found—the one-trick pony, Premier Andrews. That's all he's been able to do: lock down Victoria and crush jobs. Every day I get phone calls from businesses that have lost their livelihoods, that managed to get through stage 3, nearly six months of lockdown, and then stage 4 came along. We're at five weeks of stage 4 now, with a week to go, with still no plan to get Victoria out of it.
You guys are carrying on about a plan. Well, what about a plan to get Victoria going and start jobs again—to get those restaurants open, to get coffees going again, to get retail businesses open again? We hear nothing of that. This government believes in supporting business. We believe in building Australia's capability for the future. This government believes in removing red tape so that businesses, especially those small businesses that have been crushed by Premier Andrews in the state of Victoria, can grow and create jobs.
You ask about our plans. Well, our $300 billion of economic support package has kept this economy alive. When you compare it with all the economies across the world, ours comes out as one of the best: JobKeeper and JobSeeker, over $118 billion; cashflow support for small business, $32 billion; skills and apprenticeship programs, $2.8 billion; and infrastructure building, including $680 million for HomeBuilder grants. So there is plenty in there. Looking back to my first week in parliament, we delivered $167 billion in tax cuts. We've seen how that's supported business. Where were Labor on those? They finally came over to this side to vote for it, after being dragged there kicking and screaming. This shows that we're moving ahead with building a stronger Australia. This is the biggest investment in emergency economic relief by any Australian government and represents approximately 15 per cent of Australia's GDP. Even today in this place the government is trying to move legislation to ensure that big business follows government's lead in paying suppliers on time or paying interest if they don't.
Unlike Labor's past, with their failed and deadly pink batts scheme and their rorted school hall spending, this government is focusing on what will build more jobs and a more-prosperous Australia. Unlike Labor's past, the coalition is committed to making the lives of small businesses easier, because we understand that they are the lifeblood of the economy. Labor occasionally discovers that small business exists, when it's politically expedient to do so, but at the last election Labor did not offer small businesses any policies to access more finance—nothing about cutting red tape, improving payment times or reducing taxes. In fact, the only thing Labor offered small business at the election were more taxes, more costs—and less business.
I rise to speak on this matter of public importance relating to jobs and economic recovery. Most people in this chamber will know me as someone who is quite expert at getting access to documents that the government doesn't really want us to see. So I'm going to have to call Senator Chisholm out and say that he's wrong that the government doesn't a plan, because I've managed to get hold of it, and I have it here. It's even got a plan B. There's nothing written on it—but, nonetheless, that's their plan! But, seriously, I think the government has done a reasonable job working its way through COVID. I'm not going to take anything away from the fact that there are mistakes and there are areas where we can do better. But that's a management function; it's not a leadership function.
We do need a plan laid out that basically tells us how the government intends to move forward over the next five to 10 years, because that's what it's going to take to recover from what's happened to us. Senator Van stood up and gave examples of spending money. Anyone can spend money. It's much harder to spend money wisely and in a targeted manner that seeks to do the very thing that Senator Chisholm suggests in this MPI—that is, to have a plan to create a number of jobs. I'd like to see something come out that says: 'We are going to direct government money locally for local economic benefit.' We should be using our procurement budget. We should be assisting companies with R&D so they can generate IP, not just to build things here but also to export. We should be building up our manufacturing base, not just for jobs but also for resilience—because that is something that we've learned out of COVID: that we fell short in that area. We also need to be doing value-add, not just exporting our rocks. There's multinational tax avoidance—another way to get money into this country. There are lots of things we can do. Please, put out the plan, a coherent plan, so we can see what you're going to do.
The government don't care about workers. They don't care about the economy. They don't care about protecting the planet for future generations. Their vision for the future is one of low wages, of job insecurity, and of profits over people. They want to use the COVID-19 crisis to enrich their corporate donors and fight culture wars, and not much else. Rather than creating the jobs of the future, they are pushing a so-called 'gas-fired recovery'—a totally backwards idea, brought to you by the government's mates in the gas industry. This will supercharge carbon emissions and worsen the climate crisis. It will subsidise projects that decimate nature, Aboriginal heritage sites and farmland. Expanding the fossil fuel industry won't create the jobs we need to build a better world.
If you lot need some help coming up with ideas to create decent, meaningful, well-paid jobs, the Greens can help. Our Invest to Recover package will deliver around one million jobs, look after the wellbeing of everyone in the community and our environment, and set us up for a fair, sustainable future. These jobs will be about building new, sustainable, social homes, slashing public-housing waiting lists, easing pressure on renters and improving housing affordability. As an engineer I know that we can revive Australian manufacturing and chart a course to becoming a renewables powerhouse. We could create a caring economy and a creative society. The pandemic has knocked us sideways, for sure, but it has also opened up a window to imagine and build a world that is better, that is fairer and that is more equal. Let's not waste this chance.
[by video link] As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I agree that the federal government is not serving the people in managing COVID-19. Neither is the Queensland Labor government. Solid plans require data as their basis. A core issue in Australian politics at federal and state government level is government fear of using data. Having been in business and responsible for the safety, lives and livelihoods of hundreds of people working in hostile and hazardous underground environments, I always got the data—objective data, accurate data, reliable data. People's lives and livelihoods deserve nothing less.
When data is missing, governments rely on taking care of donors, rely on opinions and aim for emotional marketing slogans and headlines. They rely on fooling people, not serving people. Take, for example, energy and climate policy. Climate tossed the last six Prime Ministers. Climate is splitting Labor. Real Labor MPs like Senators Gallacher, Sterle and Farrell are trying to protect blue-collar workers from the likes of new Labor's Mark Butler, Tanya Plibersek, Anthony Albanese, Senators McAllister and Watt, who are hell-bent on virtue-signalling and stopping leakage of votes to the Greens while forsaking workers.
John Howard recently admitted the Liberal Party has descended into tribalism. Would-be Greens like Trent Zimmerman and his fellow socialists—who Bronwyn Bishop said last year grew into a large group under Malcolm Turnbull—are battling true Liberals like Craig Kelly, Senators Rennick, Fierravanti-Wells and Abetz. Then we have the split-personality, the Nationals, like Barnaby Joyce and Senator Canavan, known to be sceptical on climate yet, when in cabinet, spruiking that we need to cut carbon dioxide. Prime Minister Turnbull showered $400 million on wind turbines in New England to get Mr Joyce elected in 2016.
That's why Liberal, Labor and Nationals governments failed to make a coherent plan on any issue. They need to get back to solid data and aim to serve the people.
The time for the discussion has expired.
I present the interim report of the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I'm very pleased to be chairing this inquiry, which is about facilitating increased competition and innovation in Australia's financial sector and beyond. While Australia officially slips into its first recession in 30 years, it is clear that we need more jobs, but we must embrace technology to be globally competitive and create the jobs.
The committee was established in September last year and, following an extensive round of public submissions and hearings in January and February, the committee was due to table its interim report in March. However, COVID-19 intervened and the committee decided to reopen submissions and take further evidence at hearings in the middle part of this year before finalising this interim report. In total, the inquiry has now received more than 200 submissions from a broad range of stakeholders and held 10 public hearings. Following this substantial interim report, the committee will consider further matters relevant to its terms of reference and present a final report in April 2021.
Put simply, this inquiry is about more jobs and more choice. It is evident that this sector is growing. Technology should not be feared. The computer age has delivered enormous growth in jobs. Technology is a jobs creator, not a jobs killer. Fintech, or financial technology, is commonly defined as organisations combining innovative business models and technology to enable, enhance and disrupt financial services. Australia has a vibrant and growing fintech sector with a significant number of start-ups and scale-ups as well as several established unicorns that clearly show the incredible potential of this sector. Regtech, or regulatory technology, is the use of new technology to undertake regulatory monitoring, reporting and compliance functions.
To review and organise the material presented to the committee through the inquiry, the committee has chosen to view it through five buckets: tax, regulation, access to capital, skills, talent and culture. The committee also receives particular evidence relating to the impact of COVID-19 and technology enablers that have risen to prominence during the crisis. The committee has made 32 recommendations.
On to COVID-19: it is clear that, from the evidence received, COVID-19 has had a material impact on the fintech sector. But, as the pandemic has shown, adaptability and technology underpins the jobs of today, let alone tomorrow. While some businesses, especially well-established fintechs, have ridden the wave and experienced significant growth during this period, many newer companies have struggled with a loss of capital and faltering customer acquisition. The sector has received significant support from a number of government initiatives, including JobKeeper.
The committee has made several recommendations in relation to these technology enablers, such as allowing electronic company meetings and communications, allowing for electronic signing and witnessing of documents, continuing the rollout of telehealth services on a permanent basis and the utilisation of electronic prescriptions. The committee also identified accelerating progress on the Australian government's digital identity reforms as a key opportunity.
On to taxation: the committee heard that a competitive tax framework will assist fintechs and regtechs. The operation of the research and development tax incentive was raised by many participants.
Due to the uncertainty around the eligibility of software development for the program and the concern about audits, the committee has made recommendations that there should be additional clarity in these areas whilst noting that further legislative changes to the tax incentive are currently under review by the Economics Legislation Committee. The report also calls for the Council on Federal Financial Relations to simplify payroll tax across Australia.
On to regulation: looking at the way competition in financial services is regulated, it is abundantly clear that the current approach is fragmented and unclear, with the ACCC, ASIC, APRA and the RBA all playing roles. Witnesses viewed this fragmentation as a risk and saw the need for Australia's financial regulators to collectively provide greater focus on promoting competition and innovation in the financial system if Australia is to have any chance of competing with the likes of Singapore and the UK.
The committee's recommendations in this area are to provide the Council of Financial Regulators with a competition mandate and ensure that it regularly reports on competitive dynamics and also to require the Council of Financial Regulators to consider and report on Australia's competitive position. The committee also supports self-regulation where innovative products emerge whilst ensuring strong consumer protection. We have used the example of buy-now pay-later products as a positive innovative development which should be supported by a system of co-regulation. We were not convinced that the way to promote innovation in Australia was to force new ideas into old frameworks designed for something altogether different.
An important regulatory reform that is underway to encourage more competition is the consumer data right. The committee considers that a single standalone body is required to manage this reform, particularly as it is rolled out into other sectors in the economy. The CDR is too important to be managed by a wing in the ACCC.
On to capital: evidence received showed the critical role of capital in facilitating the growth of fintech and regtech businesses. The committee has recommended that the Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships program and the early stage innovation company tax incentive be reformed. The committee heard that these programs require tweaking in order to reach their full potential and be globally competitive.
The committee also recommended that the remaining Johnson review recommendations from 2009 be implemented. If we are to have a serious prospect of beating Singapore in winning business from the ailing Hong Kong, we must enact these reforms as soon as possible.
On to skills, talent and culture: the committee made recommendations across these areas. The committee recommended that the government work with industry to ensure the reskilling of workers affected by economic change and ensure the availability and accessibility of microcredentials for those seeking to join the fintech and regtech sectors. It should also explore the option of including eligible outplacement training under the FBT exemption for eligible startups.
The package of recommendations brings together many loose ends and turns them into a package. The committee will continue to engage with the sector as it moves into the next phase of the inquiry. Just like our fintechs, the government should be iterative and responsive as we undertake our work as a parliament.
A positive disposition is the one thing that is required to be successful in this space. But the next thing is to have a plan to be competitive. The plan to be competitive in fintech is the same plan that Australia requires to be competitive in technology and across the board. The fundamental need to be competitive is the same as it was before the pandemic. The need for reform is now more acute because we are in a recession and competing globally for new investment and new people. We have the brains. We have the skills. All we need to do is unlock our technology prowess by breaking down some barriers.
We should thank the other members on the committee for their interest, engagement and collegiate approach and note that the vast majority of recommendations in this report are bipartisan. I want to thank the deputy chair and fellow millennial, Senator Marielle Smith, and committee members Senator Paul Scarr, Senator Susan McDonald and Senator Jess Walsh for their support in the compilation of the report. I also wanted to thank the committee secretary, Lyn Beverley, for her commitment and guidance over the past year, and acknowledge the father of fintech in Australia, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who has been a champion for fintech since his days as Treasurer, when he set the ball rolling in this space. The PM established the consumer data right, opened the fintech bridge with the UK and led reforms on the early-stage innovation companies as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda.
The government is full of fintech supporters, I should say: the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and Australia's first fintech minister, Jane Hume. They are a great team, and I'm proud to serve alongside them. I hope these recommendations will be adopted by the executive government and I look forward to presenting the committee's final report in April.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
[by video link] The tabling of this report provides our parliament with an update on our committee's work in relation to its inquiry into the financial technology and regulatory technology sectors. The aim of our inquiry was to identify the challenges and barriers Australian fintechs and regtechs are trying to overcome in attempting to grow their enterprises and their respective industries. It's been a brilliant experience being part of this committee, and I want to start my remarks by thanking the chair, Senator Bragg, and also Senators Walsh, Scarr and McDonald for their keen participation in the hearings and the deliberations of our committee. I also want to thank the committee secretariat, particularly Lyn Beverley and CJ Sautelle, who have been instrumental in ensuring the inquiry's processes have run as smoothly as possible during these unprecedented times.
Whilst we weren't able to reach agreement on absolutely everything in this report, we did all come into this process in good faith, and I'm pleased that there was so much that we could agree on within the interim report. That said, I do need to address some of the issues where there were discrepancies in our opinions, and I'll get to those shortly.
Throughout our hearings we heard from many fintechs and regtechs about the innovation products they've brought to market in Australia as well as the challenges and opportunities facing this sector going forward. I was especially pleased to hear from fintechs in my home state of South Australia, having been an advocate for the further development of this sector and the jobs it could bring to Adelaide.
The inquiry identified many challenges that Australian fintechs and regtechs are confronting and which have only been exacerbated during this pandemic. These challenges aren't insurmountable for the sector, but they do require action from our government. Whilst there has been significant focus on regulatory settings that require modernising to keep up the pace of exciting regulatory and financial products, there are many other challenges ahead. Evidence to this inquiry has brought to light many of the issues that traditionally plague the startup sector, including a lack of access to capital as well as access to skills. Notwithstanding these challenges, according to KPMG, the fintech sector in Australia is already worth about $1 billion, but I am certain that much greater growth is possible here as well as in the regtech industry, and with that growth comes growth in jobs if the government can get these settings right.
As we know, the economic crisis caused by the pandemic has been difficult for all businesses and their workers, but there have been particular challenges for fintechs and regtechs, many of which are at the prerevenue stage of development. The committee resolved to alter its reporting date, as Senator Bragg has said, and shift its focus so that the interim report tabled today would cover off some pandemic related topics as well as look at the other evidence which was provided to our inquiry.
The pandemic, it must be said, has also brought up different opportunities for the use of innovative technologies, and some of the recommendations in our interim report reflect these developments. There was bipartisan support for the universalisation of telehealth and e-prescriptions as well as options to have videoconferencing at annual general meetings under the Corporations Act. It should be noted that we couldn't agree on whether companies should be compelled to provide a hybrid model to allow both in-person and virtual AGM meetings. It's my strong view individual shareholders who wish to opt in to in-person services should be able to do this. This is important for issues related to the digital divide and it's important to ensure the fair participation of older and regional and rural shareholders or shareholders with disability.
Throughout the inquiry's proceedings to date, I've been mindful of the need to always balance the desire to encourage growth in our fintech and regtech sectors whilst protecting the interests of Australian consumers. Of course Labor wants to see these industries flourish in Australia, but it is crucial to ensure that innovation and growth do not come at the expense of consumer outcomes. That principle has been Labor senators' guiding approach to this inquiry. While it was conducted in a collegial and effective manner, with most recommendations receiving bipartisan support, there were some recommendations that either required further clarification or simply could not be supported in this regard. We have indicated this in our dissenting report because it is our firm belief that consumers must not be left behind.
In particular, the government has a responsibility to ensure the financial literacy needs of everyday Australians are keeping up with the availability of more financial products. Evidence to the inquiry suggested that there aren't many of these types of education programs currently in place in our community. This only serves to further disenfranchise vulnerable groups of Australians, and it will only further widen the digital divide which exists within our community with respect to those who have access to and understanding of technology and those who don't.
Labor senators acknowledge that innovation in the financial technology space is an exciting development for the Australian economy, including for consumers. However, its true potential will only be realised if its availability results in a narrowing of the digital divide. The Prime Minister and this government claim to be champions in this space, but what this inquiry has shown is that there is plenty of work ahead for the government to do if the fintech and regtech sectors are to reach their true potential. The implementation of many of the recommendations in this report would provide a good starting point.
There is plenty of work ahead, and there's plenty of work ahead for our committee as well. I'm afraid I probably won't be around for the next part of the research project of the next committee as I will be leaving on maternity leave in a number of weeks, but I wish the committee members, the chair and Labor senators well in the further development of this work.
These are such important sectors. The fintech and regtech sectors offer incredible opportunity to Australia, and they offer incredible opportunity in Adelaide and throughout South Australia, which is of the highest importance to me. So I hope that together as a parliament we can do what we can to make sure that these sectors flourish and that we see more jobs grow from them. I hope also that we make sure that those people who may not be able to keep up with this technology, who face disadvantage through the access to it or who find the increased choice or reduced choice that may emerge from some of these technologies are looked after. I hope that consumer outcomes are looked after and that, as we are looking to support this sector and support growth and opportunity, we are also looking to ensure that no Australians are left behind.
All of that said, despite our obvious policy differences in some areas, I think members of the fintech and regtech sectors can be assured that in the members of our committee they have found champions in the parliament and in the Senate. I hope that gives them comfort that there are plenty of people in this building who understand what it is that their sector presents in terms of opportunity to our economy and to consumers and that we're looking to make sure that it can develop in a way which is beneficial to the majority of Australians, particularly those Australians who stand to benefit from better consumer outcomes.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Urquhart, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 11 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 2 September 2020.
I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 10 of 2020 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 10 of 2020. In particular, I wish to draw the Senate's attention to three instruments in chapter 1 of the monitor which raised significant technical scrutiny concerns. The first instrument is the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No.1) Regulations 2020. This instrument implements several temporary changes to performance standards for the delivery of letters and temporarily exempts Australia Post from its retail outlet obligations.
The changes aim to respond to the challenges faced by Australia Post during the COVID-19 pandemic. It appears to the committee that the changes made by the instrument have the potential to affect a broad range of people and entities, including users of Australia Post services, and Australia Post employees. Despite this, the explanatory statement to the instrument states that only Australia Post itself was consulted in the development of the instrument. After seeking advice from the minister about this matter, the committee understands that the instrument is due to be reviewed later this year, and that the review will include consultation with a range of different stakeholders about the impact and proposed duration of the measures.
Given the significance of the measures and the broad scope of people and entities likely to be affected by them, the committee has asked to be provided with updates on the progress of future consultation. The committee has also resolved to give a notice of motion to disallow the instrument on 6 October 2020, with a view to reconsidering the notice once the committee is satisfied that appropriate consultation has been undertaken.
The second instrument I wish to highlight is the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Deferral of Sunsetting—Income Management and Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2020. This instrument defers the sunsetting of primary legislation to extend the end date of the cashless debit card trial in all existing sites, and income management in the Cape York region, for a further six months until 31 December 2020. The committee would ordinarily expect such a significant measure to be included in primary legislation, rather than delegated legislation, consistent with previous extensions to the cashless welfare arrangements. In this instance, the explanatory statement to the instrument stated that delegated legislation was necessary to provide certainty to scheme participants, noting that parliament was unable to consider the bill to extend the end dates as sittings were deferred in response to COVID-19. Noting that parliament has now resumed a regular sitting pattern, it was unclear to the committee why it was necessary to continue to address this matter in delegated legislation.
On 31 August 2020, the committee lodged a notice of motion to disallow the instrument for consideration and debate in the Senate on 3 September 2020 should the bill not be listed for debate before that time. The minister has since provided the committee with a more detailed justification as to why the bill could not be listed for debate in the Senate by 3 September and has reiterated that the government intends to bring the bill on for consideration as early as is practical. In light of the minister's advice, the committee has resolved to initially postpone the consideration of its notice of motion until 8 October 2020, pending an update from the minister as to the government's progress towards the scheduling of the bill for debate in the Senate.
The final instrument I draw to the Senate's attention is the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Dairy) Regulations 2019. The committee has been particularly concerned about section 11 of the instrument, which imposes significant civil penalties on farmers and processors for failing to 'act in good faith'. This term is undefined in the written law. As a technical scrutiny matter, the committee strongly considers that civil and criminal penalty provisions should be drafted with sufficient clarity to enable persons and entities to understand their obligations and the consequences of noncompliance.
Since December 2019, Senate standing order 23(3) has required the committee to scrutinise delegated legislation to determine whether its drafting is defective or unclear. In considering this instrument, the committee has become aware of several other examples of similarly drafted provisions in both delegated and primary legislation. These examples raise broader systemic concerns about the pursuit of regulatory flexibility via the imposition of broadly drafted good-faith provisions at the expense of legal clarity and certainty. As section 11 of the instrument is just one example of this much broader and complex issue, the committee considers that the disallowance of that section in isolation would do little to address the systemic issues. Accordingly, the committee considers that this issue would be more appropriately addressed by a broader inquiry into the drafting of good-faith obligations in Commonwealth legislation and consideration by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
I'm pleased to report that, following extensive correspondence, the Attorney-General now agrees that the drafting of good-faith obligations in Commonwealth legislation indeed raises complex and systemic issues which warrant further inquiry. In light of the Attorney-General's undertaking to this effect, the committee has resolved to withdraw its notice of motion to disallow the dairy code and instead pursue this significant scrutiny matter by liaising with the Attorney-General about the terms of reference for an inquiry into the drafting of good-faith obligations in Commonwealth legislation and requesting that the ACCC consider this issue as part of its ongoing inquiry into bargaining power in supply chains for perishable products.
I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, the Treasurer and the Attorney-General for their assistance in this matter. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 10 of 2020 to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
I present the third interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on Centrelink's compliance program and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Today the Community Affairs References Committee is tabling its third interim report for the inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program. This report informs the Senate about the several claims for public interest immunity received from the Minister for Government Services. To date, the committee has received two claims of public interest immunity relating to legal advice sought and received by the Commonwealth regarding the colloquially known 'robodebt' program and one claim of public interest immunity relating to an executive minute which was cited in a report into robodebt by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. I'll deal with the first public interest immunity claim in relation to legal advice first.
In the first interim report, the committee reported its resolution that the minister's claim did not sufficiently justify withholding information requested by the committee. The committee concluded that the information it was seeking was vital to the conduct of this inquiry 'as it goes to the legal foundation of the program and its administration'. The first interim report recommended that the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services provide answers to a series of questions placed on notice relating to legal advice relating to the Centrelink income compliance program. However, all responses to the questions on notice related to legal advice from Services Australia on that day continued to rely on the rejected public interest immunity claim. The committee wrote to the minister seeking clarification of whether it was the intention to provide answers to the questions on notice which continued to rely upon the rejected claim. Unfortunately, the committee did not receive a response to this letter.
The minister's failure to respond to the request for clarification was a blatant disregard for both the committee's decision and the resolution of the Senate. As a result, the committee recommends that the Senate adopt the resolution, which is contained in the report, that the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 6 October 2020 to provide an explanation of the government's continued reliance on the rejected claim of public interest immunity in answers to questions on notice.
I'll now address the second public interest immunity claim in relation to legal advice. At the committee's public hearing on 31 July 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services tabled a further claim of public interest immunity from the minister relating to questions about legal advice and the robodebt program. This claim makes no reference to the first rejected claim even though it largely deals with the same material. The claim covers all legal advice provided by internal or external lawyers to ministers, departments or agencies in relation to the Centrelink income compliance program or in connection with the class action. The minister notes in his letter that 'if the matters are made public, this could result in undue prejudice to the Commonwealth and loss of confidentiality of interactions between lawyers and government clients'. However, the committee continues to hold the view that the requested information is vital evidence for the inquiry into this program. As a result, the committee resolved that it did not accept this further claim of public interest immunity.
The committee maintains that it is ultimately in the public interest for the Commonwealth government to be transparent about the legal advice it received in relation to this program. The committee acknowledges the public sensitivities of materials related to legal proceedings and is willing to accept material in camera regarding the legal issues surrounding the program. The majority of questions on notice have been regarding the circumstances of legal advice relating to the income compliance program, and not regarding the specific content of that legal advice. The committee fails to understand why information relating to the circumstances of legal advice, such as the dates advice was provided, cannot be provided to the committee in public let alone in camera. As a result, the committee recommends that the Senate adopt the recommendation that's contained in the report requiring the production of documents: that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services no later than 12 pm on 6 October 2020, either: revised responses to all questions relating to legal advice and the program; or a letter confirming that responses will be provided to the committee in camera.
I'll now move to the claim in relation to an executive minute. On 13 August 2020, the committee received a new claim of public interest immunity from the minister in relation to a request for the Executive Minute to the Minister for Social Services. The minister claims revealing this information could or would be reasonably expected to disclose the deliberation of cabinet. The committee is concerned that this blanket statement provided by the minister fails to establish whether the executive minute would actually disclose the deliberations or describe any genuine risk of public harm in its disclosure. The committee is of the view that the Executive Minute would not, in and of itself, reveal cabinet deliberations. In fact, it was apparently provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the purpose of a review without resulting in a claim of immunity. This document is another item of evidence the committee believes is important for its inquiry. The committee is therefore of the view that this document should be provided in camera if the perceived harm can only result from its publication. As a result, the committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following recommendation—as it is contained in this report that I'm tabling—requiring the production of the documents: that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services no later than 12 pm on 6 October 2020 either a copy of the Executive Minute or a letter confirming that this Executive Minute will be provided in camera to this committee.
The government cannot hide behind these unsubstantiated claims for public interest immunity. It is holding up this inquiry into Centrelink, and that, I think, is obvious to the people that are paying very close attention to this inquiry. I look forward to the minister's responses to these recommendations on 6 October, as we work to uncover what did happen in the instigation of the program that is known as robodebt. I seek leave to continue my remarks later on the motion to take note.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate adopt the recommendations contained in the report.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert to adopt the recommendations of the report be agreed to.
I understand there were still some speakers on the original motion to take note, so with the concurrence of the Senate we will resume on that.
I rise to speak to the third interim report. I am very pleased to see that the Senate has supported the recommendation of the report that the government's public interest immunity claim be rejected. There is a very, very good argument about why it should be rejected that was put on the record by Senator Siewert just then. In essence, why we should support the recommendation of this report is because this government is permanently addicted to covering up and hiding the truth from Australians through a litany of announcements and failures of delivery and, in this instance, with regard to robodebt, a gross failure of fair and decent government of this nation. The robodebt program was responsible for the destruction of lives, for untold financial and emotional anguish and for the systematic harassment of some of the most vulnerable members of the Australian community—and for what? To prop up Scott Morrison's budget bottom line to sell a few kitschy 'back in black' mugs. That's how cynical this government is.
This report that's been tabled this afternoon and whose recommendations have been adopted here in the Senate is the third report of the income compliance inquiry regarding the public interest immunity claims the government has trotted out, another example of this government's war on transparency and accountability. These public interest immunity claims, as presented previously in letters from the minister, are a repeat of the pattern that we see: conceal, repeat, conceal, repeat, conceal, repeat. That is all this minister knows.
Minister Stuart Robert argued previously and again in recent days that there would be specific harm to the public interest if legal advice that he had used to establish robodebt was made public.
The great harm that's been done to the Australian public has been done by their own government pushing onto hundreds of thousands of Australians debts that were unlawfully raised by their own government—an attack on the citizens of this country by this Liberal-National party government. The claim that it is against the interests of the public of Australia to know what the government knew when they concocted and inflicted this terrible scheme on Australia is a sham. Nearly half a million debts were sent out and nearly a billion dollars in payments were refunded due to legally insufficient grounds for the program, and this government continues to say that the advice at the very heart of this omnishambles is not in the public interest. That claim and the cheek of it are just outrageous.
As more Australians than ever are using Services Australia, and while under this Liberal National Party government we head into a deep recession for the first time in a generation, we need to restore confidence in the department and the minister more than at any other time in living memory. The report of this inquiry tabled yesterday complements the tabling of the report this afternoon. Yesterday's tabled report showed that robodebt had grievously undermined Australia's trust in government services. That trust will only be further undermined by the government's continuing lack of accountability. This report wisely recommends that this paper-thin excuse be rejected and that the minister representing the Minister for Government Services table the relevant documents requested by the inquiry or provide an explanation to the Senate as to the minister's failure to table these documents. I'm pleased again to put on the record that the Senate has just voted in support of the report of the community affairs committee to make sure that this government comes into this chamber and tells the truth. I know it'll be new. I know it'll be novel. We should be able to sell tickets to that—if only people could get in the building! The Australian people are yearning for the truth, not for more robodebt and more of the same from this government.
The second interim report of this inquiry, tabled yesterday, went to the heart of the legality of the problem. It tells us what the government should have known: that average income isn't real income, and that using income averaging to subsequently support raising an overpayment debt has never amounted to sufficient evidence of a debt under social security law. It never did until this lot, this shameful government, inflicted their fake debts and all the damage they did on the Australian people. Robodebt particularly affected workers with itinerant employment. It affected workers who are casual labourers. It affected workers who are in the short-term unemployment market. It affected students whose peripatetic jobs left them eligible for support payments but vulnerable to the very tool that the government sought to use to exploit and get money from those who could pay the least. Minister Morrison, as the Treasurer, thought he could get $2.1 billion, and he bragged about it to his mates. 'I've got this great new scheme. We're going to average income and we'll rake in the dollars.' That's what they did. They got advice. They inflicted this pain and suffering on the Australian people and they need to pay for that at the next election.
Those eligible for support payments were the most vulnerable to averaging and they were the most affected. I recall the case of a building labourer constantly in search of work who came to my office on the Central Coast after receiving a robodebt for over $10,000. To a casual labourer, that $10,000 is a lot of money. With the support of my office, that debt was subsequently reduced to a tiny fraction of that amount once a proper review had taken place. Thank God that labourer had enough sense to come and get support from his duty senator. The problem was that so many Australians totally freaked out when they got a letter from the government, accepted that the government couldn't possibly give them a fake debt and just paid the money. They just paid. They trusted the government, and their trust was abused. Yesterday's report recommends that Services Australia immediately review its evidentiary responsibilities for raising overpayment debts in all of its compliance programs, as well as recommending an independent review into the policy, design, administration and impact of Centrelink's compliance program, including the Income Compliance Program.
We demand, on behalf of the Australian people, more evidence, not less—not cover up, not hiding, not public interest immunity claims, not the nonsense, the shame, the lies, the disgraceful behaviour that we consistently see from this government. The government knows what it did was wrong. It relied on insufficient legal advice to unleash a predatory program on our most vulnerable Australians. We then saw the government spend $34 million on legal fees, trying to cover their tracks and to fight inevitable lawsuits. It concocted bogus public interest immunity claims to hide the legal advice used to create and sustain the program.
As recently as last month, the secretary of the department responsible for robodebt remarked that she didn't even know what the term 'robodebt' meant. That is the depth of denial that exists in the government and in those they have serving them. The Public Service is called the 'Public Service' because it's supposed to serve the public, not the government of the day and the cover-up that is characteristic of this robodebt scheme at every turn. The department responsible, worst of all, denied the testimony of two brave mothers of young men who took their own lives after being harassed endlessly by debt collectors. The department, representing this government, refused to acknowledge the ultimate pain that they inflicted on these families—all this for the bottom line of the budget, for a campaign ad and for a few bits of merchandise.
The work of this inquiry isn't over, and our work will not be done until every debt that was levied on innocent Australians is returned, and those responsible are held accountable. Even now, I hear rumours that payments are being funnelled into cashless welfare cards instead of bank accounts, and that payments affect the liquid assets test of Australians who are currently out of work, pushing their payments down at a time when they can ill afford it. I can tell the people of Australia that Labor will stand up for you against this government that is attacking you every day and this robodebt is a signature of their attacks on you.
Despite the antics of those opposite, as deputy chair of the Community Affairs Reference Committee, I rise to place on record why the government senators voted against the recommendations in the substantive Community Affairs References Committee's third interim report into Centrelink's compliance program.
As has been mentioned in the first, second and, now, third interim report dissenting comments, it is the strong view of the government senators on the committee that the claims of public interest immunity in regard to relevant cabinet materials and legal advice provided with respect to the Income Compliance Program made by the Hon. Stuart Robert MP on 11 February 2020, and subsequently reiterated on 31 July 2020 and 13 August 2020, are valid.
During my speech on the first interim committee report, I noted that it has been a longstanding practice of successive Australian governments not to disclose legal advice. This was originally stated by Minister Robert in his initial public interest immunity claim. Furthermore, and as I stated, this has also been the practice of both Labor and coalition governments. The committee requested a copy of the executive minute to the Minister for Social Services dated 12 February 2015 that was referred to in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's 2017 report, Centrelink's automated debt raising and recovery system. Minister Robert then wrote to the committee on 13 August 2020 outlining a public interest immunity claim over the executive minute. In his correspondence to the committee, the minister stated:
Revealing this information would or could reasonably be expected to disclose the deliberations of the Cabinet. On that basis, I claim public interest immunity in relation to providing the Minute.
It is in the public interest for the deliberations of the Cabinet not to be made public. The deliberations of the Cabinet and its committees should be conducted in secrecy so that the freedom of those deliberations can be preserved. It is not in the public interest to disclose information about the Cabinet's deliberations as it may impact on the Government's ability to receive confidential information and make appropriate decisions impacting on the Australian community. This is a well-established basis for a public interest immunity claim.
The Labor and Greens senators question whether the minute would disclose the deliberations of cabinet, on the basis that Services Australia appear not to have refused to provide the document to the Commonwealth Ombudsman as part of his investigations into the program, despite the purported availability of a public interest immunity exemption at the time. It is important to note that a limited disclosure to an operational Commonwealth entity is not inconsistent with the maintenance of cabinet confidentiality. The minister's advice to the committee is that the disclosure of the minute would, or could be reasonably expected to, disclose the deliberations of cabinet and that this is acceptable grounds for a public interest immunity claim.
Those on the other side of the chamber have used this whole inquiry—not just the public interest immunity claims—to feed into a political narrative. Using the term 'robodebt', which was created solely by the media, to refer to Centrelink's compliance program is flawed, and has caused significant confusion not only among the general public but among those sitting opposite. Ironically, their use of the term is inconsistent, with the term being used in various ways by the opposition, the media and on social media to include any debt or compliance letter received from Centrelink, not just those issued through the income compliance program.
I do note that there were initial implementation issues when the program commenced. However, since then, the government has made significant enhancements to the program through the later iterations. The government has worked quickly to rectify these issues and, as clearly stated in evidence received, refunds for those who had repaid money on debts raised solely or partly using averaged income data commenced in July 2020 and the majority of refunds are expected to be paid by November this year. As shown by the earlier motion, government senators and government members of the committee strongly believe that the public interest immunity claim by Minister Robert is valid.
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 the advisory report on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019.
by leave—I rise to speak on the tabling of this report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill. I say from the outset that Labor welcomes steps to fix the significant problems in Australia's citizenship loss provisions to strengthen our national security and to protect the Australian community from terrorism. Labor supports appropriate measures to keep Australia and Australians safe such as citizenship loss for terrorist conduct.
Amendments to these provisions have been a long time coming, and we are glad that the government, which controls the legislative agenda and, ultimately, Australia's national security, has finally acted. The citizenship loss provisions were first introduced in 2015 under the then Abbott government and were passed with Labor's support in late 2015 under the Turnbull government. Labor supported the legislation in 2015 because citizenship loss following terrorist conduct may be necessary and proportionate in some cases, as the respected Independent National Security Legislation Monitor recommended. However, Labor has always had concerns about the complexity and potential impact of this legislation, which is why Labor PJCIS members issued a minority report in 2015. This report criticised the government's legislation and the processes and recommended that the provisions introduced in the 2015 act be referred immediately to the INSLM for review.
The concerns Labor held five years ago have been proven to be well founded. Under the current laws, there may be cases where an individual's Australian citizenship has ceased under the law but the Commonwealth government may not be aware this has occurred. The Department of Home Affairs confirmed this in the PJCIS hearings last year. It might sound ironic that laws that are meant to protect Australians could result in citizenship revocations the government themselves don't even know about, but that is the way the current system operates. ASIO themselves have made clear that because of the automatic way in which the existing provisions operate citizenship cancellation may lead to unintended or unforeseen adverse security outcomes, including exacerbating potential security threats. As the INSLM found in its 2019 inquiry, these provisions operate in an uncertain and uncontrolled manner and need to be repealed as a matter of urgency.
In its report, the PJCIS has recommended the automatic citizenship loss provisions be replaced with a new ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation. Labor both welcomes and supports this recommendation, a recommendation we've long called for along with the INSLM. And we look forward to the government bringing this legislation to the parliament, particularly this chamber, so that it can be passed before we leave tomorrow.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
by leave—I present two non-conforming petitions: one signed by 11,221 concerned social science, humanities and arts academics regarding fee increases and the removal of public funding from arts, humanity, social sciences, businesses, law courses and degrees; and the other signed by 15,557 people on behalf of the National Tertiary Education Union regarding university fee increases.
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 Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 will create additional university places for Australian students and provide more support for regional students and universities.
The reforms in Job-ready Graduates will grow the number of university places for domestic students by 39,000 in 2023 and 100,000 in ten years. That means more Australian students will get a university degree.
We will make it cheaper for students to study in areas of expected future job demand. So students will pay less for their degree if they study teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English and languages, agriculture, maths, science, health, architecture, environmental science, IT, or engineering.
We have made sensible amendments to the legislation after listening to the constructive feedback provided during the consultation process. I would like to thank everyone who made a submission on the draft legislation or participated in the broad consultation process.
Schedule 1 of the Bill amends the Higher Education Support Act2003 to ensure public funding for places at university is directed to areas of expected employment growth, as well as industry and community priority. This includes amendments to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding clusters and Commonwealth contribution amounts.
This improves efficiency in Commonwealth spending for higher education and will enable the Government to support more university places.
Schedule 1 of the Bill extends Commonwealth support to more 'work experience in industry' units of study. This will incentivise universities to include more work integrated learning options in their courses and encourage students to gain more work experience from what they learn.
Improving how we connect graduates to employers, as well as tailoring education and training to ensure young peoples' skills meet industry demand, is critical to the recovery of the youth labour market.
Schedule 1 of the Bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to change the way grants are paid to higher education providers for Commonwealth supported places.
This amendment will give Table A providers flexibility to adjust the number of bachelor, sub bachelor and postgraduate places within their funding allocation to better meet the demands of students, industry and local communities.
Table A providers will continue to be allocated places for designated courses of study, such as courses in medicine.
Table A providers will also receive funding for Indigenous students from regional and remote Australia on a demand-driven basis. This means all Indigenous students from regional and remote Australia admitted to a Table A university will have a bachelor-level Commonwealth supported place. This was a key recommendation made by Dr Denis Napthine in the National Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy and will help improve participation and attainment rates for Indigenous people from regional and remote areas
Schedule 1 of the Bill will introduce the 'Transition Fund' into the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The 'Transition Fund loading' will ensure that Table A providers maintain their revenue over the grant years 2021 to 2023, while the Job-ready Graduates Package is implemented.
The detail of the 'Transition Fund loading' will be included in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines and amounts reflected in Table A provider funding agreements. The Guidelines are a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003 and are subject to the Parliamentary disallowance process. This means these Guidelines will be subject to Parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, ensuring transparency for providers.
During the consultation process, we listened to the sector and the community and have addressed the vital role of social workers and psychologists. Schedule 1 of the Bill will create the new disciplines of Professional Pathway Social Work and Professional Pathway Psychology in Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding. This change will result in an increase in the Commonwealth contribution and reduce the proposed student contribution amount for social work or psychology units undertaken as part of qualifications that are part of the professional pathway.
Providing a lower cost pathway for social work and psychology will mean that there will be more vital health professionals to support the recovery from COVID-19, drought, bushfires and other events.
Schedule 1 will also introduce a maximum basic grant amount 'floor' for 'higher education courses'. This will increase funding transparency for Table A providers by establishing that a provider's maximum basic grant amount for 'higher education courses' for the grant years 2021 to 2024 must not be less than the amount specified in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines, and, for 2025 and later grant years, must not be less than the provider's maximum basic grant amount for those courses for the preceding grant year.
Schedules 1 and 2 include grandfathering arrangements to ensure no student enrolled in a course prior to 1 January 2021 is worse off as a result of this Bill. These grandfathering arrangements extend to the amended Commonwealth contribution amounts also contained in Schedule 1, ensuring universities receive the same Commonwealth contribution for grandfathered students in perpetuity.
Schedule 2 of the Bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to match the student contribution amounts with the Commonwealth contribution amounts as amended in Schedule 1. When combined, these two amounts will provide base funding for a Commonwealth supported place that reflects the cost of teaching a student at university.
Based on university data provided by the sector to Deloitte, the Government has better aligned the cost to students and the taxpayer of teaching a degree with the revenue a university receives to teach that degree.
These reforms better align the total combined public and private funding for higher education units with contemporary data on the cost of delivering university education.
This is consistent with the reforms we are undertaking in vocational education and training.
The changes in this Bill to both Commonwealth and student contribution amounts are going to be essential to Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19.
We are also encouraging students to tailor their studies to learn the skills that will be in demand in areas of future jobs growth. That means breaking down the traditional degree 'silos' by choosing units of study across disciplines and introducing a price signal to students by making degrees cheaper in areas of expected job growth.
Students enrolled in teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English and languages will pay 42 per cent less for their degree.
Students who study agriculture and maths will pay 59 per cent less for their degree.
Students who study science, health, architecture, environmental science, IT, and engineering will pay 18 per cent less for their degree.
Schedule 3 of the Bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide the legislative authority for the National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund (NPILF)—a $900 million fund aimed at encouraging universities to collaborate with industry to design courses that equip students with the job-ready skills and experience they need to succeed.
Schedule 3 also includes amendments to enable the Indigenous, Regional and Low Socio-Economic Status Attainment Fund (IRLSAF) so that more regional, rural, Indigenous and low-SES students are supported to access university, graduate from their studies, and enjoy the benefits higher education offers.
Schedule 4 of the Bill amends of the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2017 to strengthen and extend the application of various quality and accountability requirements to all higher education providers (including universities). Schedule 4 also amends the Higher Education Support Act2003 to introduce new student protection and provider integrity requirements.
These amendments will support the work being done throughout the sector around best practice approaches to student enrolment and progression and will re-signal the quality of Australia's higher education sector both domestically and internationally.
Schedule 5 of the Bill implements another Napthine Review recommendation by amending the Social Security Act to reduce from six to three the number of months a student must be receiving eligible student support payments to be eligible to receive Fares Allowance for a return journey home.
Schedule 5 also amends the Higher Education Support Act2003 to reduce the loan fee for a FEE-HELP loan for an undergraduate student at a non-Table B Provider from 25 per cent to 20 per cent.
Schedule 5 to the Bill also contains minor technical amendments that improve the clarity and operation of the Higher Education Support Act.
The amendments in this Bill demonstrate the Government's commitment to ensuring university graduates have the job-ready skills and experience to be competitive in a challenging labour market, as well as the Government's commitment to supporting and driving economic growth into Australia's regions.
I commend the Bill.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1037 together.
(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 7) to page 2 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:
2 Commencement
(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.
(2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.
(2) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (lines 3 and 4), omit the heading, substitute:
Part 1—Amendments relating to gifts
(3) Schedule 1, heading to Part 2, page 13 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute:
Part 2—Amendments relating to voting and scrutiny processes
This amendment seeks to delay the commencement of the bill until 1 December 2020. Currently the bill has different commencement dates for different provisions. The amendment will allow for a simplified starting date for the entire bill. Delaying the start date until 1 December will allow the AEC and the parties to familiarise themselves with the new regime and ensure that they have their compliance systems in place. In addition, there are state jurisdictions that are currently undergoing state or local government elections. It's always important to ensure that electoral changes do not confuse voters or entities. As such, a starting date later in the year lessens the risk of confusion.
The government supports those amendments. The intention was never to have any impact on the conduct of state elections in Queensland or anywhere else. This is about keeping arrangements for federal elections and state elections appropriately separate. From that point of view, the government is comfortable supporting the amendment.
[by video link] I rise to make some brief remarks about the amendments moved by Senator Farrell. Given we think the bill itself is bad, we don't oppose delaying its commencement so we, too, will support the amendments.
I am on the record as supporting the amendment.
Question agreed to.
[by video link]by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1002 together.
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 8), after item 1, insert:
1A Subsection 287(1) (definition of disclosure threshold )
Omit "$13,800", substitute "$1,000".
1B Subsection 287(1) (note to the definition of disclosure threshold )
Repeal the note.
(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 26, insert:
26A After subsection 305A(1A)
Insert:
(1B) An amount prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) or (1A)(b) must not be more than the disclosure threshold.
(3) Schedule 1, items 32 and 33, page 11 (lines 11 to 17), omit the items, substitute:
32 Section 321A
Repeal the section.
The effect of these amendments would be to reduce the federal disclosure threshold of political donations down to $1,000. It was originally $13,500 but it's indexed, so at the moment you can donate just shy of $14,300 to a federal political party for a federal purpose and you don't need to tell anybody about it; it's absolutely opaque. Donations just shy of the disclosure threshold are routinely made, and the public doesn't have the ability to hear about them. This amendment would repeat many amendments over the years that many experts and, in fact, other political parties have moved to reduce that threshold of disclosure down to $1,000.
The public should know who is donating to political parties. Political parties should own up to who is paying for their re-election campaigns. This is a very straightforward transparency and accountability measure. The federal disclosure threshold has been too high since the days when John Howard was Prime Minister and it is about time it was dropped back down to a level where the public knows who is paying for who.
In Queensland, my home state, we have a disclosure threshold under our state laws of $1,000. That has not proved onerous from an administrative perspective to comply with, and we don't think there's any justification for retaining that significantly too-high disclosure threshold that the federal laws enshrine. These amendments would reduce that threshold down to $1,000.
I thank the crossbench in advance who've let me know that they will be supporting this amendment. I haven't heard back from Labor, but of course they've got their own private member's bill to this effect and they had a second reading amendment as well—a bit of a departure there if they didn't vote for this. I'm hopeful that we will see this amendment pass shortly.
The government will oppose this amendment. It will reduce the disclosure threshold from $14,300 to $1,000. It would also abolish indexation of the disclosure threshold, which would effectively mean that the threshold would shrink in real terms over time due to inflation.
Senator Waters, on a point of order.
[by video link] I have not moved the amendments that abolish the indexation, so they are not before the chair.
On the point of order, Senator Cormann?
I'm not talking to the point of order; I'm just talking to the issue and to all of the amendments in front of us as I've done in previous debates and as is widely practised.
The Greens amendment will mean more red tape for individual Australians who would like to participate in the democratic processes, including by making financial contributions to their party of choice or the member or candidate that they would like to support. It would deter political participation and, even worse, this badly drafted amendment would reclassify numerous very small organisations as third-party campaigners if they spent more than $1,000 in a year on electoral expenses. This change would drag numerous not-for-profit and charitable organisations under the reporting rules for third party. This could sweep up tiny groups like neighbourhood associations, RSL branches, footy clubs and other small players who comment favourably or critically on federal politics. This would be the effect of the amendment because, under the Electoral Act, if someone spends more than the disclosure threshold they get categorised as a third party and face more burdensome reporting and disclosure obligations—namely, they have to make annual returns and appear on the Transparency Register.
The current threshold of $14,300 is set at the appropriate level to balance facilitating political participation while also facilitating and ensuring appropriate levels of openness and transparency. But $1,000 clearly is not.
This extreme change proposed by the Greens in the reporting arrangements has not been discussed with the charitable or not-for-profit sector as far as we are aware. The bad drafting of these amendments may be unintentional, but the Greens made exactly the same drafting error when they moved similar amendments back in 2013. I pointed out those errors then, but here we are again with the same, obviously, very badly drafted amendments in the same form.
I'd like to make one comment by way of clarification to the leader of the Greens. To the best of my knowledge and to the best of the knowledge of my office, we've not actually received your amendments in a way where you have requested a response. I make this offer to Senator Waters that, if you choose to send us your amendments, we are very happy at all times to respond.
As you'd be aware, Labor already has a bill before the Senate that seeks to achieve the changes proposed by this amendment but we don't support this amendment being made as part of this particular package. Based on our consultation on the not-for-profit sector with the charities, following the implementation of the ban on foreign donations, we understand that, although we would like to see this change as soon as possible, non-political entities who engage in the creation of electoral matters require further consultation and communication and time to adapt their systems. This is something that they stressed very strongly to us when we fought successfully to establish the ban on foreign donations, and it would be remiss of this parliament not to listen to the concerns of those stakeholders.
Minister, I've got just a couple of questions in relation to this. You talked about the burden this places on people who wish to make a donation. Can you articulate exactly what that burden is for someone who wants to make a donation that is below the threshold and how that might deter people from making a donation?
I would refer you to section 314AEB of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which sets out all the requirements that would be imposed on third parties in these circumstances, including the penalties that would apply.
So, Minister, I'm putting to you that the burden is not significant in a balance of effort required versus the public interest in the disclosure. Senator Waters indicated that in Tasmania, for example, this is not a problem. Has the government looked at other jurisdictions to see exactly how any such burden would affect people who want to donate to a political party?
Well, I've got to strongly disagree with you, Senator Patrick, and this is not just a theoretical disagreement; this is a very practical disagreement. Much larger not-for-profit organisations that were getting captured by the initial draft of the ban on foreign political donations and the increased disclosure reporting requirements were very concerned about the level of red tape it would impose on them. The level of red tape on smaller not-for-profits that would inevitably be captured through this Greens amendment would be entirely disproportionate and would not be appropriately balanced. We are absolutely in favour of appropriate balancing facilitating political participation by all while also of course pursuing the public interest in disclosure. But we believe the current arrangements appropriately balance those requirements and what is in front of us does not.
So, say, I'm in a position to make a donation of $2,000 to a political party, how would the burden differ between someone who was making a $2,000 donation and someone who was making a $15,000 donation? I note that it might simply be an individual. I'm just trying to understand what pushes someone across a line in terms of not making a donation.
Obviously businesses that are making larger donations are likely to be larger organisations that have the capacity to comply with annual return and other requirements, whereas if you are a small volunteer not-for-profit or if you are a smaller organisation that doesn't have the same resources to deal with all the additional reporting requirements that would come with getting captured by this then that would make it disproportionate. That is certainly the feedback we've had from not-for-profits. In the end, nobody's arguing against the need for disclosure. It's just about making sure we capture disclosure in reporting requirements with organisations of an appropriate size and with donations of an appropriate size.
I want to speak to Labor's comments about having a private member's bill that seeks to do the same thing and therefore not wanting to support this particular bill. I think everyone who's listening needs to understand that private member's bills rarely get up. They're used to put pressure on governments to do particular things, to enable debate or to enable committee work in relation to particular policies or laws. No-one should pretend that when a bill that comes through the Senate that is a government bill and that will eventually go back to the House, if it is amended here, and be passed into law it will be ignored because you have a private member's bill up. It seems to be disingenuous to make a statement that you are in support of this but you want to have it up in your own private member's bill. That's the method by which you wish to seek the change. Labor has an opportunity here to implement something that it purportedly agrees with but is simply not prepared to back. I think people should at least appreciate that.
I'd also like to go back to a discussion that I was having with Senator Cormann prior in relation to this bill. I did ask Senator Cormann a whole range of questions about his personal circumstance in terms of dinners that he might have attended and so forth. I want to make it very clear to the chamber that I was not directing that at Senator Cormann in any other way than in acknowledgement of the fact that Senator Cormann is not in a position to answer this question for other ministers. I am of the understanding that all ministers do it. I was simply restricting my questions to the minister at the table in appreciation of the fact that he has knowledge of his own affairs. I wasn't suggesting or in any way seeking to single him out.
[by video link] I'll address a number of the issues that have been raised in the last little while. The amendments were circulated last night, and I would hope folks have taken the opportunity to read the amendments that the chamber is now debating, so I was a bit confused by Senator Farrell's remark there. I take issue with what Senator Cormann said; the intention of these amendments is to lower the disclosure threshold so that members of the public can see who is donating to political parties. There is no other intention but that. I might point out that the drafting in these amendments mirror the drafting, I'm told, of Labor's own private member's bill which seeks to do the same thing. So I wasn't quite clear from Senator Farrell's contribution as to whether or not his party will be voting for the amendments that they have their own legislation for in exactly the same drafting format or not, but we'll find out in just a minute. I wanted to disabuse anyone who might be listening because they haven't got anything better to do at this time of night that the intention of these amendments is simply to improve transparency and to ensure that people know who's donating to political parties, as I believe is their right to know.
The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1002 be agreed to.
[by video link] The Greens oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:
(4) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 2 to 4), subitem (4) to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 18 to 20), subitem (6) to be opposed.
Senator Cormann will be pleased to know that these amendments are the ones about indexation, so he can give us the spiel about how that's so very bad, which we all can't wait to hear. These amendments would remove indexation of the federal disclosure threshold. It started off at $13,200 and it's just progressively increased over the years. It's now up to $14,300. It makes a mockery of having a disclosure threshold. These amendments would say that you can't index the disclosure threshold. I commend them to the chamber.
The question is that subitems (4) and (6) in item 34 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
[by video link] by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1038 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 57, page 18 (after line 25), after subsection 200DI(1), insert:
(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a voting officer to require a person attending before the voting officer to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).
(2) Schedule 1, item 82, page 21 (after line 26), after subsection 229(1), insert:
(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a presiding officer or voting official to require a person attending before the officer or official to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).
(3) Schedule 1, item 156, page 33 (after line 20), after subsection 30(1), insert:
(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a presiding officer or voting official to require a person attending before the officer or official to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).
(4) Schedule 1, item 207, page 39 (after line 9), after subsection 73CI(1), insert:
(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a voting officer to require a person attending before the voting officer to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).
These amendments put beyond doubt that voter ID should not be a slippery slope towards voter ID at the polls. In dissenting reports to the 2016 JSCEM election review, both my party and the Labor Party noted that the government's claims of double voting and voter irregularity were actually not substantiated and were unsupported by the evidence. In Australia and internationally, the evidence supports the view that voter ID in fact suppresses and hinders citizen participation. Requiring voters to show formal identification documents risks disenfranchising First Nations people, family violence victims, young people without a driver's licence or homeless and itinerant people. The Electoral Commission has said that up to 1.5 per cent of new enrolments could be people without formal ID.
I note that my home state of Queensland introduced voter ID laws before the 2015 election and, after a low voter turnout, the laws were repealed. The AEC has previously said that adopting voter ID would involve:
… significant start-up and on-going costs; voter inconvenience; possible disenfranchisement of a number of voters; and possible delays in the delivery of election results because of an increase in the level of declaration voting.
Many of the Electoral Commission staff are employed casually at elections, and we note the ALP's recommendation that casual staff training make it clear that they cannot ask for ID. Our proposed amendments simply confirm that position.
There's something a little bit odd in making voting compulsory and then fining people who don't vote but, at the same time, making it harder for them to vote. So we support making the questions used to establish a voter's identification more flexible, and this would assist migrants or people with low literacy. Our amendments simply seek to ensure that this flexibility is not used to introduce the government's long-coveted plan for voter ID—I refer to the remarks made earlier today about the excitement that the government showed when they thought that they might get support for bringing voter ID in down the track. This parliament should not take any step that would have the effect of reducing the number of Australians participating in our democracy. I commend these amendments to the chamber.
Firstly, I don't quite understand how somehow it is inconsistent to have compulsory voting and voter ID requirements to ensure the integrity of the voting process when there are about 20 jurisdictions in the world that have got compulsory voting—including the jurisdiction in which I was born, where I grew up and first exercised my right to vote. And, let me tell you, we had to show our identification card before we were able to vote, and that was not in any way problematic. The government, of course, is on the record as saying that we support voter identification as a way to manage the risk of multiple voting, which I have absolutely no doubt has occurred over the years and throughout history.
Having said all of that, this bill actually doesn't come anywhere near, in any way, shape or form, introducing voter ID requirements; in fact, the bill does the opposite. This bill allows greater flexibility for polling officials about how they can word the three mandatory questions before they hand out a ballot paper. This is intended to particularly help the AEC communicate with voters who face language barriers or disability issues. The three questions are about name, address and whether someone has voted previously in the same election—reasonable questions, I would have thought. Nowhere in the bill is there any new fourth question permitting an official to ask a voter for ID documents.
So, on that basis, this is an entirely superfluous amendment. The amendment is based on a totally factually incorrect reading of the bill and an incorrect understanding of the Electoral Act. The amendment is partly predicated on an assumption that the AEC will do a poor job of training its staff, including senior officers, at each booth. We think it is not required and the government will oppose this amendment.
Labor shares the concerns regarding the implementation of so-called voter ID laws and any amendments which would discourage voting and undermine our system of compulsory voting. We are assured, however—and we will be seeking further assurance from the Electoral Commissioner—that the amendments contained in the bill will not result in a polling official demanding identification. We therefore do not believe the change proposed by the Greens is necessary and will not be supporting the amendment.
The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1038 be agreed to.
by leave—I move Jacqui Lambie Network amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8985 revised together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 11 and 12), omit the definition of federal purpose in subsection 287(1).
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 23 to 27), omit the definition of regulated entity in subsection 287(1).
We also oppose items 25 to 27 and 34 of schedule 1 in the following terms:
(4) Schedule 1, items 25 to 27, page 7 (line 27) to page 10 (line 18), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 11 (lines 23 to 31), subitems (2) and (3), to be opposed.
The government oppose these amendments. The government amendments comprehensively and fairly deal with the interactions between Commonwealth, state and territory laws. These amendments would remove those changes from the bill, allowing state and territory laws to apply to federal donations at the same time as Commonwealth laws applied, hence defeating the entire purpose of the legislation in front of the Senate. If the government's amendments had not been made there would be ambiguity for regulated entities. Duplication of laws in relation to the same financial transactions would be unnecessary where a donation was spent on federal electoral purposes only, so a double-up of legal obligations would cause confusion and uncertainty. Uncertainty would continue to mean a dispute over the correct legal treatment would be taken to the courts. This has already happened once. It would mean different people complying with different laws during the same federal election, based on which corner of the country they resided in. It would mean complexity when the AEC was trying to give guidance to the public and, indeed, would make our electoral arrangements at a federal level nationally inconsistent.
Labor welcome the debate on Senator Lambie's amendments. We've been talking to her since 8.30 this morning about some of these issues. We particularly welcome the senator's commitment to improving transparency and the integrity of the Commonwealth donations regime. However, we won't be voting for the amendments as we are of the firm view that the Commonwealth parliament should be able to make laws in relation to the conduct of Commonwealth elections without those laws being overridden by the states. If sections 302CA and 314B are repealed then it leaves open the potential for foreign donations to be funnelled through state branches and to avoid the Commonwealth ban on donations from foreign actors. Further, it will mean that there will be no uniformity in the treatment of federal parties and candidates. Rather, they will be governed by the laws of eight different states and territories. This is not a position we can accept.
What we must strive towards is a better Commonwealth funding and disclosure regime. Labor's bill currently before the Senate, which would lower the donations threshold from $14,300 indexed to inflation to a fixed $1,000, and the introduction of a system of real-time disclosure would immediately provide greater transparency of those who are seeking to influence our elections. Further proposed reforms of donations and expenditure caps, increasing the rate of public funding and introducing administrative funding for parties and elected Independents would reduce parties' reliance on donations and improve the integrity of the system. Labor will continue to pursue these reforms and we look forward to working with Senator Lambie to achieve them.
[by video link] I indicate that the Greens will be supporting these amendments.
We will be doing this in two parts. First, the question is that items 25 and 27 and subitem 3 in item 34 of schedule 1 as amended be agreed to and item 26 and subitem 2 in item 24 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The second part of this now is in relation to amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8985. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8985 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I move amendment (3) on sheet 8985:
(3) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 26), after item 24, insert:
24A Section 302CA
Repeal the section.
24B Section 314B
Repeal the section.
[by video link] I'm happy to say a few words about that, but I don't want to butt in, in case there's anybody else wanting to do so. I can't see the chamber, so I'm not sure if I'm butting in.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If you debate this, we are compelled to have a four-minute division. If you don't debate it, we can have a one-minute division. It's your call, Senator Waters.
I'm not sure I'd classify it as a debate, but I do wish to make a few remarks about the substance of the amendment. If I can confirm it, we're speaking to amendment (3) on sheet 8985, which repeals the head sections 302CAand 314B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I think that's the one we're at.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That is correct.
It's a bit different when you're not there in person; I apologise. Essentially, my understanding of the effect of these amendments is that they would close the back door that the government are, in my view—a view they don't share—seeking to establish. It is a back door enabling them to continue to donate to state parties, albeit into a separate bank account, from donors that would be prohibited from donating to that state party were they operating under state laws. It all gets a little bit meta, but I made some remarks earlier today about my concern that there is a very cosy relationship between donors that will not be stopped from donating to state parties.
What I want to put to the chamber are some excellent remarks that were made on this very point by, of all people, the Queensland Labor Party in their submission to the JSCEM inquiry. They put it in a more cogent way than I have. You can't win them all! They say:
Simply asserting a donation is for federal purposes does not insulate a state party, or the state candidates it endorses, from corruption risks.
The point they're making is, where you've got federated parties and you've got state organisations like, I believe, the LNP, which organises themselves in Queensland, a property developer will be able to donate to the state LNP; it just goes to a separate bank account, and that's permissible even though that same donor is not allowed to donate to that same party if we are in a state context. It's an artificial distinction, and our view is that the creation of this separate bank account does not properly insulate the cosiness and the sense of obligation, if you like, from the state party back to that donor. That is exactly why we want to clean up donations. That is why, when we come to the remaining Greens amendments, we will move to ban donations from people like property developers, big mining, big pharma and a number of others that I will regale you all with when the time comes. We don't think you can insulate a political party from that influence—particularly not where you've got a federated structure like we now know that the LNP does. So that is why we will be supporting these amendments. Senator Lambie's very welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken about the effect of her amendments, but that is my understanding of the effect of her amendments, and we, on that basis, support them.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move Jacqui Lambie Network amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8976 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 45 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Disclosing gifts
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
1 Subsection 17(2A)
Omit "under subsection 305A(1) or (1A) in relation to that election", substitute "under section 305A".
2 Subsection 287(1) (definition of disclosure threshold )
Omit "$13,800", substitute "$2,500".
3 Subsection 287(1) (definition of gift )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
gift has the meaning given by section 287AAA.
4 Subsection 287(1)
Insert:
post -trigger gift has the meaning given by section 305C.
reporting entity means any of the following:
(a) a political entity;
(b) a political campaigner;
(c) an associated entity;
(d) a third party.
reporting period means a period of 6 months beginning on 1 January or 1 July in each year.
trigger gift has the meaning given by section 305B.
5 After section 287
Insert:
287AAA Meaning of gift
(1) A gift is any disposition of property made by a person to another person, being a disposition made without consideration in money or money's worth or with inadequate consideration.
(2) The provision of a service (other than volunteer labour) for no consideration or for inadequate consideration is a gift.
(3) An amount paid by a person or entity as a contribution, entry fee or other payment to entitle that or any other person or entity to participate in or otherwise obtain any benefit from a fundraising venture or function (being an amount that forms part of the gross proceeds of the venture or function) is a gift.
(4) An annual or other subscription paid to a registered political party by:
(a) a member of the party; or
(b) a person or entity for affiliation with the party;
is a gift.
(5) An annual or other subscription paid to an associated entity by:
(a) a member of the associated entity; or
(b) a person or entity for affiliation with the associated entity;
is a gift.
(6) Each of the following is taken not to be a gift:
(a) a payment under Division 3;
(b) any visit, experience or activity provided for the purposes of a political exchange program.
6 Section 302V
Repeal the section, substitute:
302V Simplified outline of this Division
This Division requires candidates and members of groups in an election who receive gifts to disclose the gifts by providing a return to the Electoral Commission.
This Division sets out the requirements for returns in relation to gifts made to, and received by, reporting entities.
Returns provided under this Division are published by the Electoral Commissioner, on the Transparency Register, under section 320.
There are limitations on loans made to political parties, State branches, political campaigners, candidates or groups that are more than the disclosure threshold.
Gifts of more than the disclosure threshold to a reporting entity by a corporation that is wound up within a year of making the gift may be recovered from the gift recipient.
7 Sections 305A and 305B
Repeal the sections, substitute:
305A Donations to, and received by, reporting entities
(1) If a person or entity makes a trigger gift or post-trigger gift to a reporting entity during a reporting period, the person or entity must provide a return for the gift in accordance with this section.
Civil penalty: 60 penalty units.
(2) If a reporting entity receives a trigger gift or post-trigger gift from a person or entity during a reporting period, the agent or financial controller of the reporting entity must provide a return for the gift in accordance with this section.
Civil penalty: 60 penalty units.
(3) However, subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to a gift made to a reporting entity that:
(a) is a third party or a political campaigner; and
(b) is registered under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012.
(4) The return must be:
(a) provided to the Electoral Commission through the AEC Disclosure Portal; and
(b) provided within 7 days after the trigger gift or post-trigger gift is made or received (as the case may be); and
(c) in the approved form.
(5) If the return relates to:
(a) a trigger gift within the meaning of subsection 305B(1); or
(b) a post-trigger gift;
the return must set out the following:
(c) the amount of the gift;
(d) the date on which the gift was made or received (as the case may be);
(e) the name and address of:
(i) the person or entity that made the gift; and
(ii) the reporting entity that received the gift.
(6) If the return relates to a trigger gift within the meaning of subsection 305B(2), the return must set out the following:
(a) the sum of the following gifts:
(i) the trigger gift;
(ii) all gifts made to, or received by, the reporting entity during the reporting period before the trigger gift;
(b) the date on which each gift to which paragraph (a) applies was made or received (as the case may be);
(c) the name and address of:
(i) the person or entity that made the gifts; and
(ii) the reporting entity that received the gifts.
(7) The return required under subsection (1) must set out the relevant details of any gift received by the person or entity at any time if the gift was used wholly or partly to make another gift during the reporting period to a reporting entity.
(8) Relevant details for the purpose of subsection (7), in relation to a gift, are:
(a) the amount or value of the gift; and
(b) the date on which the gift was made; and
(c) in the case of a gift made on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association, other than a registered industrial organisation:
(i) the name of the association; and
(ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; and
(d) in the case of a gift purportedly made out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation:
(i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the funds of the foundation; and
(ii) the title or other description of the trust fund or the name of the foundation, as the case requires; and
(e) in any other case—the name and address of the person or entity.
305B Meaning of trigger gift
(1) A gift made by a person or entity during a reporting period is a trigger gift if the gift is more than the disclosure threshold.
(2) A gift made by a person or entity to a reporting entity during a reporting period is also a trigger gift if all of the following apply:
(a) the person or entity makes one or more other gifts (each a pre-trigger gift) to the reporting entity during the period;
(b) the amount or value of each pre-trigger gift made by the person or entity to the recipient during the period is less than or equal to the disclosure threshold;
(c) both of the following apply to the gift made by the person or entity:
(i) the person or entity makes the gift during the period after making the pre-trigger gifts;
(ii) when the amount or value of the gift is considered with the amount or value of the pre-trigger gifts, the total amount or value of the gifts is more than the disclosure threshold.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a gift does not include:
(a) a permitted anonymous gift by the person or entity; or
(b) a gift with a value of $100 or less.
305C Meaning of post -trigger gift
A gift made by a person or entity to a reporting entity during a reporting period is a post-trigger gift if:
(a) the person or entity has made a trigger gift during the period; and
(b) neither of the following apply:
(i) the gift is a permitted anonymous gift by the person or entity;
(ii) the gift is a gift with a value of $100 or less.
8 Paragraph 306B(1)(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) a reporting entity receives from a corporation a gift whose amount or value is more than the disclosure threshold; and
9 Paragraph 306B(2)(a)
Omit "a registered political party or a political campaigner (the gift recipient)", substitute "a reporting entity (the gift recipient) that is a registered political party or a political campaigner".
10 Paragraph 306B(2)(b)
After "benefit of", insert "a gift recipient that is".
11 Subparagraph 316(2A)(aaa)(i)
Repeal the subparagraph.
12 Subsection 320(1) (table item 4)
Repeal the item, substitute:
13 Subsection 321A(3)
Repeal the subsection.
14 Section 321B (subparagraphs (g)(i) and (ii) of the definition of disclosure entity )
Omit "or 305B".
15 Section 321B (note to paragraph (g) of the definition of disclosure entity )
Repeal the note.
Schedule 4—AEC Disclosure Portal
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
1 Subsection 287(1)
Insert:
ADI means an authorised deposit-taking institution within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959.
AEC Disclosure Portal means the system established under subsection 302AB(1).
disclosure and reporting purpose: see section 302AE.
electoral expenditure account, in relation to a reporting entity, has the meaning given by subsection 302AF(1).
electoral expenditure amount: see section 302AD.
electoral expenditure purpose: see section 302AD.
2 After Division 3 of Part XX
Insert:
Division 3AA—AEC Disclosure Portal
302AA Simplified outline of this Division
This Division establishes the AEC Disclosure Portal.
The AEC Disclosure Portal is to be used for providing returns to the Electoral Commission.
The AEC Disclosure Portal is also to be the exclusive means by which a reporting entity receives amounts for the entity to pay for its electoral expenditure (including amounts that are political donations and anonymous donations).
A reporting entity must establish an electoral expenditure account to receive amounts through the AEC Disclosure Portal.
This Division also sets out certain other requirements for reporting entities when it comes to electoral expenditure.
302AB Electoral Commissioner must establish the AEC Disclosure Portal
(1) The Electoral Commissioner must establish and maintain a system known as the AEC Disclosure Portal.
(2) The AEC Disclosure Portal has the following purposes:
(a) the electoral expenditure purpose;
(b) the disclosure and reporting purpose;
(c) any other purposes prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3) The regulations may make provision for, or in relation to, any matter that relates to a purpose prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c).
302AC Regulations for establishment, performance and administration of the AEC Disclosure Portal
(1) The regulations may make provision for, or in relation to the establishment, performance and administration of the AEC Disclosure Portal.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations may make provision for or in relation to any or all of the following:
(a) the creation of unique profiles for persons or entities that use the AEC Disclosure Portal;
(b) the ability for persons or entities to submit returns required under Division 4, 5 or 5A to the Electoral Commission by using the AEC Disclosure Portal.
302AD Electoral expenditure purpose of the AEC Disclosure Portal
(1) A purpose (the electoral expenditure purpose) of the AEC Disclosure Portal is to establish a platform that does the following:
(a) provides the exclusive means by which a person or entity provides an amount (an electoral expenditure amount) to a reporting entity to pay for the entity's electoral expenditure;
(b) provides the exclusive means by which a reporting entity receives electoral expenditure amounts for the reporting entity to pay for its electoral expenditure.
(2) The regulations may make provision for, or in relation to, any matter that relates to the electoral expenditure purpose.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the regulations may do any or all of the following:
(a) set out the information that persons or entities providing electoral expenditure amounts are required to provide;
(b) provide for the establishment of accounts electoral expenditures amounts are credited to;
(c) set out what information reporting entities need to provide to the Electoral Commission to receive electoral expenditure amounts provided through the AEC Disclosure Portal;
(d) set out how electoral expenditure amounts are to be transferred to reporting entities;
(e) set out circumstances in which electoral expenditure amounts are to be returned to the person or entities who have provided such amounts;
(f) set out circumstances in which the Electoral Commission may recover electoral expenditure amounts transferred to reporting entities.
302AE Disclosure and reporting purpose of the AEC Disclosure Portal
(1) A purpose (the disclosure and reporting purpose) of the AEC Disclosure Portal is to establish a platform that allows for information relating to reporting entities to be accessible to the public.
(2) The regulations may make provision for, or in relation to, any matter that relates to the disclosure and reporting purpose.
302AF Reporting entity must establish electoral expenditure account etc.
(1) The agent or financial controller of a reporting entity must establish and maintain a single account (the electoral expenditure account) with an ADI.
(2) The agent or financial controller of a reporting entity must ensure the entity does not make a payment to a person or entity relating to electoral expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the reporting entity's benefit unless:
(a) the payment is made by directly transferring an amount from the electoral expenditure account to the person or entity; and
(b) the payment is recorded on the account as being a payment to the person or entity for electoral expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the reporting entity's benefit.
(3) The agent or financial controller of a reporting entity must ensure that the only amounts transferred to the reporting entity's electoral expenditure account are from the Electoral Commission (see section 302AG).
(4) The agent or financial controller of a reporting entity must provide the following details about the electoral expenditure account to the Electoral Commission:
(a) the account number;
(b) the BSB number of the account;
(c) the name in which the account is held;
(d) the name of the ADI that holds the account.
(5) The agent or financial controller of a reporting entity must take steps to ensure the Electoral Commission is provided, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of a calendar month, information setting out any transactions relating to the entity's electoral expenditure account that occurred over that month.
(6) The agent or financial controller of a reporting entity must not contravene subsection (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
302AG Electoral Commission to transfer electoral expenditure amounts to electoral expenditure account
If:
(a) an electoral expenditure amount is provided to the Electoral Commission through the AEC Disclosure Portal for a reporting entity; and
(b) the electoral expenditure amount satisfies the requirements (if any) specified in regulations in relation to such an amount;
the Electoral Commission must transfer the amount to the reporting entity's electoral expenditure account.
Schedule 5—Reforming returns
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
1 Division 5A of Part XX
Repeal the Division, substitute:
Division 5A—Returns by reporting entities
314AAA Simplified outline of this Division
A reporting entity is required to provide a return covering certain matters that occurred during a reporting period. The return must be provided to the Electoral Commission within a month after the end of the reporting period.
The Electoral Commission must cause a report to be prepared for each reporting entity within 3 months after the end of a reporting period. The report covers certain matters relating to the reporting entity during the reporting period. The report must be accessible on the AEC Disclosure Portal.
314AA Interpretation
(1) In this Division:
amount includes the value of a gift or loan.
(2) To avoid doubt, a person or entity that becomes, or ceases to be, a reporting entity during a reporting period is required to provide a return under this Division in relation to the whole reporting period.
Note: Particulars provided under subsection 318(2) may be taken to be a return provided under this Division (see subsection 318(2A)).
314AB Returns by reporting entities
(1) The agent or financial controller of each reporting entity must provide a return in accordance with this section within a month after the end of a reporting period.
Civil penalty:
The higher of the following:
(a) 120 penalty units;
(b) if an amount is not disclosed in the return and there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, not disclosed—3 times that amount.
(2) The return must be:
(a) provided to the Electoral Commission through the AEC Disclosure Portal; and
(b) in the approved form.
(3) The return must set out the following matters:
(a) the total amount received by, or on behalf of, the entity during the reporting period, together with the details required by section 314AC;
(b) the total amount paid by, or on behalf of, the entity during the reporting period;
(c) the total outstanding amount, as at the end of the reporting period, of all debts incurred by, or on behalf of, the entity, together with the details required by section 314AD;
(d) details of any discretionary benefits (however described) received by, or on behalf of, the entity from the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory during the reporting period.
(4) The regulations may specify other matters a return by a reporting entity, or a class of reporting entity, must set out in relation to a reporting period.
(5) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of this section.
314AC Amounts received
(1) If the sum of all amounts received by, or on behalf of, a reporting entity from a person or organisation during a reporting period is more than the disclosure threshold, the return must (subject to subsections (7) and (8)) include the matters mentioned in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5).
(2) The return must:
(a) if the sum was received from an unincorporated association, other than a registered industrial organisation—set out:
(i) the name of the association; and
(ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; or
(b) if the sum was purportedly paid out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation—set out:
(i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the foundation; and
(ii) the title or other description of the trust fund, or the name of the foundation, as the case requires; or
(c) if the sum was received as a result of a loan—set out the information required to be kept under subsection 306A(3), or the name of the financial institution, as the case requires; or
(d) in any other case—set out the name and address of the person or organisation.
(3) The return must set out the amount of the sum received from the person or organisation during the reporting period.
(4) The following table has effect in relation to the return:
(5) The return must state an amount of a kind, and any details that relate to that amount, that are specified in an instrument under subsection (6).
(6) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify an amount of a kind, and details that relate to that amount, for the purposes of subsection (5).
(7) This section does not apply in relation to an amount if:
(a) the amount was received by, or on behalf of, a reporting entity that was registered under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012; and
(b) no part of the amount was used during the reporting period by the reporting entity:
(i) to enable the entity to incur electoral expenditure, or create or communicate electoral matter; or
(ii) to reimburse the entity for incurring electoral expenditure, or creating or communicating electoral matter.
(8) This section does not apply in relation to an amount if:
(a) the amount was received by, or on behalf of, a reporting entity that is a candidate or a member of a group; and
(b) the amount was received in the reporting entity's personal capacity; and
(c) no part of the amount was used during the reporting period by the reporting entity:
(i) to enable the entity to incur electoral expenditure, or create or communicate electoral matter; or
(ii) to reimburse the entity for incurring electoral expenditure, or creating or communicating electoral matter.
314AD Outstanding amounts
(1) If the sum of all outstanding debts incurred by, or on behalf of, a reporting entity to a person or an organisation during a reporting period is more than the disclosure threshold, the return must include the particulars of that sum.
(2) The particulars of a sum required to be furnished under subsection (1) are the amount of the sum and:
(a) if the sum was owed to an unincorporated association, other than a registered industrial organisation:
(i) the name of the association; and
(ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; or
(b) if the sum was purportedly incurred as a debt to a trust fund or to a foundation:
(i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the foundation; and
(ii) the title or other description of the trust fund, or the name of the foundation, as the case requires; or
(c) in any other case—the name and address of the person or organisation.
314AE Returns not to include lists of party membership
Returns provided in accordance with this Division are not to include lists of party membership.
314AF Electoral Commissioner to publish reports relating to reporting entities
(1) Within 3 months after the end of a reporting period, the Electoral Commissioner must cause a report to be prepared of each reporting entity.
(2) The report must include the following matters for the reporting period:
(a) the total amount of gifts that the reporting entity received during the reporting period;
(b) the total amount of gifts that the reporting entity received during the reporting period that were permitted anonymous donations;
(c) the total amount of gifts that the reporting entity reported in the reporting entity's return for the reporting period;
(d) the total number of persons or organisations that made gifts to the reporting entity during the reporting period;
(e) the total amount of amounts other than gifts received by the reporting entity during the reporting period;
(f) the total amount of income received by the reporting entity during the reporting period;
(g) the total amount of electoral expenditure incurred by the reporting entity during the reporting period;
(h) any other matter prescribed by the regulations.
(3) The report must be accessible on the AEC Disclosure Portal as soon as possible after the report has been completed and by no later than 3 months after the end of a reporting period.
2 Subsection 320(1) (table item 5)
Repeal the item, substitute:
Schedule 6—Monitoring and investigation powers
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
1 Subsection 287(1)
Insert:
inspector means a person appointed as an inspector under section 314AH.
2 After Division 5A of Part XX
Insert:
Division 5B—Monitoring and investigation powers
314AH Appointment of inspectors
(1) The Electoral Commissioner may, in writing, appoint a person who is a member of the staff of the Electoral Commission as an inspector.
(2) The Electoral Commissioner must not appoint a person as aninspector unless the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that the person has the knowledge or experience necessary to properly exercise the powers of aninspector.
(3) An inspector must, in exercising powers as such, comply with any directions of the Electoral Commissioner.
(4) If a direction is given under subsection (3) in writing, the direction is not a legislative instrument.
314AJ Monitoring powers for this Part of the Act
Provisions subject to monitoring
(1) A provision is subject to monitoring under Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act if it is:
(a) a provision of this Part; or
(b) an offence against the Crimes Act 1914 or the Criminal Code that relates to this Act.
Note 1: Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act creates a framework for monitoring whether this Act has been complied with. It includes powers of entry and inspection.
Note 2: Section 316 of this Act sets out additional powers relating to compliance and enforcement.
Information subject to monitoring
(2) Information given in compliance or purported compliance with a provision of this Act is subject to monitoring under Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Note: Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act creates a framework for monitoring whether the information is correct. It includes powers of entry and inspection.
Related provisions, authorised applicant, authorised person, issuing officer, relevant chief executive and relevant court
(3) For the purposes of Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to the provisions of this Act:
(a) there are no related provisions; and
(b) the Electoral Commissioner is the authorised applicant; and
(c) an inspector is an authorised person; and
(d) a magistrate is an issuing officer; and
(e) the Electoral Commissioner is the relevant chief executive; and
(f) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia are the relevant courts.
Persons assisting
(4) An authorised person may be assisted by other persons in exercising powers or performing functions or duties under Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to offences and civil penalty provisions of this Act.
Extension to external Territories
(5) Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to this Act, extends to every external Territory.
314AK Investigation powers for this Part of the Act
Provisions subject to investigation
(1) A provision is subject to investigation under Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act if it is:
(a) a civil penalty provision of this Part for which the specified number of penalty units is 100 penalty units or more; or
(b) an offence provision of this Part; or
(c) an offence against the Crimes Act 1914 or the Criminal Code that relates to this Part.
Note 1: Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act creates a framework for investigating whether a provision has been contravened. It includes powers of entry, search and seizure.
Note 2: Section 316 of this Act sets out additional powers relating to compliance and enforcement.
Related provisions, authorised applicant, authorised person, issuing officer, relevant chief executive and relevant court
(2) For the purposes of Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to evidential material that relates to a provision mentioned in subsection (1):
(a) there are no related provisions; and
(b) the Electoral Commissioner is the authorised applicant; and
(c) an inspector is an authorised person; and
(d) a magistrateis an issuing officer; and
(e) the Electoral Commissioner is the relevant chief executive; and
(f) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia are the relevant courts.
Persons assisting
(3) An authorised person may be assisted by other persons in exercising powers or performing functions or duties under Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to evidential material that relates to offences and civil penalty provisions of this Act.
Extension to external Territories
(4) Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation tothe provisions mentioned in subsection (1), extends to every external Territory.
314AL Infringement notices
Provisions subject to an infringement notice
(1) A civil penalty provision of this Part is subject to an infringement notice under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Note: Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act creates a framework for using infringement notices in relation to provisions.
Infringement officer
(2) For the purposes of Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, an inspector is an infringement officer in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1).
Relevant chief executive
(3) For the purposes of Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the Electoral Commissioner is the relevant chief executive in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1).
Extension to external Territories
(4) Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation tothe provisions mentioned in subsection (1), extends to every external Territory.
3 After section 318
Insert:
318A Civil penalty provision for returns that are false or misleading
A person is liable to a civil penalty if:
(a) the person furnishes a return to the Electoral Commission; and
(b) the return purports to be a return under Division 4, 5 or 5A; and
(c) the person knows that:
(i) the return is false or misleading in a material particular; or
(ii) the return omits a matter or thing without which the return is misleading in a material particular.
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
Schedule 7—Anonymous gifts
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
1 Subsection 287(1)
Insert:
permitted anonymous gift has the meaning given by section 307AB.
2 After Division 4 of Part XX
Insert:
Division 4A—Anonymous gifts
307AA Interpretation
(1) In this Division:
anonymous gift: a gift is an anonymous gift if the gift is not made by a known donor.
candidacy period, in relation to a candidate, means the period:
(a) starting on the earlier of the day on which the person announces that he or she will be a candidate in an election, or the day on which the nomination of the person as a candidate in the election is made; and
(b) ending 30 days after the polling day in the election.
enables: a gift enables a person or entity to do a particular thing if all or a substantial part of the gift enables the person or entity:
(a) to do all or a substantial part of that thing; or
(b) to be wholly or substantially reimbursed for having done that thing.
gift:
(a) in relation to a candidate, has a meaning affected by subsection (2); and
(b) in relation to a member of a group, has a meaning affected by subsection (3).
group period,in relation to a group, means the period:
(a) starting on the day on which the persons constituting the group make a request under section 168 in relation to an election; and
(b) ending 30 days after the polling day in the election.
known donor: a gift is made by a known donor if:
(a) at the time when the gift is made:
(i) the person making the gift (the donor) gives the donor's name and address to the person receiving the gift; and
(ii) the person receiving the gift has no grounds to believe that the name and address so given are not the donor's true name and address; or
(b) the name and address of the donor are otherwise known to the person receiving the gift.
(2) A reference in this Division to a gift, in relation to a candidate (or a person acting on behalf of a candidate), does not include:
(a) a gift made for the benefit of a group of which the candidate is a member; or
(b) a gift made in a private capacity to (or for the benefit of) the candidate if the candidate has not used, and will not use, the gift solely or substantially for a purpose related to an election.
(3) A reference in this Division to a gift, in relation to a member of a group (or a person acting on behalf of a group), is a reference to a gift made for the benefit of the group.
(4) A reference in the definition of known donor in subsection (1) to the donor's name and address is:
(a) in the case of a gift made on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association, other than a registered industrial organisation—a reference to:
(i) the name of the association; and
(ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; and
(b) in the case of a gift purportedly made out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation—a reference to:
(i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the funds of the foundation; and
(ii) the title or other description of the trust fund or the name of the foundation, as the case requires.
(5) A reference in this Division to a thing done by a person includes a reference to a thing done by a person on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association.
307AB Meaning of permitted anonymous gift
Anonymous gifts made at general public activities
(1) An anonymous gift received by or on behalf of a person or entity (the recipient) is a permitted anonymous gift if:
(a) the amount of the gift is $500 or less; and
(b) the gift is received at a general public activity (see subsection (3)); and
(c) a person involved in the organisation of the activity makes a record, for the purpose of this section, of:
(i) the date, location and nature of the activity; and
(ii) the names and addresses of the people involved in the collection or receipt of gifts at the activity; and
(iii) the total amount of anonymous gifts received by or on behalf of the recipient at the activity.
(2) If:
(a) a particular person makes 2 or more gifts for the recipient at the activity; and
(b) a person involved in the collection or receipt of gifts at the activity knows that the gifts are from the same person, and that the total of the gifts exceeds $500;
then, despite subsection (1), so much of those gifts as equals the excess is not a permitted anonymous gift.
(3) A general public activity is an activity that is conducted in a public place or in some other place to which members of the public have ready access.
Note: General public activities include, for example, street stalls and stalls at fetes.
Anonymous gifts made at private events
(4) An anonymous gift received by or on behalf of a person or entity (the recipient) is a permitted anonymous gift if:
(a) the amount of the gift is $500 or less; and
(b) the gift is received at a private event (see subsection (6)); and
(c) a person involved in the organisation of the event makes a record, for the purpose of this section, of:
(i) the date, location and nature of the event; and
(ii) the number of people who attended the event; and
(iii) the names and addresses of the people involved in the collection or receipt of gifts at the event; and
(iv) the total amount of anonymous gifts received by or on behalf of the recipient at the event; and
(d) if the total amount of anonymous gifts received by or on behalf of the recipient at the event exceeds the amount worked out by multiplying $500 by the number of people who attend the event—within 6 weeks of the event:
(i) the excess is returned; or
(ii) if it is not possible or practicable to return the excess—the amount of the excess is paid to the Commonwealth.
(5) If:
(a) a particular person makes 2 or more gifts for the recipient at the event; and
(b) a person involved in the collection or receipt of gifts at the event knows that the gifts are from the same person, and that the total of the gifts exceeds $500;
then, despite subsection (4), so much of those gifts as equals the excess is not a permitted anonymous gift.
(6) A private event is a function, meeting or other event that is not a general public activity.
Section only applies to gifts of money
(7) This section only applies in relation to gifts of money.
307AC Division does not apply to gifts that are returned or paid to Commonwealth within 6 weeks
This Division does not apply to a gift if, within 6 weeks of the receipt of the gift:
(a) the gift is returned; or
(b) if it is not possible or practicable to return the gift—the amount or value of the gift is paid to the Commonwealth.
307AD Anonymous gifts: when unlawful for political party, candidate etc. to receive gift
When receiving gift is unlawful
(1) It is unlawful for an anonymous gift that is not a permitted anonymous gift to be received in any of the following circumstances:
(a) the gift is received by a registered political party (or by a person acting on behalf of a registered political party);
(b) the gift is received by a State branch of a registered political party (or by a person acting on behalf of a State branch of a registered political party);
(c) the gift is received by a candidate (or by a person acting on behalf of a candidate) during the candidacy period;
(d) the gift is received by a member of a group (or by a person acting on behalf of a group) during the group period.
Liability for unlawful receipt of gift
(2) If a person or entity specified in column 1 of an item in the following table receives a gift that, under subsection (1), it is unlawful for the person or entity to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the gift is payable to the Commonwealth by the person or persons specified in column 2 of that item.
(3) If, under subsection (2), an amount is payable to the Commonwealth by 2 or more persons, those persons are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount.
(4) An amount that, under subsection (2), is payable by a person or personsto the Commonwealth may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against that person or any one or more of those persons.
307AE Anonymous gifts: when unlawful for political party, candidate etc. to receive gift made using anonymous gift
When receiving gift is unlawful
(1) It is unlawful for a person or entity to receive a gift (the political gift) from a person (the donor) if:
(a) the political gift is received in any of the following circumstances:
(i) the gift is received by a registered political party (or by a person acting on behalf of a registered political party);
(ii) the gift is received by a State branch of a registered political party (or by a person acting on behalf of a State branch of a registered political party);
(iii) the gift is received by a candidate (or by a person acting on behalf of a candidate) during the candidacy period;
(iv) the gift is received by a member of a group (or by a person acting on behalf of a group) during the group period; and
(b) an anonymous gift received by the donor enabled the donor to make the political gift; and
(c) the anonymous gift is not a permitted anonymous gift.
Liability for unlawful receipt of gift
(2) If a person or entity specified in column 1 of an item in the following table receives a gift that, under subsection (1), it is unlawful for the person or entity to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the gift is payable to the Commonwealth by the person or persons specified in column 2 of that item.
(3) If, under subsection (2), an amount is payable to the Commonwealth by 2 or more persons, those persons are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount.
(4) An amount that, under subsection (2), is payable by a person or personsto the Commonwealth may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against that person or any one or more of those persons.
307AF Anonymous gifts: when unlawful for person to incur electoral expenditure using anonymous gift
Persons other than candidates and members of groups (current and former): when incurring expenditure is unlawful
(1) It is unlawful for a person to incur an amount of electoral expenditure if:
(a) the person is not, and has not at any time been, a candidate or a member of a group; and
(b) an anonymous gift received by the person enabled the person to incur the expenditure; and
(c) the anonymous gift is not a permitted anonymous gift; and
(d) the person is required by section 314AEB to provide a return setting out details of the expenditure (whether or not that return has been provided).
Candidates and members of groups (current and former): when incurring expenditure is unlawful
(2) It is unlawful for a person to incur an amount of electoral expenditure if:
(a) the person is, or has at any time been, a candidate or a member of a group; and
(b) an anonymous gift received by the person enabled the person to incur the expenditure; and
(c) the anonymous gift is not a permitted anonymous gift.
Liability for unlawful incurring of expenditure
(3) If a person incurs an amount of electoral expenditure that is unlawful under subsection (1) or (2), an amount equal to the amount of the expenditure is payable to the Commonwealth by the person.
(4) An amount that, under subsection (3), is payable by a personto the Commonwealth may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against that person.
Schedule 8—Transitional provisions
1 Transitional rules
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the repeals or amendments made by Schedules 3 to 8 to this Act.
(2) Without limiting subitem (1), rules made before the end of the transitional period may provide that this Act or any other Act or instrument has effect with any modifications prescribed by the rules.
(3) Subsection 12(2) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to rules made before the end of the transitional period.
Note: Subsection 12(2) of the Legislation Act 2003 is about the retrospective application of legislative instruments.
(4) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:
(a) create an offence or civil penalty;
(b) provide powers of:
(i) arrest or detention; or
(ii) entry, search or seizure;
(c) impose a tax;
(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;
(e) directly amend the text of this Act.
(5) This Act (other than subitem (4)) does not limit the rules that may be made.
(6) The transitional period is the period of 2 years beginning on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.
This amendment does a whole series of things, some of which might be worthy of exploration but others which are problematic. We are not in a position to support these amendments. Senator Lambie is proposing to require parties to establish an electoral expenditure account. We have sympathy for this, but we have already achieved this through the government's amendments to our own bill in response to a JSCEM recommendation. We do not support the proposition that we should provide for anonymous gifts of up to $500 at events per person per event. This could be criticised for creating a new loophole, I would have thought, and is inconsistent with the threshold that applies in the context of the ban on foreign political donations. So we think that the issues that Senator Lambie raises through this amendment should be pursued through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the first instance.
The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment seeks to amend the Australian Electoral Commission's role and responsibility significantly, which, in the opposition's view, requires consultation with the commissioner. Senator Lambie is an experienced campaigner for transparency reforms, and Labor are open to work with her to ensure reforms can be achieved in the appropriate way. In addition, this amendment seeks an alternative disclosure threshold of $2,500—more than double the threshold that Labor has sought to achieve through our private senator's legislation.
[by video link] The Greens will be supporting this amendment which has a series of features within it. It lowers the disclosure threshold, which we support, as we've discussed already on this bill. It doesn't lower it quite as low as the Greens moved for. We wanted the threshold at $1,000, and my understanding is that this amendment would impose a threshold of disclosure of $2,500, but that's a damn sight less than $14,300. I understand that this now also has some changes to the time frame for disclosure. As I said earlier today, at the minute you need to disclose only once a year, on 1 February, and because of the time lag between calendar years and financial years it can be up to 19 months before it's put in the public domain as to which donor donated to which political party. That is so far beneath what is a transparent and accountable approach to disclosure. The Greens would like to see as close to real-time disclosure as possible, and I understand that the Labor Party's view is that they want a seven-day disclosure period. These amendments would have, on my reading of them, a six-month disclosure time frame—which, again, is not quite as rigorous as the Greens would like, but it is still better than the current rules. So, on that basis, we support that element, because it's an improvement.
I understand that there are also some provisions in this amendment that go to anonymous donations. They've long been discussed, because it's a balance between the administrative burden we place on donors and political parties and the need for the public to know who's paying whom. There have long been recommendations for a cap of between $50 and $500 on anonymous donations. And when I say 'anonymous', the example often used is buying a raffle ticket at a party function, so it's not anything that's necessarily nefarious, as 'anonymous' might imply; it's merely those smaller amounts of casual support that many people express and that aren't of a significant amount that would exert an undue influence.
Again, my understanding of these amendments is that they lower that threshold to $500. The Greens would like to see it lower than that. We've pegged it at $50 but, on the basis that this proposed threshold is at least an improvement on our current laws, we will be supporting that as well. So I again confirm that the Greens will be supporting these amendments.
The question is that the Jacqui Lambie Network's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8976 be agreed to.
I rise to speak in relation to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's third interim report into Centrelink's income compliance program that was presented a little earlier today. There are so many things wrong with the address that Senator O'Neill gave on this subject a little earlier today. It was emotional, it was inflammatory, it was not factual and it wasn't aligned in any meaningful way with the balance of the evidence that has been received by the committee. But in many ways that doesn't surprise me, because the majority report, which was essentially the Labor Party and the Greens working together, selectively incorporated evidence, ignored highly relevant evidence and included multiple inaccurate assertions that the averaging of ATO income data had been used in the identification of discrepancies before seeking confirmation from an individual as well as to subsequently calculate debts. That's not the case. A completely separate methodology was used, and that was very clear on the evidence that was given by Services Australia to the committee in 2017. So you could forgive me for treating everything that has come from Senator O'Neill and, indeed, Senator Siewert on this subject today with a grain of salt.
But the main reason I wanted to speak today was to put aside many of the absolutely wrongheaded matters that have been put before this chamber today in relation to the public interest immunity claims made by the minister. Quite in ignorance of the longstanding practice when it comes to public interest immunity claims, quite in ignorance of accepted legal principle, that report has refused the minister's claim. That should be shocking for all of us. It should not be the case that, on a matter of political convenience, longstanding principle that is fundamental to the integrity of this institution and its ability to function is cast aside on a whim—yet that's what they have done. For instance, it's been a longstanding practice of successive Australian governments, including Labor governments, not to disclose legal advice. Yet, in this report, Labor and the Greens demand that principle be cast aside. Furthermore, whilst legal professional privilege alone has not been accepted by the Senate as grounds for withholding information, PII claims that are based on legal professional privilege have been accepted where it has been:
… established that there is some particular harm to be apprehended by the disclosure of the information, such as prejudice to pending legal proceedings or to the Commonwealth's position in those proceedings.
This isn't some fanciful thing I've just made up. These aren't my words. This is direct from Odgers, the Senate practice that we use in this place.
The risks of harm to the Commonwealth from the disclosure of the information that's the subject of this aren't imaginary; they are borne by the taxpayer. There's a class action in relation to this program. The potential prejudice to the Commonwealth in the context of that litigation alone meets the test of the Senate. That prejudice is quite particular. Because there is a claim for negligence in that case, among other things, the knowledge of the Commonwealth or Commonwealth officials at particular times is relevant to determining those claims, so disclosing information about the cost, timing and provider of relevant legal advice is meaningful to people in that litigation, is harmful to the Commonwealth's prospects and, as such, is harmful to the taxpayer. That cannot be something about which we just cast aside longstanding principle.
Quite frankly, that class action, which is run by a Labor aligned firm in circumstances where the questions at hearing bore a remarkable—
A point of order, Senator Patrick?
On a point of order, Senator Stoker is embarrassed because she knows Egan v Chadwick doesn't support what she claims. She knows that Odgers
Senator Patrick, points of order are for issues of Senate standing orders, not for issues of debate or fact. That is an issue for debate. You can have an opportunity to debate it in the Senate at another time.
Senator Patrick interjecting—
No, the senator is debating a matter of interpretation and fact. It is not a matter that is outside the standing orders that you have a disagreement about the way it's used. I don't have Odgers in front of me, but, even if I did, it would not be a matter of standing orders. You have the opportunity at another time to bring the Senate's attention to a different interpretation.
The questions they asked at the hearing bore a remarkable resemblance to a fishing expedition for the purpose of helping their mates in the litigation, and that cannot be on. There were PII claims in relation to an executive minute dated 15 February that were cast aside. That is not on either, in circumstances where it is in the public interest for the deliberations of cabinet not to be made public. That's how we get good decisions out of cabinet. They're happy to cast that aside, even though there is precedent for the idea that the Commonwealth Ombudsman having a limited access is uncontroversial. There are so many problems— (Time expired)
Safe, secure, affordable housing is a human right, but decades of neoliberal policy in housing and homelessness has made speculative assets of what should be homes. Federal governments have worsened inequality by being more concerned with preserving tax breaks for investors than ensuring that people have somewhere to live. The basic human right to shelter takes a back seat to the market. Australia's housing system has weak rental protection laws. It has years-long social housing waiting lists. There is widespread rent and mortgage stress, and immense intergenerational inequality in wealth and homeownership. In the 2018-19 financial year, more than 290,000 people sought assistance from specialist homelessness services in Australia. On the last census night, over 110,000 people had nowhere to call home. The COVID-19 crisis has thrown the flaws, power imbalances and inequalities in our broken housing system into sharp relief.
Today, the situation looks even worse than it did before the pandemic hit. Unemployment has hit 7.5 per cent, and it's expected to reach 10 per cent by the end of the year. With underemployment included, the real figure will be much higher. The JobKeeper wage subsidy and increased JobSeeker payments are the only things keeping millions out of crushing poverty and serious risk of homelessness. Yesterday, Anglicare Australia released an update to their annual Rental Affordability Snapshot, and the results are grim. Rental affordability has actually declined for people on JobKeeper, JobSeeker and the minimum wage since March. Across Australia, less than two per cent of rental properties are affordable for someone on the minimum wage, and only 808 rentals are affordable for someone on JobSeeker. As people lose their incomes, there will be more and more who won't be able to afford rent. Anglicare's research suggests that rents at the bottom of the private market have not reduced since their last snapshot in March.
Much was made of the government's encouragement of renters to negotiate rent reductions with their landlords, but surveys of renters conducted throughout the pandemic indicate that many tenants have either been ignored or knocked back when they've approached their landlord asking for help, or were too anxious and frightened to even broach the topic with their landlord in the first place. A key driver of homelessness is unaffordable rents. Without urgent action to ensure housing security, implement debt relief and protect at-risk renters, and with the federal government's planned cuts to JobSeeker and JobKeeper due to start this month, we are staring down the barrel of a disaster.
At a time when people are being told to stay at home for the good of the community, governments should be doing everything they can to ensure that everyone actually has a safe, secure, affordable place to call home. The Victorian government has extended its eviction ban to December, but other states and territories are lagging behind. The national cabinet must agree to extend eviction bans across the country and ensure their enforcement. The Morrison government needs to show leadership and step in to support renters, people experiencing and at risk of homelessness, and people in mortgage stress. Instead of dud ideas like the HomeBuilder scheme, the federal government should be directing funds towards addressing the backlog of social housing repairs and the huge shortfall in social housing stock. We could build hundreds of thousands of public homes right now and not only would it slash public housing waiting lists, help those suffering from rental stress and enable affordable living but it would also create thousands of jobs and thousands of apprenticeships around the country.
We must permanently increase and expand income support and increase funding for crisis and transitional accommodation, and we must create a national homelessness strategy. Together with strong national renters' rights standards and the removal of tax rorts, we could have a system that works for people, not profit. This crisis we are all in is an opportunity to fix the mess that is our housing system, to make it work for all people, not corporations and private investors. Inequality, poverty and homelessness are not inevitable; they are the active, despicable choice of governments like this one right there on that side of the chamber.
I rise today to speak in my capacity as the duty senator for the federal seat of Parkes, particularly representing the historic mining city of Broken Hill. I want to speak on the sad passing earlier this year of Gary Radford OAM, or Ripper as he was known to his friends, and to say a few words about the life he lived and his tireless efforts to improve his beloved city of Broken Hill.
Gary was born in 1941 to Reginald and Nell Radford. Raised by his grandparents with the help of Legacy after the tragic death of his father in New Guinea in World War II, he started working for his grandfather Les in his building and transport business, at the now-astonishing age of 14. Gary worked countless jobs, doing welding and mechanical work, working equipment in the mines, working as a foreman and working on local government contracts. For 109 years, the Radford family have been involved in the Broken Hill business community.
Following the death of his grandfather in 1964, he left the family business and began his own business. With a 1953 Ford Tipper and a Massey Harris overhead loader, he established an earthmoving business with his uncle called R&R Earthmovers, later to be called Gary Radford Earthmovers. Coming from an Irish earthmoving family myself, I have a particular affinity with the men and women who work in that industry. The local paper would later report that it was said of Gary that he could operate every piece of machinery his company owned—and that was exactly like my dad. Gary was a man very proud to be able to work with his hands and deliver good jobs for people and improve the civic life of the community that he lived in. Consolidated Mining and Civil, and Basin Sands Logistics, employing 540 staff members and operating 900 pieces of haulage plant and equipment from his Broken Hill base, are a massive testament to his efforts.
Gary also moved into the mining industry and helped keep the South Mine alive by providing his earthmoving equipment and starting open-cut operations without pay until the mine became profitable. He not only kept 300 locals in work at the mine but, by 1981, his company MMM had achieved the highest rate of profit in any mining company in Australia. Following his success with the South Mine, in 1978 Gary also began an airline, Radford Silver City Airlines, which ran routes from Broken Hill to Melbourne and Adelaide. He also operated a quarry and a concrete plant, before returning to the mines. In his later years, he turned to managing his pastoral properties with the help of his sons.
In 2016, Gary was awarded, in combination with his son, the prestigious Icon of the Industry Award at the Shell Rimula National Road Transport Hall of Fame for his services on behalf of the Australian road transport community. His generosity to Broken Hill was legendary. He was deeply involved with the St Pat's races and always lent his water trucks and other machinery to keep the track in good condition. His legacy there is honoured today by the Gary Radford Pavilion at the Regional Events Centre in Broken Hill, a project that Gary worked tirelessly to put together. He spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars of his own money, time and equipment to ensure its success so the club would not have to spend money to hire marquees.
I read in his obituary in the Barrier Daily Truth of the many examples of his generosity, and I'd like to recount just a few:
Only last year, after hearing that the Sea Scouts had been robbed of the bottles and cans they were saving to cash in for a 'cuboree' he immediately presented them with a cheque for $1000.
He then turned up at the scout hall with his son Stephen and a shipping container to hold the empties so they couldn't be stolen again.
Broken Hill is home to many testaments to his efforts on behalf of the city, such as:
… the old Silver City Comet in the railway museum that he had carted from the train station and hoisted into place; the Kintore mine headframe that he donated and erected in Blende Street; the sculptures in the Living Desert for which he transported the blocks and set them in place; the churches and schools he helped refurbish.
New South Wales men and women looking for somewhere to go should go to these Living Desert sculptures and support the community of Broken Hill. They're a fantastic sight to see, especially at dawn.
He also gave his time to serve as an executive member of both Lifeline and Legacy and he was a chairman of the Line of Lode Association, during which time the Miner's Memorial and visitors centre were built. The Silver City is all the poorer for his loss. His advocacy and open heart helped to sustain one of Australia's oldest and proudest cities through good times and bad. My deepest condolences are with his family and, indeed, the whole city of Broken Hill. May the memory of Gary Radford OAM, or 'Ripper', as he was better known, live long, and may the community continue to enjoy the many blessings he delivered.
Every day I am in this place, I'm honoured to represent my beautiful state of Queensland. Nothing gives me greater honour than when I have the opportunity to report to the Senate the great work that Queenslanders are doing to help their fellow Australians in need. I would like to detail to the Senate three remarkable events that occurred recently in my home state of Queensland.
First, on 18 July 2020, I was honoured to accompany members of the Rotary Club of Archerfield as they delivered their three millionth litre of water to the Granite Belt Water Relief project in Stanthorpe. Joining members from the Rotary Club of Archerfield were Mr Jitendra Prasad, past district governor, and other members of Rotary Club Brisbane International, members of the Rotary Club of Stanthorpe, and members of the Rotary Club Brisbane Taylor Bridge. All are great Rotarians working together, as they always do, to help people in need, proving, once again, that Rotary connects the world. The logistics involved in delivering this three million litres of water are truly remarkable. I'm sure Senator Sheldon, given his background, would appreciate this. Consider this: 125 trips totalling an aggregate of 54,500 kilometres and involving 1,068 hours. Donations received in cash or kind were over one-quarter of a million dollars.
The second remarkable thing about this event is that a leading role was played by one Rotarian, an outstanding Australian: Mr Sultan Mohammed Deen, known as George Deen, a past president of the Archerfield rotary club. George is a long-time operator of prime movers in Brisbane. He knew that his fellow Australians were in need out in Stanthorpe. Perhaps what's so remarkable about this is that George was the one who single-handedly undertook nearly all of those trips out to Stanthorpe. He's the one who put in that incredible effort of 125 trips for 54,500 kilometres and 1,068 hours. So George would do his own work and then he would spend his time actually carting water out to Stanthorpe to help his fellow Australians. He was assisted by many members and supporters of the Rotary Club of Archerfield. His fellow member, Abdul Rahman Deen, known as Ray Deen, also a member of the Archerfield rotary club for more than 30 years, sponsored the registration and insurance of the prime mover and the water trailer. Both George and Ray have been members of Rotary for over 33 years, providing community service to the broader Australian community.
The third remarkable thing occurred on 8 August 2020. That was that the three brothers—George and Ray Deen, who I've spoken of, and their brother who's known as Happy Deen—collectively celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. All three brothers were married on the same day, 8 August 1970. Sultan Mohammed Deen, known as George, married Kamrun Nisha Yusuf. Abdul Rahman Deen, known as Ray, married Samsum Nisha Fazil and Habib Allah Deen, also known as Happy, married Badrul Nisha Yusuf. The three couples were married on the same day in 1970 at the Holland Park Mosque. Since that day in 1970, these families have made an outstanding contribution to my home state of Queensland. It is a great honour to pay tribute to you in this place.
This week, the eyes of the technology world have turned to Australia and our parliament. Our competition regulator has proposed a new approach to dealing with the awesome market power of two of the US based technology giants, Google and Facebook. Of course, Google and Facebook are pushing back, and they're pushing back hard. No-one should be surprised at companies defending their interests or their resistance to sharing some of their billions in profits. But make no mistake: they'll want to make an example of Australia. Google and Facebook, like their fellow tech titans Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Netflix and Uber, are no different in this respect from any other corporation that resists regulation and avoids paying tax—robbing sovereign nations of the tax base that provides its people with health, education, aged care and public infrastructure. They are harnessing their assets, and their lobbyists are in touch with MPs from all parties in this place and the other place. These are some of the largest and richest corporations on the planet, with a reach across countries and industries and governments that is unrivalled in history. And, while we cannot expect these corporations to do anything other than defend their interests, governments and parliaments must stand up to defend the interests of their people.
Just over a year ago, in my first speech in this place, I argued for the digital services tax to be levied on the revenue generated by the platforms in Australia. The US government, in response to the digital services tax and discussions from the OECD, have made it clear that they will not allow any delay in arrangements for a global tax regime, so it will be up to us to defend our sovereign tax base. As we debate how this media bargaining code will work in practice, I want to echo the words spoken yesterday by former Competition and Consumer Commission chair, Allan Fels. He said there is always the option for this government, and this parliament, to bring in the huge stick of a digital services tax on these tech giants. I couldn't agree more. Critically, a digital services tax would be levied on the revenue generated in Australia, not the profits. And it should be levied on the revenue generated. This makes it harder to avoid. Profit based taxes, as we know well, can be small, or zero, because companies siphon off royalties to head offices, and profits are booked in tax havens.
I have some advice for every parliamentarian in this place: when you meet up with these big tech lobbyists, whether they are lobbying you about this proposed media code, about disinformation online, about unfair competition or about data privacy, you should first ask these corporate lobbyists when they are going to pay their fair share of taxes to this country. And when will they stop shipping off their profits to tax havens and low-tax jurisdictions?
I welcome this debate on the proposed Australian Competition and Consumer Commission media bargaining code. There will be devil in the detail of how it operates to give Australian media companies this power to bargain, including bargaining collectively for payment from Google and Facebook for the journalism content they produce. I, for one, think that there could be a real risk if we shut our public broadcasters out of the code. I am concerned that there is no requirement that the money transferred under the code be used for public interest journalism, and there are also real barriers to small and regional news outlets having the ability and capacity to bargain for their compensation. Nor is there a requirement that this funding be used to pay for wages—for reporters, producers, photographers, videographers and others who create the content. But, as the ACCC considers the various submissions on this proposed code, I call on every member of parliament to consider the bigger picture here. The big picture I am talking about is the smart conversation we need to be having, not just in this parliament but at kitchen tables and pubs and workplaces across the nation. Once and for all, let's get them to pay their fair share of tax.
I rise this evening to congratulate the Wanneroo RSL Sub-Branch on the opening of its new clubrooms at the Wanneroo Community Centre. On 20 August, I was delighted to join Sub-Branch President Jack Le Cras OAM, the patron Brigadier Stephen Coggin, Warden Peter Tuck and committee members Peter Epps, Sue Epps and Sue Tucker at the official opening.
The new base on Civic Drive in Wanneroo provides the sub-branch with greater space to highlight the service and sacrifice of service men and women, enhance member participation and support community outreach programs across the City of Wanneroo and, indeed, across all of Perth's northern suburbs.
The clubrooms afford Wanneroo RSL the opportunity to showcase its significant collection of military history and memorabilia from wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations. The impressive display, which was primarily collected by Vietnam War veteran Peter Tuck, hasn't seen the light of day until now and includes priceless reminders of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and even a French bayonet from 1872.
It was inspiring to hear about the sub-branch committee's bold plans for the new clubrooms, which include coordinating school excursions, public open days, promoting veterans service stories and developing veteran advocacy and welfare services. But Wanneroo RSL's plans don't stop there, with the committee also seeking to develop a peace garden at the nearby memorial park, possibly featuring a historic anchor, cannons and propellers.
I was particularly pleased again to have the chance to extend my personal congratulations to Jack Le Cras OAM at the opening. Jack is one of our living treasures. In June 1944, aged just 17, Jack was conscripted by the Royal Australian Navy and served during World War II on HMAS Bataan. Jack was a radar specialist onboard Bataan when news of the Japanese surrender broke on 15 August 1945. Jack's story is unique and he is one of very few Australians to have witnessed the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay several weeks later on 2 September 1945. Jack was responsible for escorting the Royal Australian Navy Vice Admiral John Collins to the surrender ceremony during which General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for Allied Powers, accepted foreign minister Mamoru Shigemitsu's signature on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender to mark the cessation of World War II.
Jack gave ABC and 6PR interviews on 14 August this year, marking the 75th anniversary of the Victory in the Pacific Day and the cessation of World War II, offering a brief glimpse into his significant and very memorable life experiences.
The rest of the 94-year-old Kingsley veteran Jack's life has also been nothing short of remarkable, including working as a supervising broadcaster during the 1962 Perth Commonwealth Games and the 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games. Jack's service to the community of Perth, particularly to the Returned and Services League, and the Naval Association of Australia, was deservedly recognised with a Medal of the Order of Australia at the 2012 Australia Day Awards. Jack continues to serve the community in Perth's northern suburbs as Wanneroo RSL Sub-Branch president and coordinator of the Wanneroo RSL Anzac Day dawn service, which was held at Memorial Park in Wanneroo.
The Anzac Day service, which Jack started in 2017, has quickly gained the reputation of being one of the biggest in Perth's northern suburbs, with more than 3,000 people in attendance. The Wanneroo dawn service is an experience to behold, which includes a Tiger Moth fly-past by the Royal Australian Air Force and the participation of a host of community organisations, including the Limelight Theatre, Wanneroo Lions Club and the 1st Wanneroo Scout Group.
I'm particularly proud to be supporting Jack and the great work that he continues to do to support the Wanneroo RSL application for a community grant under the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants program to even better showcase their military history for community organisations and schools.
On behalf of all Liberal senators in this place—and I note that the Minister for Defence is here with me tonight, Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds—we congratulate Jack, we thank him for his service and we thank everyone at the Wanneroo RSL Sub-Branch for their continuing support of the dedication and sacrifice of so many Australian men and women.
We are in the grip of a jobs crisis and, as we have known for a while and as the statistics and economic figures showed today, we are in a recession. As debates in the parliament have shown today, the Morrison government does not have a jobs plan for our nation. We saw from this government a failure to support manufacturing jobs before the crisis and we still see a government that isn't grabbing the opportunities it should, like a coordinated procurement plan as part of a national plan for rail—something the coalition has rejected before.
Just last week, the Liberal Premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, said her state and the nation were 'no good' at building trains. This outrageous statement is simply not true. Rail manufacturing happens in many places across Australia, including in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. These places not only build trains but also fix imported railcars bought by Liberal governments, like in the case of the Maryborough facility in Queensland, where they are fixing rolling stock purchased by the Newman Liberal government from overseas that was found not to be fit for purpose.
We've seen during the course of COVID the Liberal Party talking a big game on manufacturing but delivering little more than lip service. We've seen Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, talking up manufacturing, but, after seven years in government, we are yet to see a plan for Australian manufacturing. As we've debated and as is recognised, COVID-19 has highlighted how sensitive we are to global supply chains. As unemployment is rising, particularly in regional areas, now more than ever, we need a national plan for manufacturing that includes rail.
Rail in our nation contributes $26 billion to the national economy. It supports thousands of jobs and hundreds of small and medium enterprises. But the efforts that we undertake as a nation are dissipated by a fragmented approach to rail procurement, investment and construction, regulated by eight different governments. We have many millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, of Commonwealth funds being injected into state rail projects. With so many projects happening around the country, should we not have a national rail plan?
In Western Australia alone, 246 new items of rolling stock will be required for the state's Metronet project. This stock will service new lines and replace the ageing, existing A-class rolling stock. Happily, I'm proud to say, the Mark McGowan Labor government, unlike the Liberal Berejiklian government, has embraced Australian-made rail. The Western Australian government is investing in constructing a new rail manufacturing facility in Bellevue, near the historic home of rail manufacturing. This is near the old Western Australian government rail facility at Midland, which was sadly shut down decades ago by the Court Liberal government. Here we will see rolling stock manufactured in WA and it is set to come in under budget by $347 million. I say that this is not bad for a country that's supposedly not good at building trains. As a recession is officially forecast, when regional economies are shrinking and jobs are drying up, it's time to encourage job growth in our regions and in different sectors—region by region and sector by sector.
Senate adjourned at 19:59