I remind senators the question may be put on any of the proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, Senator Urquhart.
I just wanted to raise an issue: I understand there was a ballot for the select committee on vaping to be held today. The government whip and I had an agreement we would do that after prayers. I have now been led to believe that it is scheduled for 11.45. We are very disappointed with that given that I have indicated to all our colleagues on this side that it would be held at that time. Now people have other commitments, things are scheduled and it's very difficult to pull people out of other issues at 11.45, when there was an agreement we would have it immediately after prayers.
I acknowledge what Senator Urquhart has said, that there had been an understanding that the preference was for the ballot to happen immediately after prayers. It is the government's position that we would prefer that to happen at 11.45. I acknowledge what Senator Urquhart said in regards to commitments of senators. They are commitments that all senators in the chamber have, so 11.45 would be the government's preferred position.
I might make the observation, if I could: 11.45 is a time that most senators probably would keep free, because the bells tend to ring for that hour, with the discovery of formal business and other matters. I was only made aware it was likely to be 11.45.
We have difficulties in the timing. At 11.45, we only have an hour to deal with a lot of business in the chamber and we often miss out on motions because we run out of time, so this will also take further time away from our ability to deal with selection of bills and motions in the time frame.
Well, my point is: I don't have any unilateral authority here to order a ballot. So absent there being a procedural matter brought to the attention of the Senate, I will call on the Clerk to call on business.
[by video link] The arts and the humanities are amazing, and anyone who studies them should be celebrated. We know that the future of employment in this country, the industries that are needed over the next 25 years, the challenges we face as a community are all better faced when people have the opportunity to study in the arts, in the humanities, gaining the skills that are available to people there. I say that proudly as somebody that studied the arts when I was at university myself.
It is also the case that many previous generations to my own have had the opportunity to study in these fields either at a dramatically reduced cost or, indeed, for free. There is an entire generation of so-called legislators in this place who went to university for free, who studied the arts and the humanities for free. There are no less than 16 government members that went to university for free. The education minister himself has no less than three arts degrees, so you would think in that context that any and all legislation that came before this place would be aimed at opening up opportunity for young people, for students across the country to study at university, and would encourage people to study in these incredibly vital fields where we have the opportunity to explore the deepest questions of our own human nature and collaborate with each other on some of the most challenging topics of our time. Particularly in this moment where so many young people are challenged as never before by the reality of the COVID recession, by the reality of the climate crisis and by the reality of the health crisis, you would imagine that any and all legislation put before this place would be aimed at making it easier for us as young people to get an education. Particularly now, more than ever, in 2020, getting a tertiary degree, studying in these fields, is the modern equivalent of exiting high school as it was for previous generations. Yet, when we look at this bill, when we open the lid and look at this proposal, we see the diametric opposite.
At the heart of this bill is a rank hypocrisy. It is the legislative embodiment of a pattern which is sweeping through our entire society at the moment, and that is the pattern of older, privileged folks denying to this generation, to my generation, the opportunities which they themselves enjoyed. An entire generation of parliamentarians who went to university for free are now moving to block that opportunity—not only to fail to pass on that opportunity but to make it more difficult for students to study in the arts and humanities. It is one of the most unfair and one of the most hypocritical pieces of legislation that we have seen in recent times.
We all know that the major parties in this place operate in a relatively fact-free environment—a fantasy land, if you like—where gas is a clean pathway to the renewable energy future and tax cuts for the rich magically trickle down and help everybody else. That's nothing new, but it is worth noting that there is not one speck of academic evidence from any part of the field that will tell you that making arts and humanities more difficult to study is the right thing to do at this present moment. In fact, the opposite is true. I had the opportunity to serve on the future of work and workers committee as one of my first tasks as an MP, and what we heard very clearly as a committee was that the next 25 years of work in this country will primarily evolve around the human-facing industries, those care industries in aged care and in the NDIS. These are the spaces and places where the trends of automation are least likely to take greatest effect, because of the vital need for there to be humans in those roles. These are all things that are better supported by access to the arts and humanities.
Let me say it again just so that we are very clear: this bill is a hypocritical act. It denies to my generation, to the young people of this country, the opportunities which were enjoyed by the previous generations. It is being perpetrated upon students by a government containing 16 members who themselves went to university for free and by a minister who himself benefited from arts and humanities work at university.
During the course of this campaign, as we have opposed this legislation, thousands of students have reached out to us as a party and shared with us, as Greens MPs, their frustration and anger at the double standard that is represented in this legislation. Whether it be on climate, whether it be on employment or whether it be in education, the simple ask of young people in Australia is that we not have put in our way barriers that were torn down for previous generations. That is what this bill does, and it is not okay. Increasing the cost of an arts and humanities degree by 113 per cent is not okay. It is not acceptable, particularly not at this moment in time. We have young people at universities all around the country struggling with mental health, in a context where the university sector has been critically underfunded for decades and where staff are facing chronic work insecurity, yet we as students are being asked to pay more to participate in this system. We have put ourselves forward to pursue our hopes and dreams, to work with each other, to do the best that we can, and the answer that this government has given us is: pay double and get on with it.
The sickening truth at the centre of this legislation is that it is being done for purely ideological reasons by a government that simply hates the arts and humanities, that has never appreciated the social sciences; in fact, it interprets these fields of study as directly oppositional to its cruel agendas. Whether it was Howard's attacks on the student union movement or the multibillion dollar cuts levelled against the higher education sector by the Labor government, for decades it has been bipartisan policy for both sides of politics to come together to either rip funding out of higher education, making it more difficult to access, or decrease the political power of students.
I am incredibly proud to sit virtually with my Greens colleagues today in opposing this legislation as a member of a political movement that proclaims clearly that university—that education—is a human right and a public good and should be free for all forever. I oppose this bill, along with my colleagues, and will vote against it with pride. I thank the chamber for its time.
I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. The bill is the coalition's latest attempt to deteriorate and attack our higher education system. They want to make it one characterised by high levels of private debt and unequal access. Labor cannot support this legislation. The government states the purpose of the reform is to provide additional university places and to redirect universities' enrolments to areas of study linked to jobs in demand in the labour market. But what this bill really does is strip another $1 billion of government funds out of the university sector and more than double the cost of many courses—in particular, arts and humanities—and make it more difficult for many students to go to university, all under the guise of reform.
The additional $1 billion announced last night doesn't even make up for what universities have lost this year, let alone the conservative and consistent cuts that we've seen over the seven years of this Liberal government. The fundamental effect of the bill is to make Australian students pay more for the cost of their education while the Commonwealth pays less. Under this legislation, the overall student contribution will increase by seven per cent, and 40 per cent of students will have their fees increased. Yes, 40 per cent of all students will have their fees increased, with some degrees rising by 113 per cent. I know it's hard to believe—yes, a 113 per cent increase. Those studying commerce, humanities, communications, economics and law will now pay more than a dentist or doctor for the cost of their degree.
The effect of this fee rise will be felt over decades to come. Doubling the size of students' university debt will influence their ability to save for a home, which will undermine their long-term economic security. Younger people are already worse off and will fare far worse from the COVID-19 Morrison recession. Instead of encouraging our younger generation to gain essential skills to drive our recovery, the Morrison government will make them pay more. How does that make sense? This is not a new attempt. Since taking office in 2013, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have repeatedly tried to increase the share of higher education funding paid by students and reduce the Commonwealth's own contribution. Labor always has and always will oppose these cuts. We successfully opposed two previous attempts to do this in 2014 and in 2017. We'll endeavour to block this present bill's passage through parliament, although we know crossbench senators have taken 40 silver shillings and sold out Australian students.
What is ironic about this bill is that—
A government senator: Point of order, Madam Deputy President. I must rise on the reflection on crossbench colleagues. I think the reference to the silver coins being taken by them to induce how they vote is perhaps a rhetorical flourish that the senator might like to withdraw.
It's a point of debate. There was no-one named. It is a rhetorical flourish, as you said, so no offence. Please continue, Senator Polley.
Thank you, Madam Deputy President. You know when you get such an interjection that you're touching a nerve, because what I am saying is a reality of what this bill will do.
What is ironic about this bill is that the drop in funding, as I said, will be felt in the areas where we should be encouraging more students to go to university. That's what we should be doing, but this bill is designed to discourage people. In fact, although enrolment is being encouraged in many disciplines by dropping course costs for students, funding going to the university is also dropping. This means that universities will get less money to provide job-ready courses, say experts and commentators. So it's not just people on this side of the chamber; your own former minister for education, Ms Julie Bishop, has described this design as an unreasonable incentive for universities that will likely achieve the opposite of what the government supposedly intends.
What is highly concerning is that the government is trying to redirect support to regional universities, but the associated funding and implementation mechanisms are not specified. It remains unclear how the redirection of funds to regional universities would operate outside of the bill, and whether or not regional universities will be better off. On the contrary, expert analysis suggests that regional universities will be worse off due to the design of the new Commonwealth Grant Scheme arrangements, which are based on average teaching costs. In many regional areas, these costs are generally higher and often do not fit the one-size-fits-all approach, which the Liberal government loves to use—just like they did with the robodebt scheme.
The impact of this crisis on regional universities will be devastating. The bill will make it near impossible for many people in my home state of Tasmania to go onto university and to study without having to obtain a mortgage. Tasmania is already experiencing a skills shortage and a brain drain. The ability to think critically and creatively and to understand how the world operates, skills often learned in a humanities degree, are what employers will be looking for into the future. We cannot discount these skills and we should not discount these skills. We should not discourage people from going to university to study the courses they're passionate about by burdening them with a huge debt. Regardless, humanity graduates are just as likely as science graduates to receive a job in their chosen field in Tasmania. With no real jobs plan in place by this government, they should not—as I said on a number of occasions—discourage young people or people who have been forced to go back to university from increasing their skills or gaining the skills that they need to go into the workforce.
We saw with the government's budget on Tuesday evening that they've done nothing for older workers—nothing at all. Older workers who are losing their jobs because of the Morrison recession and the COVID-19 effects have been attacked by this very bill as well, because it will discourage older Australians from going back to university or from going to university for the first time.
The government claims an additional 39,000 places will be created in the first three years of this scheme, accumulating to 100,000 over 10 years. However, there is nothing in the government's bill that guarantees any increase in student places. This is the reality. The only thing this bill does is assure that universities will receive less funding for the places they currently provide. There is nothing in the reforms for increased demands due to the recession and closed international borders. In effect, universities will be getting less and will be expected to do more. Even if the government's claims are to be accepted, the additional places that are being proposed are not enough to meet the projected increases in student demand.
As well as this, the pricing model that underpins this bill is weak. The report that the government is basing this legislation on was conducted by Deloitte Access Economics, and it cautioned against making judgements regarding the adequacy of funding from these results. This report was commissioned by this government. Their own Deloitte Access Economics report has warned them that the path they're going down is wrong. This modelling made unrealistic assumptions and did not consult with faculties or STEM members. How could you introduce such a bill without consultation with those people who are on the front line? There is a close relationship between the ability to conduct research and the quality of undergraduate teaching. By undermining this relationship, the Morrison government will have the opposite effect to that which they supposedly are working towards. This bill will impede our economic recovery. The government has actively denied the parliament and the public adequate time and information to fully debate and interrogate this bill. It is clear to Labor that the government is attempting to avoid further evidence of the bill's unfairness, irrationality and poor design coming to light.
This bill comes at a particularly difficult time for year 12 students, who have just completed their final year of study in extremely uncertain times and under extremely uncertain conditions. They have watched the jobs market collapse and they will be worse off for it, with subdued employment for some time to come. They have also seen apprenticeship opportunities vanish around the economy.
Universities are already reeling from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This sector is particularly hard hit because of the loss of full-fee-paying international students. The consequences of the decline in international student fee revenue has been estimated to result in a loss of income available to support research by up to $7.6 billion over the next five years. That will mean a reduction in the research workforce of 11 per cent—up to 6,000 jobs. Yet there's no plan for this in Frydenberg's budget. Experts have warned that, without the same level of discretionary funding available for the next few years, there is likely to be a significant loss of research momentum in Australian universities. As for university staff—and we've seen it already in Tasmania—the federal government has gone out of its way to exclude public universities from JobKeeper payments. It has changed the rules three times to ensure university staff don't qualify. There have already been 12,000 job losses; we cannot afford to lose any more.
Now isn't the time to withdraw further support from our education system and to impose a flawed policy which stakeholders, experts and even previous Liberal Party members do not endorse. We're relying on our brilliant universities and their research to find a vaccine for COVID-19, but they can't rely on the Morrison government to protect their jobs. We are in the deepest and darkest recession in almost a century and the decisions made by the Morrison government are taking it further and making it worse for all Australians.
We need to incentivise our young people to retrain and reskill. We need to incentivise, retrain and reskill older Australian workers—of such importance for my home state of Tasmania. Therefore I'll be voting, as other Labor senators will be, against this very flawed bill and the attack on our universities, and particularly my university in Tasmania.
I rise to speak in favour of this bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, as a member of a party which has a proud tradition of supporting higher education in this country. When Sir Robert Gordon Menzies became Prime Minister in 1936, there were only six universities in Australia. There were 14,236 higher education students out of a total population of seven million. When Sir Robert Gordon Menzies retired from the position of Prime Minister, this country had 16 universities and there were 91,272 higher education students. We went from 14,000 to 91,000 students and from six to 16 universities—an incredibly proud tradition that the Liberal Party has in supporting higher education in this country. Higher education in this country did not start with Gough Whitlam, whatever those opposite would like to tell us.
In terms of what a university should be, again I go back to the words of the founder of my party, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies. In a speech he gave in 1939, on his first day as Prime Minister, he talked about the importance of the university: 'What are we to look for in a true university? What causes should it serve?' He put forward seven answers in response:
The university must be a place of pure culture and learning, a training school for the professions, a liaison between the academician and the 'good practical man', the home of research, a trainer of character, a training ground for leaders, and a custodian of the unfettered search for truth.
That last phrase, 'the unfettered search for truth', is one that has stuck with me over quite some period of time. When I look at universities today, I call upon all of our universities to reflect on that Menzies statement that includes an aspiration to 'an unfettered search for truth', because our universities should not be fettered by codes of conduct which do not promote freedom of speech, but trample on it. Our universities should be unfettered by practices of banning speakers from campuses just because they're unpopular and just because certain radicals on the campuses do not wish to permit them to speak. Our universities should be unfettered from fetters imposed by foreign countries and jurisdictions upon what they can teach and how they teach it. Our universities need to aspire to an unfettered search for truth.
The second introductory point I'd like to make in relation to this legislation is with respect to the contribution by Senator Jordon Steele-John. I always listen carefully to the good senator from Western Australia. I'm a great admirer of his passion and his ability to put his thoughts into words, but there is no such thing as free education. There is no such thing as free health care. Nothing is free in this world. Someone has to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The first question is: how are we going to pay for it? Who pays what and when? Those are the only questions. Nothing is free in this world, and it is wrong to state to the contrary that something can, in some way, be free and no-one bears the cost. That's a utopian vision which does not reflect reality.
At this time of record budget deficits to help every person in this country, we need to reflect on the fact that every single dollar is absolutely vital and of so much value as we move through this pandemic and rebuild the economy of this country while providing hundreds of thousands of Australians with unemployment benefits. In that context it is entirely reasonable that the government should look at the range of tertiary courses offered, specific units of study within those tertiary courses, and make a practical assessment as to where the government should best direct resources and whether students who desire to study certain courses should meet a greater proportion of the cost of those courses. That is entirely appropriate and practical in this day and age.
I will touch on this concept of free education. I understand my friend Senator Rennick talked about how he had a number of part-time jobs when he studied at university. He picked fruit and vegetables and was also a glassie at the Royal Exchange Hotel, which my friend Senator Murray Watt no doubt attended on many occasions. In that context, he contributed to the cost of his education, but Senator Rennick is part of the generation that I belong to as a 50-year-old. HECS was introduced when we were part way through our courses. I had no problem contributing to the cost of my higher education—absolutely no problem at all. I can remember having a discussion with a friend who went into carpentry and building. He said to me, 'Paul, why should I have to pay? Why should I have to pay so you can go to university and then graduate and earn big bucks? You should have to actually pay for your course. You should have to pay for that. Why should I have to pay for that?' I always thought that was an extremely reasonable proposition, because there is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as free education. Someone has to pay, and the only question is: how do we calibrate that in a modern society?
I'd like to turn to a few particular comments in relation to this bill that have been raised, and actually present some facts. Firstly, the coalition government already provides more than $18 billion—that's 'billion' with a B—a year to fund our universities. And this will grow—it's not decreasing, it's actually growing—to $20 billion by 2024, so from $18 billion a year today to $20 billion in 2024. So I think this debate needs to be put in context. I wonder what those opposite would say if we increased it to $21 billion. I think they would complain even more.
Another point I'd like to make is, whilst some fields of study will see increases in student contribution amounts for specific units, approximately 60 per cent of students will see either a reduction or no change in their student contribution. Senator Polley, who spoke before me in this debate, wanted to focus on the 40 per cent. What about the 60 per cent?
Those students enrolled in teaching, nursing clinical psychology, English and languages will pay 42 per cent less for their degree. We know there is a great need for clinical psychologists at this point in time. I've sat in estimates and heard from the Department of Veterans' Affairs about how our veterans need access to psychological support, and we know that, in the aftermath of the bushfires and of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of people are going to need a lot of support. We need more teachers. We need more nurses. We need more English teachers, especially assisting those new Australians to learn English so that they can get better jobs. We need all of those students in those courses, and it's absolutely fit and proper that they should pay less, because our community needs people with those specialties who can do those courses.
Students who study agriculture and maths will pay 59 per cent less for their degree. We need more maths teachers. We need more farmers educated in best farming practices who can work on our farms and increase productivity. And it's fit and proper that they should 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. Again, these are decisions which are informed by what is actually happening in the labour market today.
This will certainly not be the most profound thing said in this chamber, but Australia does not need more lawyers. There are plenty of lawyers out there, I can tell you, and there are more people studying law today than there are actual jobs for them. There are more people studying law than there are people practising law. It is fit and proper that this government should give a message to people looking to undertake higher education as to where their best prospects lie. It is absolutely wrong that we should send a message to people that they should be entering into courses to study certain things when their employment prospects are less than if they were studying other courses. It's absolutely appropriate we send this message to them through the market.
I know young people who want to study law. I know young people who want to study other humanities subjects where the price may well rise under these reforms. I know those people are out there–and good luck to them, I absolutely support them. And even if they choose to do that, under our Higher Education Loan Program, the HELP system, no student needs to pay anything up-front, and student loans are only repaid when the student is earning over $46,000. So if you want to study law, study law. Good luck to you. Give me a call, and I'll talk to you about the practise of law and how I've seen it develop in the years since I graduated from university in 1991. Absolutely do it. But know the sort of profession you're getting into, how many people are actually practising in that profession today, how that impacts on your job prospects and how it could well be that you might find it easier to secure employment in another field where this country is desperate for more people to study—particularly fields such as teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English, language et cetera. So be informed. Be informed as to what your prospects are.
If you do choose to study any of the courses that are available to you from any of our wonderful universities, note that a person on the lowest repayment threshold, which starts at 80 per cent of the median earnings for all Australian employees, will pay only $8.80 to $10.20 per week. We're talking about $10.20 a week after you've studied your course, whatever it is, and you've reached that lowest repayment threshold. So you have to start repaying $8.80 to $10.20 per week. Is that too much to ask? Seriously—is that too much to ask? It's quite baffling how those opposite can be so outraged, and one has to query the degree to which this outrage is really confected. I must say I was sitting here yesterday in question time, listening to the questions coming from the opposition in response to the budget, and they really were particularly underwhelming. They couldn't lay a glove on the budget that was brought down on Tuesday night. And now we have this confected outrage—over what? It is over someone who goes to university, doesn't have to pay a cent whilst they're studying, doesn't have to pay any fee whilst they're studying and then, once they reach the lowest repayment threshold, which starts at 80 per cent of the median earnings for all Australian employees, pays only $8.80 to $10.20 per week.
There would be millions of people around this world who would love to have the opportunity to study in our universities and pay that amount—$8.80 to $10.20 per week—at 80 per cent of median earnings. They would love to have the opportunity to do that in our country and study at our wonderful universities. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I'd like to begin by informing the chamber that this is not my first speech. I rise to speak in this long debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. The Greens oppose this bill. 'Nothing is for free,' says Senator Scarr. In that case, maybe we should talk about the stolen land and resources from this country's First People or the free money to your Liberal Party donors in this budget.
It saddens me that in my first week here in the Senate I'm witnessing firsthand the unfair and out-of-touch agenda of this government. This bill, along with this week's federal budget, shows how this government does not care about setting up a smarter, safer, healthier future for this country. They especially don't care about our country's young people. These young people are facing a pandemic, an economic crisis and a climate emergency. Young people in this country just want to have a chance—a chance to get an education if that's how they choose to contribute to their community. Young people just want a chance not to be tied down to decades of debt. Many of my fellow senators in this place and members in the House benefited from free uni education—not just cheap education but free education. It's hypocritical that they are the same people that will apply this bill happily to the next generation of young people and deny the young people of this country the same opportunity. The government, with this package, is pulling up the drawbridge so no-one else gets to come in.
Education is about opportunity. It's about having the chance to get new skills, get qualified and get on the path to a secure and rewarding job. Education is about being able to have an opportunity to go to one of our universities—some of the best in the world—without worrying about being crushed by huge debt that follows you around for decades. Education is the great equaliser. That's why this government wants to make it harder for people to get one.
This package will more than double fees for those students who want to contribute to our society by studying humanities and social sciences. This budget will also slash up to $900 million in funding for teaching and learning; this includes funding for STEM and nursing courses. That's how out of touch this government really is. It will slash nursing, social sciences and science funding in the middle of a global public health crisis. It's shameful.
This bill will punish struggling students; they are already struggling. According to our modelling, for some students it could take up to 20 years to pay off a three-year humanities degree—maybe even longer, because that assumes graduates will go straight into full-time work that pays them a good wage and allows them to put food on their table and a roof over their heads. It doesn't account for any years taken off any full-time work for parental leave, to care for a loved one or for any other personal reason. It also doesn't take into account further study that someone might need to do just to get a foot in the door.
The government's claim that it will support regional universities with this plan just doesn't stack up. The government's plan will force regional universities to teach more students with less money and force those students to go into huge debt just to get their degree. The consequences for regional communities will be felt hard and for a lifetime.
I'm concerned that this bill will deepen inequality for Indigenous students in particular. This bill puts up more barriers for our people to go to university, to get a job and to earn a good wage that can support themselves, their families and their communities. Indigenous students are more likely to be loaded up with high HECS debts, because they often choose to study social sciences and community development as a way to give back to their communities. We should be prioritising and rewarding their hard work, not putting up more walls and building more barriers for our young people to get an education in any field they choose.
Education is not just about being a cog in a machine; it's about being able to contribute fully to the society you live in. No person in this place or anywhere should ever make it harder for anyone to go to university—particularly Indigenous young people, who have been locked out of opportunities in their own country for centuries. I've seen so many photos of Indigenous graduates on Twitter—many of them the first in their families to go to university. I encourage all senators to search for the hashtag #BlackfullaGradPics. You'll see photos of our young people graduating as nurses, doctors, social workers, social scientists, surgeons, journalists, therapists, scientists and teachers. All of them make their families, their friends and their ancestors and elders proud, graduating while wearing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. As we approach graduation season all around the country, we will see even more Indigenous community development workers, counsellors, lawyers and engineers, and I can't wait to share in their happiness. In fact, I can't wait to welcome some of them into this chamber as fellow senators. Everyone here should be making it easier for Indigenous young people—all young people—to get an excellent education at our excellent public universities, and for free. This package does not do that—far from it.
Just yesterday we heard Senator Griff say in this chamber that, in an ideal world, there would be more university funding. I remind my colleague and all senators in this place that more funding for universities is not something that exists only in the imagination; it's something that every single senator in this chamber has the power to make happen today. But this bill is not it. No-one should ever come to this place thinking that it's beyond their power to create a better and more educated Australia. In no place should we be making it harder for anyone who wants to study at university to do so.
We've got a big challenge on our hands: recovering from this coronavirus pandemic and the economic crisis it has brought. The higher education sector has been hit so hard. We've heard this throughout this debate. In my home state of Victoria, the higher education sector is hurting. So many jobs have already been lost, and more losses are likely to follow. There's a big demand for places in higher education because people want to get new skills and get ready for a changed job market. But the package in this bill does not create anywhere near enough new places. We're also going to need to be smart. We need to grow and expand how much public money goes into research. Australia needs to be focused on actively getting ourselves out of this recession, not digging ourselves deeper into a hole. This bill guts research funding by rejecting the long-held notion that base funding—that is, student fees plus Commonwealth contributions—should provide for teaching, scholarship and base research capability.
This bill is a dud. It's unfair, and it's going to hit young people especially hard. This package shifts costs of higher education from the government onto students. As my Greens colleagues have reiterated through this debate, universities should be well funded, high quality and free for all students. Education is a human right and a public good, and this government has an obligation to ensure everyone has access to high-quality, well-funded, free, lifelong education. Higher education in this country has been hit incredibly hard by the COVID crisis. These new laws will only make things worse. The government should invest in our universities and TAFEs, not starve them of funds.
I rise to oppose the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. The Liberals and Nationals have broken one of the great institutions of Australia: our world-leading tertiary education system. Instead of fixing higher education, this bill exacerbates all the worst elements of the current system. As Alison Barnes, the President of the National Tertiary Education Union, has said, it 'does nothing to address the funding and jobs crisis that is smashing our universities'. Let's be clear about what's happening here. The government are punishing the university sector to appease the culture warriors in their own ranks. The Liberal-National policy bin fire was already threatening to destroy what's left of our universities. This bill now pours fuel on that fire.
The COVID related closure of our international borders has had a profound effect on universities' finances. COVID has put a $4.8 billion hole in their income. Over the next three years, they will lose $19 billion. It's smaller regional universities that are really struggling in the pandemic. According to the Libs and Nats, it's the fault of the universities themselves—always a scapegoat for their own incompetent and culture-war decisions. They have conveniently forgotten that the sector's dependence on international student income, which has grown 137 per cent in the last decade, was created entirely by the systematic cuts to public funding. We must never forget that it was the coalition which capped government funding for Australians getting university places, And it's the coalition which has tried time and time again to bring in American-sized debts for students to compensate for the deep cuts in funding. At the end of the day, what this bill is about is cutting funding to the sector and shifting the cost burden to the students of working families, making it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university while also making it harder for universities to deliver a quality education.
Worst of all, it punishes challenged students instead of trying to nurture their ambitions. This idea that we can penalise students by taking their funding fails logic. There is no evidence that supports this measure. It ignores the reality of how life works and will penalise students who need the most help to learn and to thrive. Award-winning Sydney University professor, Rae Cooper, told ABC Radio recently that in her first semester of university she failed dismally. She almost gave up, but then swapped majors and ended up being awarded a university medal. She said:
I was just bewildered and lost and I didn't know how to navigate the system.
Students studying law, accounting, administration, economics, commerce, communications and humanities will pay more for their degrees than students studying medicine and dentistry. This does not make sense unless we assume that the government would like the lawyers, accountants, economists and journalists of the next generation to come only from richer households—those households which feel secure enough to pay a great deal for the opportunity to study these disciplines. And, of course, our society will be greatly poorer for it. Again the NTEU president, Alison Barnes, has pointed out in her brilliant op ed in The Australian:
Countless studies indicate the employability of arts and humanities graduates will increase as employers seek out students who can critically engage with dynamic problems.
Even the Business Council's chief executive, Jennifer Westcott, normally a strident supporter of this government, has said:
We need our brightest kids studying the humanities.
This package will not result in a single extra student doing STEM subjects. This is because the poor design of this bill actually gives universities less money to teach STEM courses like engineering and science. Analysis by Richard Holden, an economist at the University of New South Wales, shows that universities will receive $4,758 less per student per year for engineering, $3,513 less for maths and $3,440 less for agriculture. So universities will actually not be able to deliver the same level of quality of teaching that these important subjects require. Agriculture—note that: where are the Nationals? I know where Labor is: standing up for people in universities.
When the minister announced this program in June he said that it was designed to boost the number of graduates in areas of expected employment growth. But then, in July, education department officials gave evidence to the Senate COVID inquiry that the government has no modelling about whether university funding changes will incentivise students to study science instead of humanities. This minister either hasn't done his homework or he is using it to cover and to perpetuate the coalition's culture war on this sector.
But it's not just the students who will be failing under this system; it's teachers and researchers too. Even before COVID-19, Commonwealth funding for universities was at an all-time low. And what do the consequences for our universities look like when we look at this?
They look insecure, with further mass casualisation and endemic wage theft, where mainly young university staff are denied even minimum wages because their work is deliberately misclassified. For example, Victoria is the only state reporting casual employment data for universities, which is compelled by law. It's data recently revealed 68.74 per cent of staff are employed as casuals or are on short-term contracts across the Victorian university sector. This has consequences for university workers, many of whom will have been in casual positions for many years and still have no job security. Shan Windscript, a PhD candidate and casual teacher at Melbourne University, recently described what it was like living on $300 a week: 'I certainly wouldn't call it a living wage.' She was working seven days a week. She said, 'It felt like a trap.' She wasn't getting super or receiving her entitlements like sick leave. COVID-19 will only make this situation worse.
A report released in July from the Rapid Research Information Forum and handed to the federal government estimated that 21,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the university sector were at risk by the end of year, with 7,000 estimated to be research-related academic positions. The bill does nothing to help that. This bill shifts the burden onto students, regardless of where they study or what they study, particularly if they're a Western Sydney student. Based on the estimates of the Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion at the University of Technology Sydney, the government's package will take half the funds currently allocated to supporting students from underprivileged backgrounds and give it to universities in regional and remote areas. It is not that they don't deserve it, but what about those people in Western Sydney? What about the economic hub of Western Sydney University that employs and engages and makes Western Sydney more liveable?
The Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment's inquiry into this bill heard testimony that the University of Western Sydney could lose $6.9 million a year under the government's package. Why take it out on Western Sydney? This is just another example of how this government pits communities against each other. It's failure in the member for Lindsay is stark in this example—failed to stand up for Lindsay, failed to stand up for Western Sydney and lost $6.9 million from the economy of Western Sydney, supporting the underprivileged. As Verity Firth, the former minister of education in New South Wales, pointed out: Western Sydney University has played a key role in expanding access to higher education for working class and first-in-family students. There is no reason why funding that is aimed at equitable outcomes should not continue to support the role of Western Sydney University, which has played such an important part. And yet, based on the Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion's research calculations, Western Sydney University is the biggest loser from this package. But it's not just Western Sydney that is missing out; no city or region will be left unscarred by the injury to our universities.
A strong university sector is critical to the national interest now more than ever, yet, again, we have another attack on Australia's university sector. This is a bill that flies in the face of our national interest and fair access to a university education. This Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 is yet another failure, another failure from Mr Morrison's Liberal Party policy machine, a machine vested not in the national interest but in narrow ideological interests. It's approach is vested in an Americanised attempt to attack our education system. The Liberal Party simply wants to make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university. It simply wants to attack the research fundamentals of our strong university sector.
A despicable deal has been done with Centre Alliance and Pauline Hanson to get this legislation through. It has no regard for the devastating outcome on universities and students. I say shame on Senator Griff and Senator Hanson. You have betrayed Australia's young people. You are responsible for all those young people missing out on a degree or paying more for their degree, and you are responsible for every university job lost. Senator Lambie and Senator Patrick, thank you for seeing sense in not supporting this bill. It was immensely pleasing to see your detailed examination of this legislation. You highlighted that you don't want to see a young Australian person from a poor background missing out on education and having a bright future. It's a shame that other members of the crossbench have not applied the same level of decency.
Amidst the economic fallout of a global pandemic, I would have thought that even this government would have a better set of priorities—upskilling Australians, drawing on TAFE and our university sector to rebuild our economy. Instead the government has attacked universities at a time when demand for education is growing. The increase in unemployment from the economic fallout of COVID-19 has seen an increase in demand for higher education. The government has talked about a so-called increase of 39,000 places. Those places are not locked into this legislation; they are on a wing and a prayer in terms of a promise to the sector. There is no funding for those extra places in this legislation. Universities have already been affected by the loss of international students and the decision by the Prime Minister to include them from the JobKeeper wage subsidy. That's seen over 10,000 university workers lose their jobs. Instead of bolstering the sector to aid access to education and economic recovery, the government has attacked the sector and rushed this legislation through under the cover of COVID-19. It is just the latest attempt to cut funding, increase student debt and reduce equity.
The impacts of this legislation are far too high a price to pay. The impacts of this legislation will leave a legacy that will fundamentally damage the most important principles and benefits of higher education in our nation. The government has, quite simply, bullied the higher education sector into accepting a package that is clearly against the interests of students, the economy, research and innovation, the universities themselves and the nation. This government has rushed this legislation because it is up to no good. You fought tooth and nail against an inquiry that you didn't want. We had to contend with the government using its numbers to ensure an unworkable time frame to examine the legislation. This was all at a time when year 12s are doing their exams and have been confronted with the most difficult year ever.
This government is so averse to scrutiny that it didn't release the modelling on the impact of its own legislation. You ducked responsibility to the parliament and to the higher education sector itself. It is unacceptable that the government has asked parliament to vote on legislation without doing the decent thing and highlighting and giving members of this place access to information about the real financial impact of this bill on universities and students. In the absence of detail from the government, I will provide the opportunity to give some numbers that senators and Australian students might find interesting under this legislation. Overall, the student contribution increases by seven per cent. Some might say that, in the current circumstances, that's fine. But let's look at the inequity of how that debt is distributed. Forty per cent of students will have their fees increased but the fees for some degree fees will increase by 113 per cent. Universities receive less—not more—to educate students in the very areas you say you want to prioritise: 32 per cent less to teach medical scientists, 17 per cent less to teach maths students and 16 per cent less to teach engineers. This is simply nuts.
The University of Sydney highlighted nationally that women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are heavily represented in fields that will have the highest student contributions under the proposed changes. The government says, and I'm sure I will hear this further from senators opposite, that the aim of this bill is to encourage price signalling to guide students into particular courses. Well, the simple fact of the matter is that if you want to guide students into maths and engineering you need to allow universities enough funding to increase the places for those fields of study. Time and time again, price signalling has been tried and failed. It doesn't work. There is no evidence—the committee saw no evidence—that price signalling works.
Instead of redirecting enrolments to a certain field of study, this bill means that some students will be paying $14,500 per year for their education, and, frankly, this is more than the combined government contribution and student contribution by more than $1,000 already. The difference between the lowest fees paid by students and the highest fees will grow by a magnitude of four. The policy rationale here is just not supported by any evidence at all. Higher-paying professions will have lower fees; lowing-paying professions will have higher fees. A graduate could pay twice as much for their degree and earn much less than another graduate with a lower student debt. It is nothing more than an egregious, ideological agenda that has no basis in the reality of employability and job readiness for graduates across their fields of study.
On top of clear evidence that price signalling doesn't work, universities, in evidence to the Senate committee, have admitted that the fee schedule is likely to motivate perverse enrolment and spending outcomes. A number of universities told the committee they would jump immediately to the maximum student contributions, because of the package's funding cuts. This can only be code for taking that $14,500 you may be charging a commerce, law, economics or humanities student, and taking some of the money that that student will owe in student debt as well as the Commonwealth graduate contribution, and shifting that money to the fields of study where income for those places has been capped. So, far from being useful price signalling, this will result in perverse enrolment outcomes across our university sector.
Universities admitted that while the new student debt component would be higher than the total 2020 income per student, there was no requirement that these funds be spent on these same students, just as I said. Universities can move income from both student fees and the government subsidy to other faculties where student debt has in fact decreased and, indeed, the government contribution has also decreased. It is quite usual for universities to pool their funding and do this, but never before have we seen such perverse incentives for universities to maximise enrolment in fields of study where they can charge a profitable fee so that they can cross-subsidise other parts of the university. It's clear that international students have been used in this way for some time in accessing our quality education system, but we must look at equity in our own system. We must look at employability and we must look at fairness.
Put yourself in the shoes of an arts student. I've spoken to a number of year 12 students who accepted offers for places at ANU or UWA before this bill came to light, before they could see what their fee structure would be, and have heard through the recordings of Senate hearings that they're likely to be paying top dollar, $14½ thousand. They've had no opportunity to respond to price signalling. If those opposite believe in price signalling, why are they rushing this legislation? Students have had to enrol in these subjects before universities made clear what fees they will be charging. People have picked their courses and are looking at studying hard and forging careers in fields that are in demand. They will be getting an enormous debt, up to $14½ thousand a year, only to find, as they begin their careers and try to save for a home deposit, that the money they have in student debt has actually been used to cross-subsidise students in another faculty. Humanities, commerce and communications students: you'll be paying more for your degree than doctors and dentists, despite the fact that your graduate incomes won't be as high. This is despite the fact that you're still highly employable and much needed in our economy. It is fundamentally outrageous.
Year 12s have gone through enough this year. This government paints a bleak picture of university life. Every member of the Morrison government went to university, and some would say they've done alright off the back of their qualifications. I find it absolutely galling that this government is trying to make it harder for disadvantaged kids to chase the career of their dreams. It is a staggering misunderstanding of the aspirations of young Australians and of the bright future that the mums and dads of our nation envisage for their young people.
Perversely, this bill manages to construct a funding arrangement whereby for the areas of study where this government wants to see more enrolments universities will be paid less per student, but in the areas where the government wishes to discourage enrolment, off the back of these increased student fees, universities will have a greater income.
In their submission to the Senate committee, Innovative Research Universities said:
Total revenue for most disciplines the Government wishes to grow such as engineering, nursing and agriculture will decrease, but revenue in other disciplines the Government considers less important such as law, business and humanities, will be increased.
That is patently ridiculous. What on earth are you people on the other side doing? It is utterly, utterly nuts.
I make a plea to this place, and in particular to the crossbench, to those who have indicated their support for this bill: please let's not let the government succeed in decreasing funding for the public provision of our world-class universities. It is a disgrace to be jacking up fees unfairly and distributing debt in this way. It disregards the aspirations of Australians seeking better opportunities through our nation's higher education system.
I am speaking to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. Australia is facing its biggest jobs crisis since the Great Depression, and our higher education sector must respond and play a critical role in supporting Australia's economic recovery.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted vulnerabilities across all sectors of Australia's economy, and higher education is no exception. However, there is good news for this rapidly changing sector and for the students it serves. While the Morrison government is providing record-high funding for the university sector, the system must adapt to be able to support Australians through this period, and it must be done in a way that supports the increasingly agile and innovative digital economy. We know that demand for higher education increases during economic slowdowns and that students seek newer, more relevant job skills to help them enter or re-enter the workforce. The coalition government's job-ready graduates reforms will support increased demand from school leavers and provide more option for upskilling and reskilling workers who lost their jobs due to COVID-19. The job-ready package will create an impressive 39,000 new university places in 2023, and 100,000 places by 2030. It will also provide additional support for students in regional and remote Australia. The coalition government already provides more than $18 billion a year to fund our universities. This will grow to $20 billion annually by 2024. The Morrison government investment will produce job-ready graduates that reflect Australia's expected economic, industry and employment growth, which is why there is an increased focus on areas of industry and community priority as well as work-relevant qualifications. These changes are good news.
The new arrangements will encourage prospective students to consider adding new skills sought by employers as well as their own preferences. In addition, higher education providers will work more closely with industry to ensure graduates have the job-ready skills and experience that they need to move into a new and more innovative and more challenging labour market. The Commonwealth Grant Scheme, funding clusters and student contribution bands are being simplified to make government funding for universities clearer, simpler and more sustainable. Overall, Australian taxpayers will continue to pay more than half of the costs of Commonwealth supported places, with funding prioritised to the areas of high public benefit and those most needed by the labour market. That means Commonwealth supported students studying courses in key growth areas, including science, nursing, teaching, engineering and IT, will see significant reductions in their student costs. In fact, around 60 per cent of students will see either a reduction or no change in their student contribution. The changes are based at a unit level, not a degree level. This means that by choosing electives that respond to employer needs in subjects like mathematics, English, science and IT students can reduce the cost of their overall degree and, at the same time, they will be enhancing their skills by responding to the needs of the new job market.
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. Students who study science, health, architecture, environmental science, IT and engineering will pay 18 per cent less for their degree. Additionally, these reforms align the total combined funding for higher education units with the cost of teaching them. The new higher education funding model is based on universities' self-reported data on the actual cost of delivery of teaching in universities. Current students who are already studying in a Commonwealth supported place will be grandfathered in, looked after so they pay either the new lower or the same rates. From 1 January 2021, current students who enrol in units where the student contribution has decreased will have these amounts applied. Current students who enrol in units where the student contribution has increased will have grandfathering arrangements applied. This means their student contribution and the Commonwealth Grant Scheme amounts remain as they are under the current arrangements. Current year 12 students looking to enrol in a course of study in 2021 should be assured that they will continue to have access to the course of their choice under Australia's world-leading higher education funding model.
Under our Higher Education Loan Program, the HELP system, no student needs to pay anything upfront, and student loans are only repaid when the student is earning over $46,620. A person on the lowest repayment threshold, which starts at 80 per cent of the median earnings of all Australian employees, will pay only $8.80 to $10.20 per week. Access to HELP is not determined by age, income or background. It means that eligible students can participate in higher education without the barrier of upfront fees. Prospective students should also remember that an investment in higher education is one of the best investments they can make. Higher education graduates have a substantial advantage in the labour market, with lower rates of unemployment and higher earnings than school leavers and vocational education graduates.
The Job-ready Graduates Package includes a $900 million National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund, designed to strengthen industry and university partnerships and prepare job-ready graduates. The bill extends Commonwealth support to more work experience and 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.
Then there are the regional, rural and remote students. In addition to providing more student places at Australian universities overall, the government will provide more than $400 million over the next four years to increase opportunities for regional and remote students to attend university and to lift investment in regional university campuses. All Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from regional and remote areas will have a guaranteed Commonwealth supported place upon admission to the university of their choice, a key Napthine review recommendation. For the first time, the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program will support regional, remote and Indigenous students, in addition to low-SES students, to access and complete higher education. The bill amends the Social Security Act to reduce from six to three the number of months a student living away from home must be receiving eligible student support payments before being eligible to receive fare allowance for a return journey home. This is another important Napthine review recommendation. Regional communities will benefit from strengthened and newly established regional university centres, enhanced research opportunities and growth through additional funding to regional campuses.
The tertiary access payment, or TAP, is a one-off $5,000 payment for school leavers from outer regional and remote areas who relocate more than 90 minutes from their home to enrol in higher-level tertiary education. The new TAP will be available from 2021. This will be distributed to universities as a scholarship, and the number of scholarships allocated to a university will be based on its historical enrolment of students. The TAP will also be accessible, through Services Australia, to students studying at non-university higher education providers and VET providers.
Under the package, the Commonwealth contribution to university funding, coupled with the students' contribution, will be aligned with the cost of delivering the course. There will be a funding floor for higher education courses. Funding certainty is vital for universities in how they plan for future enrolments and research activities. This bill includes a floor for future Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding, and that means table A universities will not receive less than the maximum basic grant amount for higher education courses they received in a previous year, commencing in 2025. The legislation includes the necessary mechanisms for the government to implement a transition fund for table A universities so that they maintain their revenue over the grant years as the reforms in the Job-ready Graduates Package are introduced.
Student decisions about higher education reflect a range of factors. Price is an important consideration for some students, though it's not the only consideration. For example, in 2009 the number of eligible applications to tertiary admission centres from students applying to study science was 13,795. That year, with much fanfare, the former Labor government reduced the student contribution for maths and sciences. By 2012, the number of applications to tertiary admissions centres and direct applications from students applying to study science increased to 26,373. In 2013, however, the Labor government very quietly increased the price by 78 per cent, and applications plateaued.
Younger students make choices based on the advice of their parents, careers advisers and university open days, and by talking with their friends. Older students are more price-sensitive and consider the return on their investment and future career opportunities. The Job-ready Graduates Package is seeking to align our funding with the national interest by encouraging students to consider their employment prospects on graduation among those factors. Graduating with a good future in growing parts of our economy is a win-win. University graduates with vocational degrees are the most likely to be in full employment, according to new data.
The government's Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 will make it cheaper to study in areas of expected future growth. We're creating additional university places for Australian students and making it cheaper to study teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English and languages, agriculture, maths, science, health, architecture, environmental science, IT and engineering. The coalition government is encouraging students to tailor their studies to learn skills that will be in demand in areas of future jobs growth. That means breaking down the traditional degree silos by enabling students to choose units of study across disciplines and introducing a price signal to students by making degrees cheaper in areas of expected job growth. We want our students to receive an education that sets them up for future success.
As I said, under the package all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from regional and remote areas will have a guaranteed supported place upon admission to a non-designated bachelor or bachelor honours course of study at the public university of their choice. Health is one of the fastest growing disciplines that Indigenous students choose to study at university. Between 2014 and 2018, Indigenous enrolments in health grew from 1,666 to 2,343—a 41 per cent increase. The popularity of STEM courses among Indigenous university students has also grown in recent years.
The Job-ready Graduates Package aims to provide more opportunities for women and men to gain the qualifications they will require for the jobs of the future. Allied health and teaching are professions with substantial female workforces. It is these subjects that will see significant reductions in student contributions, meaning less HECS-HELP to repay once graduates are working. Women who elect to enrol in courses for the jobs of the future—STEM, health, education—will be more employable on graduation, meaning they will have a higher earning potential immediately. Over the past decade, there has been growth in the number of females with STEM qualifications. We want to ensure that this trend continues, and the Job-ready Graduates Package will support the ongoing growth of women with STEM qualifications and careers.
The Job-ready Graduates Package creates an additional 100,000 opportunities over the next decade for students to pursue university. It puts $400 million into supporting rural and regional higher education. It is unapologetically aligned to the employment needs of the country coming out of the COVID pandemic. Teaching, health, engineering, agriculture and IT degrees are all discounted significantly to encourage students and—just to remind this place—around 60 per cent of students will be better off, or the same, under these reforms.
Strengthening student protections in public universities also aligns quality and accountability in Australia's tertiary sector. Every student studying in Australia can be confident that, wherever they choose to study, they will be assessed as being academically suited to that study, their academic progress and engagement will be monitored throughout the course and they will be prevented from incurring debt for study for which they are not suited. These initiatives have been well-received by university chancellors across the nation. They will support our students to prepare to contribute to our strengthening economy as Australia moves forward post-COVID.
Anybody who had listened through the course of this debate would think, first, that all Australians should and must go to university if they are to have a good and meaningful life. Then there would be people who would come away from this debate thinking that Australia has no ability to assist people from poorer families to get to university—that there's no loan scheme that allows people of lesser means to access university. You'd be forgiven for coming away from this debate thinking that life isn't worth living unless you get free education. Well, what a load of utter rubbish all of that has been.
Let's do some fact checking, shall we? University is not essential to earning a good living. University is not essential to having a good life. Trades, for instance, can offer you much more money, if that's what motivates you. They can offer you real chances to build serious businesses and to contribute massively to this nation, to your economy and to your family's financial independence. Many people are much better suited to a hands-on type of learning and working.
Let's do some more fact checking. There's absolutely nothing to stop a smart, motivated person in this country accessing education at university simply due to cost. That might be uncomfortable for some people in this room, but it is the truth. What we call the HELP scheme—it has been known as HECS in my time—allows for affordable loans that don't need to be repaid until that person is working and earning a pretty good living. That's fair. And it means that a kid of modest means—like me and, indeed, many people on the coalition side of this chamber—has been able to go to university despite the fact that they're nothing fancy.
There's something that seems to be getting lost in this debate—the idea that university is something that mum and dad always pay for, or the idea that you shouldn't be doing anything else but studying while you're learning. My experience of university was that working part-time while I studied was not only something that helped me pay my way but a big part of the experience of learning to be an adult. Working four jobs while I was at university taught me to prioritise my spending, to manage my time, to communicate with my employers about my commitments and manage them well, and how to chat to people from all walks of life and appreciate their different strengths and interests. I can tell you that the time I spent selling linen in a shop, bookkeeping for small businesses, waitressing in a steakhouse and in an Italian restaurant and tutoring schoolkids was good for me. I learned skills that I draw on every day in this place and drew on in my career before this. Indeed, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that I learned a lot more from that than I did from many of my university classes.
The phrase 'free education' gets bandied around a lot in this place both by Labor and those in the Greens Party. But you know what? That is nothing more than a bold-faced lie. Everything you get for free has got to be taken from somebody else, particularly under the redistributionist worldview of those in the Greens. It's particularly hypocritical, though, when we hear this from Labor, because they didn't indulge their free-education fantasy when they were in government during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. If they really believed that that was the right thing to do, then why didn't they do it when they had the chance? The answer is that actions speak louder than words. It is nothing more than a slogan designed to mislead young people in particular—a lie on which they never plan to deliver. The Greens might just be silly enough to genuinely believe in it, but, with their usual approach of 'Free everything for everyone', they've got no idea of how to pay for it. That's the kind of reckless indulgence that is only available to minor parties who know they will never have to come good on their talk. Talk is cheap. But let's hope it stays that way, because our nation would be an economic basket case quick as a flash if the Greens and their unicorn fantasy policies were ever the order of the day.
Madam Acting Deputy President Askew, you might not know that I used to be a sessional academic at a school of business and law in one of the major regional universities before I came to this place. It was a job I did part-time—there you go, part-time work again—while I was in full-time practice as a barrister. I really enjoyed teaching my students. It was a really fulfilling activity but I was regularly troubled by the concern that there were people enrolled in my classes who enrolled every year who never once submitted assessment, never once showed up, never once passed—of course, with that kind of record—and they got billed for it every time. It was a windfall for the university, which didn't have to apply any resources to educating these people. It was a bill to the Commonwealth which was, at least for the time being, paying for that person's non-education and it left a student with a bill, with no education—really—and with no plan to pay it. So, quite rightly, here, this government is putting this kind of practice to an end. It's simply common sense.
I was also concerned about the job prospects of my students who found class, sometimes, a struggle. There were many who I thought were better suited to a less bookish way of learning, and there were more practical types whose strength in the practical was something to be celebrated and encouraged, because the fact is, not everyone is suited to the academic life. Not everyone gets the best out of university education. And while there's a real demand for people to be able to retrain at the moment, if we step back from the COVID crisis, I think there's a real conversation to be had about whether, as a nation, we are sending too many people to university, building them up with the expectation of careers in fields that simply aren't there. So this bill does something very good for students in that way because there is a reality that says we have, particularly COVID-related unemployment but, at the same time, we have skills shortages in some fields.
This is about making sure people are getting all of the encouragement necessary to focus their education on the areas where there are jobs. Isn't that the promise that, as a country, we make to the people who go to university, the promise that what they are learning is something they will actually be able to use, that they'll have the dignity of a career in which they can work and earn a living and get ahead and rise to the top of their profession through hard work because we didn't delude them into believing they could have a career in a job that isn't there? I think it's just being honest. The fact is there has never been more spent on education, but we still have a real skills shortage, even as we are dealing with unemployment. So let's not build false hope in students by educating them in fields for which the jobs just aren't there, when we have real demand in great career areas that do lead to a meaningful job. This bill does great work in this sphere.
By providing for cheaper education in areas where this nation has high skills demand, we are doing the right thing by students, because they won't finish university with a debt for an education that they can't repay because they've been educated in something for which there isn't a job. It's doing the right thing by students. We're putting them on a long-term path to success, not a long-term path to disappointment. It's good for our economy, because we're going to be able to meet those skills shortages so that businesses can snap up these talented, educated Australians and make the most of their talents to grow this nation's economy.
And it's good for the taxpayer too, because it means that as more and more of those educated people go into real work they reach the point where they can start repaying their HELP debt so much sooner. And that's the right thing to do by the Australian taxpayer, particularly those Australian taxpayers who are not themselves university educated, who never got the benefit of the taxpayers subsidising their learning and yet are nevertheless expected to do it for others now that they are paying tax. Indeed, there are people who come to me from time to time who say: 'I learned on the job; I did a traineeship. I worked really hard and I still work really hard. I never got five years at university paid for by the taxpayer, either in full or subsidised by half, and yet I'm expected to pay for it for everyone else.' It's a pretty fair point. Why do we ask the construction workers, the labourers, the hairdressers and the shop assistants to subsidise the career prospects of our lawyers, our accountants, and our marine biologists and our women's studies arts graduates? We asked them to do that, but it's a lot to ask for people who never got that kind of help themselves.
This bill makes modest increases in study areas where skills demand doesn't exist because we need fewer graduates in that area, and it makes it cheaper to study in areas where there is skills demand. When you step back and put it like that, you go, 'Well, this is just plain common sense.' The fact that we have spent so long in this chamber with people bleating at the injustice of it, carrying on as though this represents an enormous human rights violation—confected outrage of the most exaggerated sort—it makes me understand why so many Australians think this place is out of touch. Most Australians don't expect this. They don't expect free everything. Most Australians don't expect to be educated for free in an area of unicorn fantasy study for which there are no jobs and which others should be paying off, despite the fact they didn't get the same kind of education themselves. This is the kind of utter nonsense that explains to me precisely why Australians get frustrated with politicians.
Let's do another quick fact check before I wrap up. There has been a lot of talk about student debt and, yes, we do ask students to make a contribution to their education. But let's not pretend that they don't also get support. Overall, Australian taxpayers will continue to pay more than half of the cost of Commonwealth supported places in universities, with funding prioritised to the areas of high public benefit and those areas most needed by the labour market. Quite frankly, to do anything else would be a dereliction of our duty to the taxpayer. It's right for people to invest in their own education, because they get some private benefit. But with that 50 per cent contribution from the Commonwealth, the public benefit that comes from having an educated society is also recognised. It is fair to students, to our economy and to the taxpayer; it is fair for all.
I also rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, particularly as a senator with an electorate office based in the Illawarra—of course, with a very successful university in the Illawarra. I will very much focus my comments on that regional space.
The coalition government is providing record high funding for the university sector. But, having said that, I think it's time for the sector now to adapt and to play its part in supporting Australians through this very difficult period.
Senator Stoker made a number of very important points, and I think it's important for Australians to understand that it is not necessarily a measure of one's success to have a university degree. There are many things that we ask Australians to do. Regrettably, in the 1980s, through some of the changes that were made by Labor and then Education Minister Dawkins, we saw many technical colleges simply become B-grade universities. As a consequence of that, in the passage of time, we devalued the importance of a trade. In effect, I think, we've seen the loss of a generation of young people who have not undertaken trades and who have been forced into circumstances in the belief that they had to have a university degree to succeed in life, and now we're facing skills shortages which are a direct consequence of those actions.
Therefore, I think it is important to put into context that the Australian economy needs people to do all sorts of jobs. Some of those require university degrees, and some of them do not require university degrees. But, as far as those jobs that do require university degrees are concerned, I think it's very important to look at where we need people trained.
This package is very important, because it does support regional universities. I'd like to make reference, if I may, to an article in The Australian Financial Review on 29 September by Robert Bolton. He starts his article by saying:
New data on university research shows the fastest rate of growth is happening in regional and smaller universities, a finding University of Wollongong vice-chancellor Paul Wellings says should reprioritise budgetary thinking.
Universities such as Curtin in Western Australia, Deakin in Victoria, Griffith in south-east Queensland and Newcastle and Wollongong in NSW are "snapping at the heels" of giants such as Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland in the growth rate of research citations.
In a speech that the education minister gave on 30 September, he obviously refers to the importance of this bill, but he also underscores the support that the bill is receiving from entities such as the Regional Universities Network and the importance of investing in regional education also paying a dividend for regional communities. He quotes the Napthine review, which I'd also like to quote:
Increasing the participation of RRR—
rural, regional and remote—
students will directly and positively contribute to the economic and social development of RRR areas.
I would also like to refer to a piece that Professor Wellings, who is also the Chair of the New South Wales Vice-Chancellors Committee, wrote on 30 June in The Australian. He says:
Australia has been shaped by many forces over the years, so it's not remarkable that the structure of universities and the way they operate have constantly evolved to align with the needs of the country.
History has shown that interventions into higher education policy by the Commonwealth Government have often been part of moves to safeguard the country's prosperity when a black swan swoops. The crucial role in coronavirus recovery that universities play at present can be likened to the aftermath of World War II.
The Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme of the 1940s assisted thousands of returned servicemen and women to enter higher education, with a focus on medicine, dentistry, engineering, veterinary science, agriculture and science.
So let's look at the reform package. Basically, the package provides opportunities across three important objectives that will increase the number of graduates in areas where there will be employment growth and demand, such as teaching, nursing, agriculture, STEM and information technology. It will lift the educational attainments for students in regional Australia, and it will strengthen partnerships between universities and business to drive participation in workforce and increase productivity. We know that the reforms will provide the necessary funding to support additional university places—39,000 by 2023, and almost 100,000 places by 2030.
The new funding model and the approach to the new funding model are more nuanced, to one that determines a share of costs that need to be met by the government and students in different fields. In the article that I referred to, the one by Professor Wellings, he points out the key features of the package that are cause for optimism, and I'd like to refer to some of the key ones. The HECS-HELP scheme remains unchanged. It provides certainty for the future. The income contingent loan scheme, which was delivered by the Hawke government in 1989 with the aims of expanding the higher education sector and promoting greater access to promote economic growth, demand and affordability, will not change. Let's not forget, despite all the hype by those opposite, students will be free to study what they want, and the universities will have the necessary flexibility to adjust the number of bachelor, sub-bachelor and post-graduate places within their funding allocations.
The funding from the Commonwealth is aligned to the actual costs of teaching, as presented in the 2016 Deloitte Access Economics report, Cost of delivery of higher education. This, importantly, recognises and supports the activities that are conducted by universities and the benefits that they generate. We know the unemployment situation is dire and, as we have seen, universities are already providing short courses that address the national priorities of teaching, health, science and IT. There will be tremendous opportunities for growth in metro and urban areas on the fringes of Sydney, Melbourne and south-eastern Queensland in particular, and this will be due to the fact that more places will be provided for domestic students in areas where there will be employment prospects.
As I have said, and as others have said, there are very strong regional and social inclusion elements, and the increased funding for the universities will provide for greater focus on regional, rural, low socioeconomic status and Indigenous students. There will be a three-year transition period for these reforms, and that will enable the universities to adapt and to prepare themselves for the necessary changes.
I think it is important to also, at this point, stress—and I will do this in conclusion—that, at the moment, the university sector is facing headwinds from different areas. Now, let's be honest: some of those are of their own making. I have had the opportunity to speak to different people in the university sector, and I have stressed to them that, for some universities, the dependence that they have placed particularly on overseas students, and most especially on students from China, has now resulted in them facing financial difficulties. Clearly, not all universities followed the advice and the edict of their own business schools in practising diversification, which I would have thought was 'business practice 101'. And, yes, while the rivers of gold were flowing in relation to foreign students, and most especially from China, we now see that universities will have to cut their cloth according to a different design. At a time when the government is in circumstances where it has to bring into this place foreign relations legislation, which most particularly will address the activities of universities, it is a telling factor that universities have undertaken and have engaged in activities which have created a negative perspective as far as they're concerned by the Australian public.
So I say to those universities: you have made mistakes—I think it's important for you to admit those mistakes—but the government is now putting in place a very good package. My very strong advice to those vice-chancellors in particular who have engaged in seeking to provide, I think, misinformation in relation to this package is that it's time for you to get on board and to accept that the circumstances have changed, that it's time for you to do things differently and that this is a good package and to support its passage.
I thank the Senate and those senators who have contributed on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. This bill implements the government's Job-Ready Graduates Package, which was announced by the Minister for Education on 19 June. The bill demonstrates our government's commitment to reforming Australia's higher education sector to drive growth and support into our regions and in areas of national need and to position universities to best achieve the objective of producing job-ready graduates that help Australian drive employment creation out of the COVID-19 crisis.
The bill better aligns the funding of universities in supporting students for what it costs to teach those students. This allows the government to then support growth in the higher education sector and to support the creation and funding of an additional 100,000 university places by 2030. The bill also directs more public funding to students studying in areas of projected employment growth as well as areas of industry and community priority, meaning that there will be a significant decrease in fees for students studying in these areas. These funding changes will encourage students to pick the areas of study at university that are most likely to help them secure a job, grow our economy and ensure that universities are focused and have the capacity to produced job-ready graduates across all areas.
Importantly, this bill will reduce the student contribution amounts for more than half of all commencing students. Students enrolling 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 degrees. Students who study science, health, architecture, environmental science, information technology and engineering will pay 18 per cent less for their degrees. Crucially, this all occurs in the ongoing framework of the HECS-HELP system that ensures no Australian student need face upfront fees in relation to their access to university. The bill includes grandfathering arrangements to ensure no student enrolled in a course prior to 1 January 2021 is worse off as a result of these reforms. These grandfathering arrangements will extend the amended Commonwealth contribution amounts in the bill, ensuring universities receive the same Commonwealth contribution for those grandfathered students.
In response to feedback from the higher education sector, the bill will created the new disciplines of 'pathway', '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 a reduction of the proposed student contribution amount for social work or psychology units that are undertaken as part of those qualifications that are part of the professional pathway. We look forward to working quickly and closely with the sector to settle on the most efficient and effective way to implement these arrangements. The bill also extends Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding to more work experience and industry units of study, which will enable more students to gain critical workplace skills while they study.
The bill also allows the government to establish its $900 million National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund, which will provide universities with additional support to collaborate with Australian industry to design courses that best equip students with the job-ready skills and experience they need to succeed. The bill also improves flexibility for universities in how they provide places based on what they receive in Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding. This will enable public universities to better respond to student, industry, and community demand and ensure Australia's workforce has the right skills at the right time.
The bill will also introduce a maximum basic grant amount floor for higher education courses. This will provide funding certainty for public providers by establishing that their funding for higher education courses for 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 providers' maximum basic grant amount for those courses for the preceding grant year.
The bill also implements some key recommendations made by Dr Denis Napthine in the National Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy. It will introduce demand driven funding for Commonwealth supported places for regional and remote Indigenous students. After the passage of the bill, all regional and remote Indigenous students who are admitted to a public university in a non-medical bachelor or bachelor honours course of study will be guaranteed a Commonwealth supported place. It improves access to fares allowance by reducing the number of months a student must be receiving eligible payments for fares allowance from six to three months for a trip home.
The bill also enables the government's plans to introduce grant payments through the Indigenous, Regional and Low Socioeconomic Status Attainment Fund. This will allow for more support for regional, rural, Indigenous and low-SES students to access university, graduate and enjoy the benefits that higher education offers. The bill also strengthens and extends student protection and provider integrity measures under the Higher Education Support Act.
Importantly, these amendments do not penalise students for circumstances beyond their control and include the ability to have units discounted due to special circumstances important and warranted. As such, new subsection 36-13(2) acknowledges the systems and processes that higher education providers have in place to identify, protect and provide support for vulnerable students who may be experiencing difficulty in their studies or who may not have the academic ability to undertake a specific higher education course. The bill also contains various technical and administrative changes.
I flag that in the committee stage I'll move amendments to correct some minor technical issues in the bill: to amend the proposed completion rate provision in section 36-13 of the bill to specify circumstances where a higher education provider will be satisfied that it is impracticable for a student to complete the requirements of a unit of study; to extend until 30 June 2021 the loan fee exemption for all undergraduate students accessing FEE-HELP; to reintroduce from 1 January 2021 a 10 per cent discount for students who are eligible for HECS-HELP assistance and pay part of their student contribution per unit upfront; and to reintroduce the student learning entitlement, which will commence on 1 January 2022.
I thank all senators for their contributions in debating these measures, especially those who have engaged in such constructive discussions with the government as we work to improve access to the higher education sector and graduate outcomes. Indeed, I thank many across the sector—the many stakeholders, including universities, students, employers, and industry groups—that have worked with Minister Tehan and the government to provide useful and constructive feedback on the bill and the government's Job-ready Graduates Package. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
It being past 11:45, we will move on to other business.
I have received two letters from minor party senators nominating to be members of the Select Committee on Tobacco Harm Reduction. There being two nominations, in accordance with the standing orders, a ballot will be held. Before the Senate proceeds to ballot, the bells will be rung for four minutes.
The bells having been rung—
Order! The Senate will now proceed to a ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed to all honourable senators, who are requested to write upon the paper the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote. The attendants will now distribute ballot papers to honourable senators. The candidates are Senator Griff and Senator Roberts. I invite Senator Griff and Senator Roberts to act as scrutineers.
A ballot having been taken—
With the leave of the Senate, I will ask that the ballot be counted in one of the lobbies to allow us to proceed to other business.
by leave—I move:
That—
(1) On Thursday, 8 October 2020:
(a) the routine of business from 11.45am shall be:
(i) placing of business;
(ii) notices of motion;
(iii) consideration of a report of the Selection of Bills Committee,
(iv) formal motions; and
(v) consideration of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020;
(b) if by 12.45pm the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 has not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate;
(c) paragraph (b) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(d) following the conclusion of consideration of the bill, the Senate shall return to the routine of business;
(e) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm until 7.30 pm;
(f) at 5.30 pm, consideration of a message relating to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020;
(g) the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended after consideration of the message listed in paragraph (f) till 8pm;
(h) at 8pm, Budget statements and documents – party leaders and independent senators to make a response to the statement and documents of no more than 30 minutes each; and
(i) immediately after the conclusion of the responses referred to in paragraph (h):
(i) if the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 has not yet been passed—the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended till 9 am on Friday, 9 October 2020, and the routine of business shall be as provided in paragraph (2); or
(ii) otherwise, the question for the adjournment shall be proposed. (2) The routine of business on Friday, 9 October 2020 shall be as follows:
(a) from 9 am, consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 only;
(b) if by noon the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COV1D19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 has not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate;
(c) paragraph (b) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under
standing order 142;
(d) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the
bills listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
I think Senator Gallagher will respond that the opposition wishes to vote against the guillotining of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, but thank you for your confidence. I propose that items (1)(a)(v) and paragraphs (b) and (c) be put separately, noting that if the opposition succeed in defeating those, it would require an amendment to paragraph (d). Sorry, do you wish me to say that again, Mr President?
Sorry, I was trying to get a copy of the motion. Please do.
In order to enable the opposition to express its opposition to the guillotining of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, I propose that the Senate put separately paragraphs 1(a)(v), (b) and (c), noting that if the Senate rejects those paragraphs there would be a consequential amendment required subsequently.
I'll just speak briefly following Senator Wong's contribution. Subject to what Senator Wong has outlined, the opposition's position on the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, which is part of this motion, and sitting on Friday to deal with those bills, is that the opposition will be supporting that.
Our view is that the government has decided to wrap up a range of tax measures in one omnibus bill and required that it all be put together. That does not allow us to separately deal with the rather significant tax measures that are included in this bill, which we would prefer to have the time to work through. However, we will not stand in the way of the income tax cuts, which we have been calling for since August last year, to be brought forward and for that money to flow as quickly as possible into the pockets of working Australians around this country. As I said, our preference would be that the government didn't choose to play politics and we are able to deal with these bills separately and allow for longer consideration of the large tax measures, including those that cost $27 billion, but that isn't possible. We're not in a perfect world; we're not in a world where we can choose some of these elements. As such, we will support the passage of those bills as outlined in the motion through debate on Friday.
I rise on behalf of the Greens to say that we will be vehemently opposing this disgraceful government's motion to guillotine a bill that hikes fees for universities and cuts funding for universities. We will not even have time to go to the committee stage and debate the ream of amendments that this government sent through just an hour ago. Shame on Centre Alliance and shame on One Nation for some petty deals that they've done, which Minister Birmingham defined as 'minor technical amendments to this legislation'. You've been taken for a massive ride, you know? You've fallen hook, line and sinker for government spin. You've been totally duped. There's nothing else to say about this. Some of the things that you want are not even in the legislation, so you've said, 'Fingers crossed, and hope for the best.'
An honourable senator interjecting—
I do know what I'm talking about. There might be some secret deal that this government is not letting us in on, but it doesn't even have the decency to let us talk about something which is going to affect all future generations of Australians, which is going to take away the right of education from generations of Australians.
This is how bad you are. If you think this bill is so great, then let's talk about it. Let's talk about the amendments that you're putting up. Let's talk about our amendments that we want to put up to this bill. Yes, it's a terrible bill. There are some absolutely horrific aspects of the bill that we want to move amendments to. Why won't you let us talk about this? Because you know that this is a bad bill. You know that this bill is going to disadvantage Indigenous people. It's going to disadvantage women. It's going to disadvantage first in family. It's going to disadvantage regional Australians. It's going to disadvantage people living in the cities. It's going to disadvantage every single person in Australia.
The amendments that you're moving to this bill are in the same vein as the budget that you have delivered—putting more money into the pockets of rich people. One of the amendments that I quickly had a look at—I haven't even had a chance to look at the others—gives a discount to people who pay fees upfront. Who are those people who are going to pay fees upfront? I think Senator Lambie said it exactly like it is: it is the rich who can afford to pay $14,000 a year. You're giving a tax break to them yet again. That's what it is.
An honourable senator interjecting—
Absolutely right; you don't care. You don't care about anyone else in this country but the super-wealthy and the rich. That's all you care about. You've told us that again and again this week during your budget speeches. You stand up here and say, 'People shouldn't go to university' or, 'The Greens say that everyone should go to university.' That's not true. We want education available to all, so that people can have a choice to do what they want to.
An honourable senator: Freedom!
Absolutely! That's what democracy is about. You are sitting here crushing the democratic rights, the democratic freedoms, of people in this country. But you're also crushing democracy overall when you try and guillotine us from speaking on things, from debating things, that will actually put up a very bleak future for Australians. That's what this bill is going to do. You don't even understand that. It's cutting research funding. You know that the money that you announced in the budget goes nowhere near the billions of dollars of research funding that this bill actually cuts out. These are the people who have already lost their jobs in droves. They're not coming back. Our researchers are not coming back, and we need those people to come out of this recession, to come out of this pandemic—
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Senator Waters interjecting—
Thanks, Larissa. I think, Mr President, you should probably call order. Senator Rennick has been ranting at me for the last 10 minutes.
Order! I'm dealing with the procedural matters. Can I honestly say that down that end of the chamber there are very few people with a halo, but everyone should remain quiet. Now a senator has asked for the respect of the chamber. I'm going to demand it.
An honourable senator: Point of order.
Can I finish ruling on this? Senators need to remain quiet while I am issuing a ruling.
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Senator Rennick! I was actually just asking senators to remain quiet while I'm issuing a ruling! Senator Hanson-Young?
Thank you, Mr President. I would urge you to ask Senator Rennick to withdraw his foul language directed at Senator Faruqi.
I couldn't hear anything. I'm going to do what is normally done, which is that, where something is not in the Hansard, I invite a senator, if something was said that was unparliamentary, to withdraw. I had no chance of hearing anything then. If anything unparliamentary was said, I encourage it to be withdrawn.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Thank you. Senator Rennick has withdrawn. Senator Faruqi to continue, and I remind senators of the need to remain silent in the chamber.
Thank you, Mr President. Thousands upon thousands of students and uni staff have contacted all of us sitting on this side, and all of you sitting on that side, telling us how horrible, how bad and how horrific the consequences of this bill are going to be. Yet obviously, on that side, it's fallen on deaf ears. Well, it hasn't fallen on deaf ears on this side. So we still want to continue on and talk about these things and try and change some of the things that are in this bill. We want to debate your amendments. We want to see what you are amending. We want to have a chance to look at what they are and give you the chance to defend them. But you can't defend them—that's what the issue is here. You cannot defend a single thing in this terrible bill. It is indefensible what's going on in this bill. Shame on all of you! We will absolutely be opposing your guillotine motion. Shame!
Here we go: the fix is in—a dirty, secret deal between the government and the Labor Party to jam the tax cuts through this Senate with no inquiry whatsoever. What we can tell from this dirty deal is that $18 billion of government expenditure, based on a flawed, trickle-down, neoliberal model that we know is not going to work, is now going to be jammed through this Senate with no opportunity to scrutinise the details whatsoever. Labor isn't even bothered to go through the motions of being an opposition party in this place. What is actually the point of the Labor Party anymore?
Bringing forward the stage 2 tax cuts will mean that the millionaires get $2,500 a year, the working poor get 250 bucks a year and, if you haven't got a job, you just line up for your regular kick in the teeth from the neoliberals in this place. The Labor and Liberal parties are trying to con this country and con Australian people into thinking these tax cuts are going to trickle down. Well, I'll tell you something: it's been 40 years since Hawke and Keating, while we've been waiting for trickle-down to work, and the people at the bottom are dying of thirst.
This is a sad day for democracy. It's a sad day for this Senate, but do you know who this is the saddest day for? It's the Australian Labor Party, who are capitulating again to the neoliberals, capitulating again to the government. They don't even want an inquiry into $18 billion worth of government expenditure.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Seriously, why don't you just go and join the Liberal-National Party, Senator Watt? You can interject all you like, but you might as well just join the LNP, sit over there and form the neoliberal trickle-down economics party. You're a disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
My contribution to the discussion on this motion will be very brief. This is quite a lengthy motion. It's clearly been prepared in advance, but not much notice was given. I just point that that is a little bit disrespectful. In relation to the gag motion, I'll quote a tweet from Rebekha Sharkie from the other place on 3 September 2020. She said:
Earlier this week Govt gagged debate on the Higher Ed Bill which meant few of us got to speak. … This is not democracy.
I ask Centre Alliance to reflect on that when they vote in relation to this gag motion on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020.
I point out that, having formerly been a member of the Centre Alliance party, the rules in relation to gagging of debates were basically that they would never gag a second reading and they would only gag the committee stage in circumstances where there was obvious filibustering. What this gag will mean is that genuine questions that were to be asked will not be asked. We will not be able to get clarification on elements of the bill where there is uncertainty, and that may also affect later interpretations in any proceedings. It's an awful thing to do. We should not be gagging debate on the higher education bill.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be put.
I will now put the motion moved by Senator Cormann, except for the following clauses, which will be put subsequently at the request of the opposition: clauses (1)(a)(v), (1)(b) and (1)(c).
The question is that clauses 1(a)(v), 1(b) and 1(c) of the motion be agreed to.
I can announce the result of the ballot as follows: Senator Griff, 51 votes; and Senator Roberts, nine votes. Senator Griff is therefore elected as the crossbench member of the Select Committee on Tobacco Harm Reduction.
by leave—I move:
That the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today from 1pm.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 pm today:
No. 4 Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020
No. 5 Family Law Amendment (Risk Screening Protections) Bill 2020;
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today; and
(c) general business notices of motion no. 825, standing in the name of Senator Siewert relating to the coronavirus, and no. 828, standing in the names of Senators Lambie and Patrick relating to the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics be considered during general business today
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will now go to notices of motion.
by leave—I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for eight sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Foreign AFS Licensees) Instrument 2020/198 and the ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Funds Management Financial Services) Instrument 2020/199.
On behalf of Senator Wong, I rise to give notice of a motion concerning the rural, regional and transport committee.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present the ninth report of 2020 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 9 OF 2020
1 . The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 7.26pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2020 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 November 2020 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 November 2020 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).
(d) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:
(Dean Smith)
Chair
8 October 2020
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date :
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To ensure the intent of the legislation is met, without unintended consequences, including with respect to proposed immunity provisions as well as assurances from the Government that the Bill does not expand or alter existing authorities to deploy the Australian Defence Force.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The Department of Defence Attorney-General's Department Emergency Management Australia Law Council of Australia Defence Reserves Association Australia Defence Association
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 9 November 2020
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Investigate the implications of the Bill on universities maintaining their university status.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date: November 27, 2020
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendment) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date: 5 November 2020
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: to examine the impact of prolonged Cashless Debit Card trial sites on people's health and wellbeing and the impact of having the Cashless Debit Card rolled out to First Nations peoples in the Northern Territory.
Possible submissions or evidence from: ANU, Consumer Action Law Centre, Dr Elise Klein, ACOSS, National Social Security Rights Network, Anglicare, Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Australian Human Rights Commission, Danila Dilba Health Service, Dr Shelley
Bielefeld, The Say No Seven, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Professor Jon Altman and Dr Francis Markham
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 1 December
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date: 26 November 2020
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Committee consideration of this Bill as it seeks to expand Extended Supervision Orders as requested by the Minister of Home Affairs.
The Bill also provides for electronic monitoring of people by the Australian Federal Police. These issues should be considered by the Committee.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: March 2020
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Senate needs to consider:
Youth and general unemployment
Wages and conditions
Aggregate demand, stimulus and job creation
Integrity and whether it will provide genuine employment additionality
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Treasury & ATO
Department of Education, Skills and Employment
Economists and Academics
ACTU
BCA
COSBOA
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economic References Committee
Possible hearing date(s): 2-27 November
Possible reporting date: 4 December
Appendix 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 11 November 2020
Appendix 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Committee consideration of a further piece of legislation in on area that recently been the subject of multiple complex pieces of legislation.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Sport Integrity Australia,
Nikki Dryden (former Olympic athlete and lawyer)
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 30 November 2020
Appendix 9
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Given over $50 billion of tax cuts contained within, Senate needs to consider:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s): 2-26 November
Possible reporting date: 1 December 2020
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and in respect of the:
(a) Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2020; and
(b) the following bills, the bills not be referred for inquiry and report:
(i) Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020;
(ii) Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020;
(iii) Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020;
(iv) Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020; and
(v) National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020".
Mr President, in the interests of time we would like to separate out (b)(ii) and put those questions separately.
I also have an amendment to (b)(ii) from Senator Faruqi. I will put that amendment first, because then I can put yours separately.
I move:
Omit subparagraph (b)(ii) and add, at the end of the amendment:
(c) Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 November 2020.
Question agreed to.
I move:
Omit subparagraph (b)(iv) and add, at the end of the amendment:
(d) Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2020.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Can we cancel the division and have it recorded that the Greens voted aye.
Sure. With the leave of the chamber, we'll cancel the division, and it will be recorded that the Greens voted in favour of that motion.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Duniam, with the amendment of Senator Faruqi incorporated, to the motion for adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 26 November 2020".
Is a division required?
I would like to record the opposition's voting position, thanks.
The noes have it, but we'll record the opposition supporting the amendment.
Question negatived.
I note our extreme opposition to this. It is outrageous that this bill will not be reviewed. This is a permanent entrenching of these trials.
Senator Siewert, this is not that. So you supported the amendment moved by the opposition, but the call on it was that the noes have it.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2020".
The question is the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.
In accordance with the resolution just agreed to, I will now put the questions required to dispose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 as we are past 12.45. I will first deal with the amendment circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 1033.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 4, page 44 (line 18), omit the heading.
(2) Schedule 4, item 40, page 44 (line 19) to page 45 (line 18), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 4, Division 2, page 45 (lines 19 to 31), to be opposed.
The question is that item 40 and division 2 of schedule 4 stand as printed.
The advice from the clerk is that amendment (1) on that sheet now does not need to be put, so I will now deal with the amendments and requests circulated by the government. I understand there's an addendum and there are supplementary explanatory memorandums.
I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum and two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government's amendments to this bill.
Senator Faruqi, you are seeking the call?
Mr President, I request that the amendments on sheets RV130 and RV133 be put separately.
So you're voting separately on those amendments?
Yes.
Would you like amendments (1) to (4) on sheet RV133 put separately or do you want (1) and (4) put separately?
We would like the amendments (1) to (3), (5) and (6) and request (4) on sheet RV130 to be put separately to the amendments on sheet RV133.
Thank you. Let me just deal with a matter before that. Is it the wish of the chamber that the statement of reasons accompanying the circulated requests relating to this bill be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the requests to which it relates? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
The question is that amendments (1) to (3), (5) and (6) and request (4) on sheet RV130, circulated by the government, be agreed to.
Government ' s circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 8), insert:
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (before table item 9), insert:
(3) Schedule 1, item 14, page 15 (table item 5), omit "$13,500", substitute "$13,250".
(4) Page 45 (after line 31), after Schedule 4, insert:
Schedule 4A—Up - front payment discount
Higher Education Support Act 2003
1 At the end of Subdivision 36 - D
Add:
36 - 50 Provider must not accept up - front payments of more than 90% of student contribution amounts
A higher education provider must not accept, from a person who:
(a) is enrolled in a unit of study with the provider; and
(b) is entitled to *HECS-HELP assistance for the unit;
*up-front payments in relation to the unit totalling more than 90% of the person's *student contribution amount for the unit.
Note: For entitlement to HECS-HELP assistance: see Division 90.
2 Paragraph 90 - 1(f)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(f) the student either:
(i) *meets the tax file number requirements (see section 187-1); or
(ii) pays, as one or more *up-front payments in relation to the unit, 90% of the student's *student contribution amount for the unit; and
3 Subsection 93 - 15(1)
Omit "all or".
4 At the end of section 93 - 15
Add:
(3) A payment made in relation to a unit of study for which a person is liable to pay the person's *student contribution amount is not an up-front payment in relation to the unit to the extent that:
(a) the payment; or
(b) if other such payments have already been made in relation to the unit—the sum of the payment and all of those other payments;
exceeds 90% of the person's *student contribution amount for the unit.
Note 1: For when the Commonwealth pays one-ninth of the up-front payments made in relation a unit of study, see sections 96-2 and 96-3.
Note 2: It is a condition of grants under Part 2-2 that a higher education provider not accept, from a student who is entitled to HECS-HELP assistance for a unit of study, up-front payments in relation the unit totalling more than 90% of a student's student contribution amount for the unit: see section 36-50.
5 Section 96 - 1 (at the end of the heading)
Add "-no upfront payment of student contribution amount".
6 Section 96 - 1
After "education provider", insert "and no *up-front payments are made in relation to the unit".
7 After section 96 - 1
Insert:
96 - 2 Payments to higher education providers—partial up - front payment of student contribution amount
Up - front payments made for one unit of study only
(1) If:
(a) a student is entitled to an amount of *HECS-HELP assistance for a unit of study (the relevant unit) in which the student is enrolled with a higher education provider; and
(b) one or more *up-front payments have been made in relation to the relevant unit; and
(c) both of the following apply:
(i) the amount of that up-front payment, or the sum of those up-front payments, is less than 90% of the student's *student contribution amount for the relevant unit;
(ii) the amount of that up-front payment, or the sum of those up-front payments, is $500 or more; and
(d) either:
(i) the student is not enrolled with a provider as a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to any other units of study that have the same *census date as the relevant unit; or
(ii) if the student is so enrolled in relation to one or more such other units of study, no up-front payments have been made for any of those units;
the Commonwealth must pay the amount of HECS-HELP assistance for the relevant unit in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).
Up - front payments made for more than one unit of study
(2) If:
(a) a student is entitled to an amount of *HECS-HELP assistance for a unit of study (the relevant unit) in which the student is enrolled with a higher education provider; and
(b) one or more *up-front payments have been made in relation to the relevant unit; and
(c) the student is enrolled with the provider as a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to one or more other units of study that have the same *census date as the relevant unit; and
(d) one or more up-front payments have been made in relation to one or more of those other units; and
(e) both of the following apply:
(i) the sum of the up-front payments made in relation to the relevant unit and those other units is less than 90% of the sum of the student's *student contribution amounts for the relevant unit and those other units;
(ii) the sum of the up-front payments made in relation to the relevant unit and those other units is $500 or more;
the Commonwealth must pay the amount of HECS-HELP assistance for the relevant unit in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).
Payment of loan amount
(3) The Commonwealth must:
(a) as a benefit to the student, lend to the student an amount equal to the difference between the amount of *HECS-HELP assistance for the relevant unit and the *HECS-HELP discount for the relevant unit; and
(b) pay to the provider the amount lent in discharge of that amount of the student's liability to pay the student's *student contribution amount for the relevant unit.
Payment of discount amount
(4) The Commonwealth must, as a benefit to the student, pay to the provider an amount equal to the *HECS-HELP discount for the relevant unit in discharge of that amount of the student's liability to pay the student's *student contribution amount for the relevant unit.
HECS - HELP discount
(5) The HECS-HELP discount for a unit of study is an amount equal to one-ninth of the *up-front payment, or the sum of all of the up-front payments made, in relation to the unit.
Example: Robert is required to pay a student contribution amount for a unit of study of $2,745 by 31 January 2021, and makes an up-front payment in relation to the unit of $900 on 20 January 2021.
Robert is entitled to HECS-HELP assistance for the unit of $1,845 ($2,745 minus $900), which the Commonwealth must pay to the higher education provider.
The up-front payment in relation to the unit exceeded $500 so there is a HECS-HELP discount of $100 (one-ninth of $900). The Commonwealth lends to Robert the remainder of the HECS-HELP assistance in relation to the unit, an amount of $1,745 ($1,845 minus $100).
96 - 3 Payments to higher education providers—full up - front payment of student contribution amount
If:
(a) a student is entitled to an amount of *HECS-HELP assistance for a unit of study in which the student is enrolled with a higher education provider; and
(b) one or more *up-front payments have been made in relation the unit; and
(c) the amount of that up-front payment, or the sum of those up-front payments, is equal to 90% of the student's *student contribution amount for the unit;
the Commonwealth must, as a benefit to the student, pay to the provider the amount of HECS-HELP assistance for the unit in discharge of that amount of the student's liability to pay the student's student contribution amount for the unit.
Note: The student does not incur a HECS-HELP debt in relation to the amount of HECS-HELP assistance paid by the Commonwealth to the provider under this section.
8 Subsection 137 - 5(1)
After "section 96-1", insert "or 96-2".
9 Paragraph 193 - 1(5 ) ( b)
Omit "for the unit have been made totalling 100%", substitute "in relation to the unit have been made totalling 90%".
10 Paragraph 193 - 5(1 ) ( d)
After "to the unit,", insert "90% of".
11 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1
Insert:
HECS -HELP discount has the meaning given by subsection 96-2(5).
12 Application of amendments
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an up-front payment made in relation to a unit of study that has a census date on or after 1 January 2021.
(5) Page 46 (before line 1), before Schedule 5, insert:
Schedule 4B—Student learning entitlement
Higher Education Support Act 2003
1 At the end of section 3 - 10
Add:
Chapter 3 also deals with a person's Student Learning Entitlement.
2 After paragraph 36 - 10(1 ) ( c)
Insert:
(d) if the course of study is a course of study other than an *enabling course—the unit is *covered by the person's Student Learning Entitlement; and
3 At the end of subsection 36 - 20(3)
Add:
; or (c) section 36-24BA applies in relation to the provider in relation to the unit.
4 After section 36 -24B
Insert:
36 - 24BA Providers to repay amounts—person ' s SLE amount re - credited in special circumstances
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a person has been enrolled as a *Commonwealth supported student with a higher education provider in a unit of study; and
(b) the person's *SLE amount has been re-credited under section 79-1 with an amount equal to the *EFTSL value of the unit.
(2) The provider must:
(a) pay to the person an amount equal to the payment, or the sum of the payments, that the person made in relation to the person's *student contribution amount for the unit; and
(b) pay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to any *HECS-HELP assistance to which the person was entitled for the unit.
5 Section 65 - 1
Omit:
This Chapter provides for 4 kinds of assistance that the Commonwealth provides to students.
Note: The Commonwealth meets all or part of the higher education costs of students who are enrolled in places funded under Part 2-2.
substitute:
This Chapter deals with a person's Student Learning Entitlement and provides for 4 kinds of assistance that the Commonwealth provides to students.
Note: The Commonwealth meets all or part of the higher education costs of students who are enrolled in places funded under Part 2-2.
A person may be entitled to HECS-HELP assistance for a unit of study for which the person is a Commonwealth supported student if, among other things, the unit is covered by the person's Student Learning Entitlement. Part 3-1 deals with a person's Student Learning Entitlement.
6 Before Part 3 - 2
Insert:
Part 3 - 1—Student Learning Entitlement
Division 70—Introduction
70 - 1 What this Part is about
A person may be entitled to HECS-HELP assistance for a unit of study for which the person is a Commonwealth supported student if, among other things, the unit is covered by the person's Student Learning Entitlement.
Broadly speaking, a person will start with an SLE amount that is equivalent to 7 years of full-time study. However, the person's SLE amount may be added to for the purposes of certain courses of study or in certain circumstances.
A person's SLE amount is reduced as the person undertakes units of study as a Commonwealth supported student. The person's SLE amount may also be re-credited in certain circumstances.
70 - 5 The Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines
*Student Learning Entitlement is also dealt with in the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines. The provisions of this Part indicate when a particular matter is or may be dealt with in these Guidelines.
Note: The Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines are made by the Minister under section 238-10.
Division 73—Student Learning Entitlement and SLE amount
73 - 1 Student Learning Entitlement and SLE amount
(1) A person's Student Learning Entitlement is an entitlement that consists of:
(a) *ordinary SLE that the person has; and
(b) any *additional SLE that the person has; and
(c) any *lifelong SLE that the person has.
(2) A person's SLEamount at a particular time is the sum of the following amounts:
(a) the amount of *ordinary SLE that the person has under subsection 73-5(3);
(b) the amount of any *additional SLE that the person has under subsection 73-10(3);
(c) the amount of any *lifelong SLE that the person has under subsection 73-15(3);
taking into account any reduction that has occurred before that time under Division 76 and any re-crediting that has occurred before that time under amount Division 79.
73 - 5 Ordinary SLE
Persons who have ordinary SLE
(1) If a person is an *eligible person on 1 January 2022, the person has, on that day, ordinary SLE.
(2) If a person becomes (by birth or otherwise) an *eligible person on a day after 1 January 2022, the person has, on the earliest such day, ordinary SLE.
Amount of ordinary SLE
(3) The amount of *ordinary SLE that the person has on the day referred to in subsection (1) or (2) (as the case may be) is an amount equal to 7 *EFTSL.
Eligible person
(4) An eligible person is:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) a citizen of New Zealand; or
(c) a *permanent visa holder.
73 - 10 Additional SLE
(1) A person has additional SLE if:
(a) the person is enrolled in a *course of study with a higher education provider; and
(b) the course is specified, or is a course of a kind specified, in the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(c) the person meets any other requirements specified in the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines.
(2) The person has *additional SLE on the day that the person enrols in the *course of study.
(3) The amount of *additional SLE that the person has on that day is an amount (expressed in *EFTSL) worked out in accordance with the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines.
73 - 15 Lifelong SLE
(1) A person has lifelong SLE in the circumstances specified in the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines.
(2) The person has *lifelong SLE on the day specified in the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines.
(3) The amount of *lifelong SLE that a person has on that day is an amount (expressed in *EFTSL) worked out in accordance with the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines.
73 - 20 Student Learning Entitlement is not transferable
A person's *Student Learning Entitlement cannot be transferred to, or used by, another person.
73 - 25 Ceasing to be an eligible person
(1) A person ceases to have *Student Learning Entitlement if the person ceases to be an *eligible person.
(2) If a person who ceased to be an *eligible person at a particular time (the cessation time) becomes an eligible person again at a later time, the person has, at that later time, the same *SLE amount (if any) that the person had at the cessation time.
Division 76—Reduction of a person ' s SLE amount
76 - 1 Reduction of a person ' s SLE amount
(1) A higher education provider must, on the *Secretary's behalf, reduce a person's *SLE amount at a particular time if:
(a) the person enrolled in a unit of study as part of a *course of study with the provider; and
(b) at the end of the *census date for the unit, the person remained so enrolled; and
(c) the person is a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to the unit; and
(d) the unit is not:
(i) an *ineligible work experience unit for the person; or
(ii) a *replacement unit; and
(e) the person has, on or before the census date for the unit, completed, signed and given to an *appropriate officer of the provider a *request for Commonwealth assistance in relation to:
(i) the unit; or
(ii) where the course of study of which the unit forms a part is undertaken with the provider—the course of study.
Note: A person's SLE amount must be re-credited in certain circumstances: see Division 79.
(2) The amount of the reduction is an amount equal to the *EFTSL value of the unit of study.
(3) The reduction takes effect immediately after the *census date for the unit of study.
(4) If a higher education provider reduces a person's *SLE amount at a particular time under subsection (1), the provider must, in accordance with the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines and on the *Secretary's behalf, reduce any one or more of the following amounts to take account of the reduction under that subsection:
(a) an amount of *ordinary SLE (if any) that the person has at that time;
(b) an amount of *additional SLE (if any) that the person has at that time;
(c) an amount of *lifelong SLE (if any) that the person has at that time.
(5) If a higher education provider is unable to act for the purposes of subsection (1) or (4), the *Secretary may act as if any one or more of the references in that subsection to the provider were a reference to the Secretary.
Division 79—Re - crediting a person ' s SLE amount
Subdivision 79 - A—Re - crediting a person ' s SLE amount in special circumstances
79 - 1 Re -crediting a person ' s SLE amount if special circumstances apply to the person
(1) A higher education provider must, on the *Secretary's behalf, re-credit a person's *SLE amount at a particular time with an amount equal to the *EFTSL value of a unit of study if:
(a) the person has been enrolled in the unit with the provider; and
(b) the unit would, if completed, form part of a *course of study undertaken with that provider or another higher education provider; and
(c) the unit is not:
(i) an *ineligible work experience unit for the person; or
(ii) a *replacement unit; and
(d) the person has not completed the requirements for the unit during the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit; and
(e) one or more *up-front payments have been made in relation to the unit and the amount of that payment, or the sum of those payments, is equal to 90% of the person's *student contribution amount for the unit; and
(f) the provider is satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person (see section 79-5); and
(g) the person applies, in writing, to the provider for the re-crediting of the person's SLE amount; and
(h) either:
(i) the application is made before the end of the application period for the application under section 79-10; or
(ii) the provider waives the requirement that the application be made before the end of that period on the ground that it would not be, or was not, possible for the application to be made before the end of that period.
Note: It is a condition of a grant to the provider under Part 2-2 that the provider repay certain amounts relating to the unit: see section 36-24BA.
(2) If a higher education provider re-credits a person's *SLE amount at a particular time under subsection (1), the provider must, in accordance with the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines and on the *Secretary's behalf, re-credit any one or more of the following amounts to take account of the re-credit under that subsection:
(a) an amount of *ordinary SLE (if any) that the person has at that time;
(b) an amount of *additional SLE (if any) that the person has at that time;
(c) an amount of *lifelong SLE (if any) that the person has at that time.
Note: A refusal to re-credit one or more of those amounts is reviewable under Part 5-7.
(3) If a higher education provider is unable to act for any one or more of the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), or section 79-5, 79-10 or 79-15, the *Secretary may act as if any one or more of the references in those provisions to the provider were a reference to the Secretary.
79 - 5 Special circumstances
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 79-1(1) (f), special circumstances apply to a person who made an application under paragraph 79-1(1) (g) for the re-crediting of the person's *SLE amount if, and only if, the higher education provider receiving the application is satisfied that circumstances apply to the person that:
(a) are beyond the person's control; and
(b) do not make their full impact on the person until on or after the *census date for the unit of study in question; and
(c) make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements for the unit in the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit.
(2) The Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines may specify circumstances in which a higher education provider will be satisfied of a matter referred to in paragraph (1) (a), (b) or (c). A decision of a higher education provider under subsection (1) must be in accordance with any such guidelines.
79 - 10 Application period
(1) If:
(a) the person who applied under paragraph 79-1(1) (g) for the re-crediting of the person's *SLE amount with an amount equal to the *EFTSL value of a unit of study has withdrawn the person's enrolment in the unit with a higher education provider; and
(b) the provider gives notice to the person that the withdrawal has taken effect;
the application period for the application is the period of 12 months after the day specified in the notice as the day the withdrawal takes effect.
(2) If subsection (1) does not apply, the application period for an application made under paragraph 79-1(1) (g) is the period of 12 months after the end of the period during which the applicant undertook, or was to undertake, the unit of study.
79 - 15 Dealing with applications
(1) If:
(a) an application is made to a higher education provider under paragraph 79-1(1) (g) before the end of the application period for the application under section 79-10; or
(b) a higher education provider waives the requirement that an application made to the provider under that paragraph be made before the end of that period on the ground that it would not be, or was not, possible for the application to be made before the end of that period;
the provider must, as soon as practicable, consider the application and notify the applicant of the decision on the application.
(2) The notice must include a statement of the reasons for the decision.
Note: Refusals of applications are reviewable under Part 5-7.
Subdivision 79 - B—Re - crediting a person ' s SLE amount if the person ' s HELP balance is re - credited
79 - 20 Re - crediting a person ' s SLE amount if the person ' s HELP balance is re - credited
(1) A higher education provider must, on the *Secretary's behalf, re-credit a person's *SLE amount at a particular time with an amount equal to the *EFTSL value of a unit of study if the person's *HELP balance is re-credited under any of the following provisions with an amount equal to the amount of *HECS-HELP assistance that the person received for the unit of study:
(a) subsection 97-25(2) (which deals with the main case of re-crediting a person's HELP balance);
(b) subsection 97-27(1) (which deals with the re-crediting of a person's HELP balance if the person does not have a tax file number);
(c) subsection 97-42(1) (which deals with the re-crediting of a person's HELP balance if a higher education provider defaults);
(d) subsection 97-45(1) (which deals with the re-crediting of a person's HELP balance if a higher education provider completes a *request for Commonwealth assistance);
(e) subsection 97-50(1) (which deals with the re-crediting of a person's HELP balance if the person was not entitled to assistance).
(2) If a higher education provider re-credits a person's *SLE amount at a particular time under subsection (1), the provider must, in accordance with the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines and on the *Secretary's behalf, re-credit any one or more of the following amounts to take account of the re-credit under that subsection:
(a) an amount of *ordinary SLE (if any) that the person has at that time;
(b) an amount of *additional SLE (if any) that the person has at that time;
(c) an amount of *lifelong SLE (if any) that the person has at that time.
(3) If a higher education provider is unable to act for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), the *Secretary may act as if any one or more of the references in that subsection to the provider were a reference to the Secretary.
Division 82—Unit of study covered by a person ' s Student Learning Entitlement
82 - 1 Unit of study covered by a person ' s Student Learning Entitlement—person ' s SLE amount not exceeded at enrolment
Person enrolled in one unit of study only
(1) A unit of study is covered by a person's Student Learning Entitlementif:
(a) the person enrolled in the unit (the relevant unit) as a part of a *course of study with a higher education provider; and
(b) at the time of that enrolment, the person had not enrolled in any other units of study as a part of that course, or as a part of another course of study, with that provider or with another higher education provider that have *census dates that will occur after that time; and
(c) the *EFTSL value of the relevant unit does not exceed the person's *SLE amount as at that time; and
(d) if:
(i) the person's SLE amount as at that time includes an amount of *additional SLE in relation to a particular course of study; and
(ii) the EFTSL value of the relevant unit exceeds the amount worked out by subtracting that amount of additional SLE from the person's SLE amount as at that time;
the person enrolled in the relevant unit as a part of that particular course of study.
Person enrolled in more than one unit of study
(2) A unit of study is covered by a person's Student Learning Entitlementif:
(a) the person enrolled in the unit (the relevant unit) as a part of a *course of study with a higher education provider; and
(b) at the time of that enrolment, the person had also enrolled in one or more other units of study as a part of that course, or as a part of another course of study, with that provider or with another higher education provider; and
(c) those other units have *census dates that will occur after that time; and
(d) the person is a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to each of those other units; and
(e) the sum of the following does not exceed the person's *SLE amount as at that time:
(i) the *EFTSL value of the relevant unit;
(ii) the sum of the EFTSL values of each of those other units; and
(f) if:
(i) the person's SLE amount as at that time includes an amount of *additional SLE in relation to a particular course of study; and
(ii) the EFTSL value of the relevant unit exceeds the amount worked out by subtracting that amount of additional SLE from the person's SLE amount as at that time;
the person enrolled in the relevant unit as a part of that particular course of study.
82 - 5 Unit of study covered by a person ' s Student Learning Entitlement—person ' s SLE amount exceeded at enrolment
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the person enrolled in unit of study (the relevant unit) as a part of a *course of study with a higher education provider (the relevant provider); and
(b) at the time of that enrolment (the enrolment time), the person had also enrolled in one or more other units of study as a part of that course, or as a part of another course of study, with the relevant provider or with another higher education provider; and
(c) those other units have *census dates that will occur after the enrolment time; and
(d) the person is a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to each of those other units; and
(e) the sum of the following exceeds the person's *SLE amount as at the enrolment time:
(i) the *EFTSL value of the relevant unit;
(ii) the sum of the EFTSL values of each of those other units.
(2) The relevant unit is covered by a person's Student Learning Entitlementif:
(a) the person notifies an *appropriate officer of the relevant provider that the person does not wish to be a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to one or more of those other units of study (the excluded units); and
(b) the sum of the following does not exceed the person's *SLE amount as at the enrolment time:
(i) the *EFTSL value of the relevant unit;
(ii) the sum of the EFTSL values of each of those other units that are not excluded units; and
(c) if:
(i) the person's SLE amount as at that time includes an amount of *additional SLE in relation to a particular course of study; and
(ii) the EFTSL value of the relevant unit exceeds the amount worked out by subtracting that amount of additional SLE from the person's SLE amount as at that time;
the person enrolled in the relevant unit as a part of that particular course of study.
(3) A notice under paragraph (2) (a) must be given:
(a) in writing; and
(b) on or before the *census date for the relevant unit.
7 Subsection 169 - 5(4)
After "this Act", insert "(including the person's *Student Learning Entitlement)".
8 At the end of subsection 169 - 10(5)
Add "(including the person's *Student Learning Entitlement)".
9 Section 206 - 1 (before table item 1B)
Insert:
10 Section 206 - 1 (note 1)
Before "1B,", insert "1BA, 1BB,".
11 Subsection 238 - 10(1) (after table item 8A)
Insert:
12 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1
Insert:
additional SLE means additional SLE that a person has under subsection 73-10(1).
covered by a person ' s Student Learning Entitlement has the meaning given by subsections 82-1(1) and (2) and 82-5(2).
eligible person has the meaning given by subsection 73-5(4).
lifelong SLE means lifelong SLE that a person has under subsection 73-15(1).
ordinary SLE means ordinary SLE that a person has under subsection 73-5(1) or (2).
SLE amount has the meaning given by subsection 73-1(2).
Student Learning Entitlement has the meaning given by subsection 73-1(1).
13 Application of amendments
(1) The amendments of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 made by items 2, 3 and 4 of this Schedule apply in relation to a unit of study that has a census date that is on or after 1 January 2022 (whether the unit of study is part of a course of study commenced before, on or after that day).
(2) Divisions 76, 79 and 82 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, as inserted by this Schedule, apply in relation to a unit of study that has a census date that is on or after 1 January 2022 (whether the unit of study is part of a course of study commenced before, on or after that day).
(6) Schedule 5, page 48 (after line 6), after item 9, insert:
9A Subparagraph 137 - 10(2 ) ( b ) ( i)
Omit "30 September 2020", substitute "30 June 2021".
9B After subparagraph 137 - 10(2 ) ( b ) ( i)
Insert:
(ia) for a unit of study with a census date on or after 1 July 2021—an amount equal to 120% of the loan; or
(7) Schedule 5, item 16, page 49 (lines 13 to 17), to be opposed.
-----------------
Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests
Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:
Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation
53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.
The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.
Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.
Amendment (4)
The effect of this amendment is to insert proposed sections 96-2 and 96-3 into the Higher Education Support Act 2003 which will require the Commonwealth to pay an amount to a higher education provider in discharge of part of a student's liability to pay the student's student contribution amount for a unit of study. It is covered by section 53 and will increase a proposed burden on the people because it will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 238-12 of that Act.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (4)
If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 238-12 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.
The question now is that item 16 of schedule 5 stand as printed.
The government opposed schedule 5 in the following terms—
(7) Schedule 5, item 16, page 49 (lines 13 to 17), to be opposed
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the amendments on sheet RV133, circulated earlier by the government, be agreed to.
Government ' s circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 4, page 44 (before line 19), before item 40, insert:
39A Subparagraph 19 - 45(1)(c)(i)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(i) under subsection 36-12(2), paragraph 36-13(2)(b) or subsection 36-20(1); or
39B Paragraph 19 - 45(4)(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) under subsection 36 12(2), paragraph 36 13(2)(b) or subsection 36-20(1); or
39C Paragraph 19 - 50(1)(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) under subsection 36-12(2), paragraph 36-13(2)(b) or subsection 36-20(1); or
39D Paragraph 19 - 50(2)(c)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(c) under subsection 36-12(2), paragraph 36-13(2)(b) or subsection 36-20(1)); or
39E Subsection 19 - 60(1)
Omit "subsection 36-12(2) or 36-20(1)", insert "subsection 36-12(2), paragraph 36-13(2)(b), subsection 36-20(1) or".
(2) Schedule 4, item 40, page 45 (lines 16 to 18), omit paragraph 36-13(2)(b), substitute:
(b) in respect of which the provider is satisfied that special circumstances apply in relation to the student (see subsection (3)).
(3) Schedule 4, item 40, page 45 (after line 18), at the end of section 36 13, add:
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), special circumstances apply in relation to the student in respect of a unit of study if, and only if, the higher education provider is satisfied that circumstances apply in relation to the student that:
(a) are beyond the student's control; and
(b) do not make their full impact on the student until on or after the *census date for the unit of study; and
(c) make it impracticable for the student to complete the requirements for the unit during the period during which the student undertook, or was to undertake, the unit.
(4) The Administration Guidelines may specify circumstances in which a higher education provider will be satisfied of a matter referred to in paragraph (3)(a) or (b).
(5) A higher education provider will be satisfied of the matter referred to in paragraph (3)(c) in relation to a unit of study if the provider is satisfied that any of the following circumstances apply in relation to a student:
(a) the student's medical condition changed or worsened to such an extent that the student was unable to complete the requirements for the unit;
(b) a member of the student's family died and it is unreasonable to expect the student to have completed the requirements for the unit;
(c) a member of the student's family had a serious medical condition and it is unreasonable to expect the student to have completed the requirements for the unit;
(d) financial difficulties experienced by the student, or a member of the student's family, are such that it is unreasonable to expect the student to have completed the requirements for the unit;
(e) the student's employment status or arrangements changed such that the student was unable to complete the requirements for the unit;
(f) changes made in relation to the unit by the provider, or another higher education provider, disadvantaged the student;
(g) it is unreasonable to expect the student to have completed the requirements for the unit because of a natural disaster, or other emergency, that occurred in Australia;
(h) any other circumstances that the provider considers relevant;
(i) any other circumstances specified in the Administration Guidelines for the purposes of this paragraph.
(6) Without limiting paragraph (5)(i), the Administration Guidelines may specify circumstances relating to a matter mentioned in subsection (5).
(7) If the Administration Guidelines specify circumstances for the purposes of subsection (4) or paragraph (5)(i), a decision of a higher education provider under this section must be in accordance with those guidelines.
(8) If a higher education provider is unable to act for the purposes of this section (other than subsection (1)), the *Secretary may act as if one or more references in this section (other than subsection (1)) to a higher education provider were a reference to the Secretary.
(4) Schedule 4, Division 1 of Part 2, page 45 (before line 19), at the end of the Division, add:
40A Section 206 - 1 (before item 1A)
Insert:
40B Subsection 209 - 1(2) (note 1)
Omit "subsection 36 12(2) or 36 20(1)", insert "subsection 36 12(2), paragraph 36 13(2)(b), subsection 36 20(1)".
40C Paragraph 238 - 1(2)(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) under subsection 36 12(2), paragraph 36 13(2)(b) or subsection 36 20(1); or
40D Subsection 238 - 10(1) (table item 1)
Before "section 36 21;", insert "section 36 13;".
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to, subject to a request.
The Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020 seeks to amend the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 and the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019. These amendments would align Australia's antidoping legislation with revisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and international standards, which come into force on 1 January 2021. Australia has ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. That means we have an international obligation to align our antidoping arrangements with any revisions of the WADA code. This bill seeks to give effect to that. In order for us Australia's antidoping legislation to remain appropriately aligned with the revised code and international standards, the amendments in this bill will need to be passed and given assent before 1 January 2021.
Labor supports Australia being at the forefront of global efforts to deal with doping in sport. In turn, we support Australia fulfilling its international antidoping obligations and, therefore, these arrangements, which will ensure our domestic antidoping arrangements remain aligned with the WADA code. This bill does three key things in response to the WADA code revisions: it adds relevant non-participants to the persons who may be subject to the National Anti-Doping scheme, it gives the Sport Integrity Australia CEO discretion not to publish the details of an antidoping rule violation when the athlete is recreational or does not have the mental capacity to understand the antidoping rules and it allows the CEO to respond to misinformation. This bill also makes consequential amendments to the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019 to enable a nonparticipant to apply to the tribunal for arbitration of a dispute arising under an antidoping policy.
In addition to the measures I've mentioned, which respond to the WADA code revisions, the bill will extend the definition of 'athlete' to include persons who competed in sport within the last six months. This amendment is designed to deal with the potential for the current definition to be interpreted narrowly as only a person who currently competes, which would restrict Sport Integrity Australia's ability to investigate possible antidoping rule violations. Initially, stakeholders, including the Australian Athletes' Alliance, did raise some concerns with the opposition about the potential for this measure to impact retired athletes. Labor has worked with those stakeholders to seek clarification on that aspect of the bill. The government has since made it clear that this section of the bill does not apply to formally retired athletes but rather to athletes who, for some reason—perhaps injury—are on a short break from competing. Athletes intending to compete again continue to fall within the National Anti-Doping Scheme to ensure that they remain compliant with their obligations under the World Anti-Doping Code on their return to competition. Stakeholders have advised the opposition that, given the clarification, they believe this aspect of the bill is appropriate.
Labor supports measures that strengthen Australia's protections against evolving threats to the integrity of sport. We recognise that these protections, particularly in relation to doping in sport, can place a large burden and a lot of pressure on athletes. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders and observe the implementation of Australia's new sport integrity operations to ensure they deliver the dual goals of protecting Australian sport and Australian athletes. Labor supports this bill.
I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—Earlier I foreshadowed a motion in the name of Senator Wong. It should have been in the name of Senator Green. I'd just like to correct the record.
This bill provides legislative support for a domestic violence risk screening pilot program being rolled out by the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. This program, called the Lighthouse Project, is being trialled in three court registries—Adelaide, Brisbane and Parramatta. The Lighthouse Project will screen for safety risks in all applications and responses for parenting-only orders filed with the courts. The information from the screening tool will be confidential and only used to screen for risk and referral to support services. Cases will be triaged to provide additional assistance to at-risk parties and identify suitable case management pathways, which will include a new specialist court list designed to assist families identified as being at high risk of family violence. The Lighthouse Project was funded as part of the 2019-20 MYEFO, announced by the government on 17 December 2019. Funding of $13.5 million was announced for the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to pilot a systematic approach to identifying and managing family safety risks.
It is regrettable, but unsurprising, that the Morrison government has taken so long to introduce this necessary bill and bring it on for debate. It should have been done in the first sitting week of the year. But it's better late than never. Of course, passage of this legislation does not guarantee the success of the Lighthouse Project; it will simply enable it to happen. It's up to the government to ensure that the project is implemented properly and that the project is successful. Labor senators will be watching carefully. I commend the bill to the Senate.
I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
by leave—I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the bill to be considered through these sittings.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill implements the Morrison Government's tax plan for Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19 announced last night by the Treasurer.
The Bill delivers lower taxes for individuals and businesses. It will stimulate demand, support investment, boost economic growth and most importantly, create jobs.
These measures are central to the Government's JobMaker Plan.
First, we are lowering taxes for more than 11 million individuals who pay personal income tax.
These tax cuts support low and middle-income Australians, with the majority of the benefit in 2020-21 being received by those on incomes below $90,000. In 2020-21, low and middle-income earners will receive tax relief of up to $2,745, for singles, and up to $5,490, for dual income families, compared with 2017-18 settings.
Over the next 12 months, personal income taxes will be cut by $12.5 billion. Taxes will be cut by $17.8 billion over the next four years. With more money in their pockets, Australians can spend more in our economy, boosting demand and jobs.
Personal income taxes will be cut by bringing forward the second stage of the Government's Personal Income Tax Plan by two years to this financial year. This involves increasing the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket from $37,000 to $45,000 and increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent bracket from $90,000 to $120,000. Under stage two, the low income tax offset increases from $445 to $700, which will deliver more money into the pockets of some of the lowest income earners.
The Government will also provide an additional low and middle income tax offset, worth up to $1,080, in 2020-21 that would have been removed under stage 2.
It all forms part of our plan that ensures that by 2024-25, around 95 per cent of Australian income earners pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar, on every dollar they earn.
Not only do we need more Australians with more money in their pockets out spending, we also need to back businesses that have a go.
The COVID-19 economic recovery will be driven by the private sector. Eight out of ten jobs are private sector jobs.
That is why our Economic Recovery Plan includes substantial incentives for businesses to invest. This Bill will provide 99 per cent of businesses access to temporary full expensing until 30 June 2022. This will reward business for bringing forward investment. Businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion will be able to deduct the full cost of eligible depreciable assets of any value in the year they are first installed. Whether it is a farmer investing in a tractor, a café in a new coffee machine, a manufacturer in new machinery or a services business in IT software, these investments will boost their productivity and boost our economy. With more investment, there is more work to do and with that comes more jobs along the supply chain.
We know that there are many businesses, which were sound businesses before COVID-19, are now in a loss making position. Under this Bill, companies with a turnover of up to $5 billion will be able to apply their losses against profits taxed in a previous year as far back as the 2018-19 income year. This temporary measure will be available until 2021-22. It will allow these companies to access cash by using their losses now, to stay in business, rebuild and invest, rather than waiting until they return to profit.
Also in this Bill, the Morrison Government will invest a further $2 billion in Research and Development through the Research and Development Tax Incentive. Business investment in R&D is central to the development of new products, processes and services that will help make Australia more competitive. Investing in R&D provides jobs now and jobs for tomorrow.
The Bill implements measures contained in existing legislation before this Parliament, with several enhancements. The enhancements increase the tax offset rates for all claimants of the R&D Tax Incentive compared to the 2019 Bill, remove the $4 million cap on annual cash refunds, streamline the intensity test from three to two tiers, and defer the start date of the changes to 1 July 2021.
And we know small business is the engine room of our economy. Under this legislation businesses with an aggregated annual turnover between $10 million and $50 million will, for the first time, have access to up to ten small business tax concessions.
This will cut their red tape, improve their cash flow and allow them to spend more time on their business than with the tax office. The changes are estimated to support around 20,000 businesses and their employees.
These tax cuts and business incentives are all about delivering money into people's pockets, getting the economy going as we recover from the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and getting people back into jobs.
Treasury estimates measures in this Bill will create an additional 100,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Could I ask that our opposition to the preceding few votes be recorded?
Yes. Senator Gallagher, you have the call.
I welcome the opportunity to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020—perhaps a little earlier than we had expected to be having this debate! This debate brings together a number of tax measures announced in the 2020 budget—in total, five of them—which I will speak to separately.
I would like to start my contribution by acknowledging the very difficult economic times the country is in, the very significant economic challenges facing the country, the millions of Australians who have had their lives uprooted, their jobs lost, their businesses shut over the last seven months as the coronavirus pandemic has brought in changes which have had not only significant health consequences on our community but very significant economic consequences as well. This budget was the government's opportunity to address, both in the short and long term, some of those significant challenges.
The budget in itself is the third economic package that the government has introduced in response to the pandemic. It comes at a time when we are in a deep recession—the first recession in this country in almost 30 years—where we have 3½ million Australian workers being supported by a wage subsidy scheme, JobKeeper, that Labor called for and the government adopted. We have over 1.6 million Australians on the JobSeeker payment, the old Newstart. I think there are over two million Australians who have been receiving the coronavirus supplement to assist them to get through the very, very difficult times and put money back into the economy at a time when it is desperately needed. So we are in a very unusual and challenging time for so many Australians. The budget was the opportunity for the government to respond to some of those challenges, not just in the short term but in the long term and, in many ways, it was a missed opportunity.
The budget outlined a debt-and-deficit trajectory that this country has not seen before. We have combined deficits of $480 billion and a deficit this year of $213 billion. We have net debt increasing to just under $1 trillion and gross debt exceeding $1 trillion—in fact, based on this budget and not any subsequent economic responses that might be needed, the Minister for Finance confirmed that it will peak in 2029 at $1.7 trillion.
I can't not take the opportunity to remind the government of the hypocritical and damaging campaign they have run to demonise debt and deficit over the last decade. In many ways, the challenges faced by the Australian community and the responses required have been a complete rejection of the approach that the government took over the last decade or so, where they used their so-called 'debt-and-deficit disaster' language to weaponise any sensible narrative about the use of a government's budget and the levers available to support people, the community and society. The contradiction and the hypocrisy and all of the dangerous language about a 'disaster' that they used at a time when they faced inheriting gross debt in the order of $280 billion—compared to releasing budget papers which have now outlined gross debt reaching $1.7 trillion—is not lost on the opposition.
I would hope, out of all of the learnings from these last seven months, that there has been some in that regard: that the budget does exist to serve a purpose. It is not the same as a household budget. It has a very different purpose. It is to be used in a way that delivers outcomes for people. So when you introduced a budget like you did in 2014—in pursuit, at any expense, of your fiscal strategy at the time—that slashed a whole range of supports for vulnerable Australians, you left a whole load of people behind and that had impacts and it caused damage. Again, the complete rejection of that fiscal strategy, and the adoption of one which acknowledges the role and the need for government to invest in people and in our community when it's needed, is important. We've heard in recent days the government trying to pretend that debt under Labor is terrible and a disaster, while debt under them is manageable and fine—'no issue here'. So I do make that point.
The bills that we see before us today form a large component of the government's stimulus response, in a sense, to the problems that we are seeing in the economy. There is a bring-forward of the stage 2 tax cuts to 2021 at a total cost of $18 billion. Labor has been calling for these tax cuts to be fast-tracked, I think, since August last year. We think they play a key role in part of the response. They shouldn't at any time have been considered the entire response, and so our support is contingent on that. They have a role to play, and we are not going to stand in the way of millions of families and working people across this country getting some extra dollars in their wallet every fortnight. We think that does have a role to play, and it is a change that we support.
We would have preferred to deal with that bill on its own and separate out some of the other measures that perhaps aren't as time critical and could have been dealt with in a more orderly way, allowing the Senate to use its scrutiny powers to inquire into those. However, the government have made it clear, and they've played this game before where they package up a whole range of initiatives into an omnibus bill and serve it up on a plate and claim that if you're not for all of it then you're clearly standing in the way of getting the tax cuts out the door. This is this government's style: push through, barrage through, blame everybody else, point the finger and take the attention off itself.
We would prefer—and I want to make this point very clear—having more than 48 hours, essentially, to work through the detail of the other measures, including the small business turnover, the amendments to the R&D tax incentive and particularly the large measure of temporary full expensing of depreciation assets at $27 billion. I should make it clear that we do support the increase to that small business turnover threshold and the loss carry-back against previous profits. There is a price tag of $5 billion attached to that loss carry-back, not an insignificant amount of money at all, but we do think those are sensible measures. In fact, I think we had proposals very similar to those before, and they should be supported.
Our concerns relate largely to the amendments to the R&D tax incentive cuts and the full expensing of depreciating assets or the instant asset write-off of 100 per cent. That is at a cost of $27 billion. It is a massive measure that I think the Senate should have had the opportunity to inquire into for a bit longer than 48 hours. The member for Rankin in the other place has raised a number of issues around that. One is the fact that there is no long-term solution to business investment in this country. This is a very short-term measure, and it will create a very significant cliff at the end of it, which I'm sure the government acknowledge but which they haven't dealt with in this budget. It doesn't deal with a long-term business investment strategy. We know business investment was tanking in this country long before the pandemic. It was a problem. If you talk to anyone in the business community, the major issue they raise around the lack of appetite for business investment is the lack of an energy policy. I think everyone on that side of the chamber knows that too, but it is a tricky one for them to resolve. But that is the solution in many ways: to provide confidence and certainty to the business community if there were energy policy certainty at the same time.
In terms of the time that the Senate has available to it today on those two measures that I've drawn out, including the R&D—and I know Senator Carr has a much better knowledge of the issues and the disagreements around the research and development tax incentive, including the cuts of $1.8 billion that were being proposed, how they relate to this new program that's been put in and whether the money is real—I think we need to understand that a bit more. We will have the opportunity in estimates to explore that a bit further. In the interests of the government wanting to pursue their strategy of pushing this through the chamber so quickly, any problems relating to these two measures are really worn on their head. They have to be responsible. If there are changes that need to be made as the detail of these programs is rolled out, then they need to make them. I don't think the government should accept that our support for this bill, the omnibus bill—and we have had no choice around how these measures are separated out—gives them a blank cheque endorsement of these programs. I say to the government: these are your programs. You've had the opportunity of months to design them. You are telling the Australian people they will work and they will deliver the outcomes and the jobs that we need to see across this country. It really is on your head. You need to address any problems. It is on your head if these policies don't do what we need them to do, which is to make sure that unemployment in this country gets as low as it can be, as quickly as it can be. We have very significant concerns around that.
We think the other issues that are related to the budget and not in these bills are interlinked in the sense that the government are putting all of their effort behind these measures to drive the economic recovery at a time when they are cutting JobSeeker and cutting JobKeeper. I think the failure to address the permanent increase in JobSeeker in this budget is just mean. It's simply mean. There is absolutely no reason why, in the first weeks of October, the government is not in a position to give an answer about what it's doing for the 1.6 million people surviving on that payment in the long term. It's just wrong. They're trying to give certainty in a whole range of areas for the next 18 months to two years, but people who are surviving on the lowest of incomes don't deserve that kind of certainty? They cut JobKeeper. They restrict JobMaker to those under the age of 35—we have to explore some of the thinking behind that because it leaves almost a million people on that payment who aren't eligible. They have no plan for aged care. I think it's well understood that 51 per cent of the population seems to be ignored in this budget, and there's a lot of concern around that. They do not address issues around child care, women's homelessness or social housing.
I'm sure we will continue to debate this budget in the months ahead and through estimates. Whilst we support the passage of these omnibus bills, we do lay down some markers that we do have concerns with a couple of the measures. It's firmly in the government's court to change those, but it's also firmly the government's position that these be passed today. The opposition will be supporting that, but we have raised some concerns which we hope the government is listening to and will take on board.
I'm absolutely delighted to rise and speak in this chamber in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. I'm absolutely delighted because the budget that was delivered on Tuesday night delivered for all Australians. The budget handed down on Tuesday night delivered for all Australians—every single Australian, including in my home state of Queensland and including people living where my office is located, in the Ipswich region of Queensland. It delivered for those Australians.
Senator Gallagher referred to there being no business investment strategy. That is simply incorrect. There are a whole range of matters which were brought down in the budget on Tuesday night which will promote business investment. The one thing you have to realise, Madam Acting Deputy President, is you don't have to dictate to private enterprise, to the entrepreneurs in our society and to the people who want to get ahead in this country what they should do with their capital and with their income; you simply need to get out of the way. You simply need to get out of the way and you need to structure the tax system so that it incentivises people and doesn't penalise people. That's what you have to do. You don't have to dictate to them that you should invest in this or invest in that. Government should get out of the way and structure a tax system that provides incentive for investment in this country, not disincentive.
That is exactly what the budget delivered on Tuesday night. There were a number of initiatives in the budget that fall into that category, including the immediate write-off of eligible assets, which will be an absolute boon for 99 per cent of businesses across this country. There will be investments made in this country that we can't even dream of coming out of this budget. It also includes promoting the use of gas and more supply of gas—increase the supply of gas, bring down gas prices, promote manufacturing. It's quite simple: increase the supply of gas, bring down gas prices, promote manufacturing. That's what this budget will also do. There is $2 billion for research and development. There is the sovereign manufacturing initiative, which will provide specific incentives for our manufacturers to develop those industries and provide jobs. And there are the tax cuts themselves that were brought down on Tuesday night. They will also deliver jobs, because when Australians are allowed to keep more of their money in their own pockets they'll go out and spend that money or they'll invest that in companies which invest that money and generate wealth and create jobs. That's what happens. That's what happens when you let private citizens keep more of what they earn.
One of the matters which really attracts me to the tax relief that is being provided through the budget is that it is proportionate and it is targeted. The people who receive the greatest proportion of the tax relief are low-income earners. For someone with a taxable income of $30,000 a year, their total change in tax compared with the 2017-18 year will be 21.3 per cent less. We know that people in those lower income brackets are more likely to spend each dollar that they are allowed to keep after tax. For someone earning $35,000 a year, their tax saving compared to 2017-18 year will be 14.8 per cent. By the time you get to someone who's earning $200,000 a year, the total change in tax falls to 3.8 per cent, and that's the way it should be. The tax cuts should be targeted at the low- and middle-income earners—and they are, as those percentages show in stark relief.
One of the other aspects of the tax changes that were brought down on Tuesday night that I fully support is the fact that you can carry back losses. A company that generated profits in the year ending 30 June 2019 can carry back the losses which they incur or have incurred in the year ending 30 June 2020 and offset those losses against tax paid in the year ending 30 June 2019. I think that's an absolutely tremendous initiative. It recognises the fact the companies, the owners of those companies, have been paying taxes to the Commonwealth over a period of time. Those taxes are used to pay for health and services. Then, when the company has generated a loss, not only can it carry that loss forward but it can actually carry it back so it can get a tax refund and use that money to either reinvest in the business or help it get through this period. I think that's an absolutely tremendous initiative.
Some of the other initiatives in terms of the tax relief have been targeted to make sure that the low- and middle-income earners are the ones who are actually going to receive those tax cuts. And they'll spend that money. They will spend that money that they're being allowed to keep through these tax cuts. Treasury estimates—and these aren't my estimates; these are treasury's estimates—that reducing the personal income tax burden on hardworking Australians through this measure will boost GDP by around $3.5 billion—billion with a 'B'—in 2020-21 and $9 billion in 2021-22, and will create an additional 50,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22. Those are Treasury's estimates—not my estimates, Treasury's estimates.
In the current economic situation, we need every single job we can get. These tax cuts will help generate those jobs. How? By putting more money in the pockets of the hardworking Australians who have earned that money, by allowing families to keep more of what they earn, and by allowing families to spend more on what their personal circumstances need. They will be the ones who make that choice, not government. The hardworking Australians who have earned that money will be the ones who make that choice. I would remind the chamber again that the income tax cuts are proportionate; they are weighed in favour of low-income earners and middle-income earners. As I said at the start of my speech, for someone earning a taxable income of $30,000, the percentage change in tax saved is 21.3 per cent. For someone earning $200,000, it goes down to 3.8 per cent. For someone earning $60,000, the tax saving is going to be 17.8 per cent. Compare that to someone who earns $160,000; their tax saving is only going to be 5.1 per cent. That is exactly how it should be—to make sure those tax cuts are targeted to help those Australians in the low- to middle-income tax bracket.
We should remember that eight in every 10 Australians are employed in the private sector. In order to rebuild our economy and create more jobs, we need to kickstart that part of the economy, the private sector. It is expected that the tax relief given to businesses, the instant asset tax write-off, will also be a boost to GDP and job creation. It will provide opportunities for everyone in our society—in our cities, in the country and in our regional centres. My office is in the Ipswich region in Queensland, where I know many businesses are going to take advantage of these opportunities. I have visited TAE Aerospace in the Ipswich region. It is based in the industrial centre in Bundamba. As this budget was brought down on Tuesday, I was reflecting on how they will be able to use the tax relief that will be given to their business to invest in more capital—updating machinery, expanding their product range and providing opportunities to young people in the Ipswich region. And they are already doing great work in terms of providing those opportunities to young people in our regions.
The $2 billion for research and development is also desperately needed in the economy at this stage. It will be exciting to see what Australian initiative, Australian enterprise, Australian knowledge and Australian know-how can generate with that R&D incentive. I'm looking forward to visiting businesses to hear about how they are applying that R&D incentive to generate jobs, create wealth and provide opportunities for all Queenslanders, for all Australians, to fulfil their true potential, whatever their background and wherever they come from.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 and to consider the context in which it is presented. Senator Scarr has given us a long dissertation about the underlying economic management philosophy of this government. He spent quite a lot of time talking about how what we need is for government to get out of the way. I would make two observations. One is that it's a pretty funny thing to hear from a group of people who have just delivered a budget indicating that we're about to hit a trillion dollars in debt. It's a pretty jarring thing to hear in that context. The second thing I'd say is that it's also pretty tone deaf, because if the pandemic has shown us anything it is that government matters. When a virus, beyond our control, sweeps through our country and across the globe, government can't get out of the way. We've seen overseas what happens when they do: uncontrolled spread of the virus, uncontained disruption to the economy, unemployment, financial hardship and financial distress.
It was actually the inclination of this government to take that same approach. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide financial support to households and businesses and to provide fiscal support to the Australian economy. Wage subsidies were totally impractical and not on the table, until they were. The government were not interested in measures to support businesses until the Labor Party pushed for them. It's been the pattern, all through this period of COVID-19 and all through this year, that the government has only acted to support the economy when we push them to do so—measure after measure after measure in response to a Labor suggestion. We have tried to be constructive. It is a national crisis and an international crisis, and we have tried to play the role that a good opposition should at this time: to hold this government to account but to be constructive. But these guys make it pretty hard, because their contempt for ordinary people, their contempt for the information they hear from people on the street and their exclusive focus on their own interests make it very, very difficult to support the direction that they seek to chart.
We didn't have a lot of confidence in their economic management. The economy was already floundering before we came into the pandemic. Every now and then, when the government gets desperate, it thinks, 'What are we going do?' and it searches around in the bottom drawer for some ideas about how they're going to grow the economy, restore productivity and get the country moving again. Usually they say, 'Yes, we've got this marvellous Productivity Commission report from 2017: Shifting the dial: improving Australia's productivity performance.' I just thought I'd have a look at that. I recall it had a good set of initiatives. When you go to the Productivity Commission website, it indicates that there is still no government response to the Shifting the dial report. So you've got an economy with flatlining productivity and a desperate need to get jobs moving—this is even before we come to the pandemic—and a government that can't be bothered to even go and respond to the document that they commissioned from the Productivity Commission.
I remind people on the other side of what was in that. There were some suggestions about healthier Australians and reforming the health system. There was a whole set of recommendations about future skills and work. There's a set of recommendations about better-functioning towns and cities. There's a whole section about improving efficiency of markets, with an intense focus on the energy market, the great policy failure of this government, which has managed to get through seven years without a single energy policy that's actually implemented but 20 policy ideas that they never got around to doing anything with. The fifth thing is more effective governments.
Wouldn't it be nice if there'd actually been some economic reform of some kind in any one of those domains prior to hitting January this year? Wouldn't it have been nice to go into the pandemic with an economy that was actually firing on all cylinders? Wouldn't it have been good to have a training system that was actually preparing our young people, and people throughout their lives, for jobs of the future? Wouldn't it have been nice to have an R&D system that was actually supporting innovation in the business community? Wouldn't it have been nice to have done something about women—about the pay gap, the retirement incomes gap, their participation in the labour market and their need for child care that is affordable and of a high quality?
Wouldn't it have been nice to have done something about all of those things, all of those reform options that have been laid out time and time again for a tone-deaf government that refuses to listen and refuses to take responsibility for its role in the Australian economy? We've had to wait till there's a pandemic to see them actually take responsibility of any kind, and then, as I said, only when pushed by the Labor Party.
So we find ourselves this week with a budget that tells us we're up for a trillion dollars in debt but signals no coherent story at all about the future of the Australian economy. People will know that I've spent quite a bit of time since I had the very good fortune to be elected to this place thinking about the role of women in our economy. This pandemic has highlighted how significant the female workforce is and how important the female workforce is, particularly when things go bad, but also how precarious the nature of women's employment truly is. When the pandemic hit, who got laid off first? The casuals. And who comprises the casual workforce? It is the women of Australia. So it was women's hours and women's jobs that suffered the greatest hit. It was women who took up more and more care obligations at home when children were at home and being homeschooled. And it was women who bore the risk of turning up to frontline roles—in nursing, cleaning, retail, teaching and early childhood—to continue to keep things ticking over while we faced down this pandemic.
You might have thought that the conversation that had started to bubble away amongst Australian women would have filtered through to those on the other side. You might have thought they would find it within themselves to come up with just something of meaning for Australian women and their workforce participation in this budget. But, no, it is a budget devoid of empathy or interest in the lives of Australian women. It is a budget devoid of empathy and interest in the economic security of Australian women. It contains very little for them. We are spending twice as much on an IT system for the Department of Human Services as we are on the initiatives in the Women's Economic Security Statement. It is incredible! The Women's Economic Security Statement comprises one-third of one per cent of the new measures in the budget.
I think that, in part, this situation arises because there are so few women in the cabinet, so few women on the ERC and, worse, so little interest by the men of the coalition in listening to the women around them. It is just shameful, because if they listened to the women in their electorates—listened to the women who work in their schools and the women who are dropping their kids off each morning—they'd know that there are a whole range of priorities that Australian women want to see addressed. But we won't find them in this budget. You won't find anything about tackling the pay gap. You won't find anything about improving access to child care. You won't find anything about the disproportionate taxation that occurs when women increase the number of working days from three to four, if they happen to be the second income-earner in their household—you won't find any responses to that. You won't find any relief for the women who emptied out their superannuation accounts because they were shut out of JobKeeper, because JobKeeper was designed in a way that didn't support the working lives of Australian women. You won't find any additional money for women fleeing domestic violence and looking for support from frontline services. It is incredible to me, and incredibly tone-deaf, that, in a period when there has been article after article in every mainstream news outlet about the rise in the prevalence and severity of domestic violence, this was not made a priority in the budget this year. What a depressing indication of the seriousness with which this situation is taken on the other side! How can you rack up a trillion dollars in debt and not do something about the epidemic of violence that is sweeping through Australia's households?
This is not a budget that responds to the economic needs of this country. It is not a budget that responds to the social needs of the households in this country. It is not a budget that does the job in charting our new course.
Order, Senator McAllister. It being 2 pm, we'll go to questions.
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Women, Senator Ruston. Can the minister confirm that of the approximately 754,000 women currently without work and on JobSeeker or youth allowance, 61 per cent are aged over 35 years?
I thank Senator McCarthy for her question. What I can confirm, Senator McCarthy, is that when the pandemic first hit we did see that women were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic when it came to job losses. What I can also tell Senator McCarthy is that prior to the pandemic we did have a disproportionate number of older Australians and also older women who were represented on social security payments.
This was probably a result of many things, including many measures that had been put in place prior to the pandemic and many measures that have been put in place over a number of years, not the least of which was the increase in the number of young people who were coming off unemployment and going into work. It could also be the fact that we had changes to our pension arrangements, like the wife pension, and these changes had taken place over quite a long period of time and under successive governments. As a result of the fact that we had started to see probably a disproportionate number of older Australians on unemployment benefits or on welfare, the government has taken a number of initiatives to support older people who find themselves unemployed.
Point of order: it was a very succinct and specific question which asked the minister to confirm the numbers of women without work and on JobSeeker and youth allowance. They were the only words and subject points raised, so I would ask the minister, who has been speaking for in excess of a minute—and I understand she has taken time to get to the answer—if she could confirm the numbers in Senator McCarthy's question.
It was a very specific and factual question. I've said when in the chair that, when such specific and factual questions are asked, the directly relevant test is quite a narrow one. Senator Wong, you have reminded the minister of the question and I do so as well. Senator Ruston will continue.
I will get the exact statistics for Senator McCarthy because, as you could imagine, we are seeing the unemployment figures moving around quite significantly at the moment. I will certainly make sure that I get the absolute and specific statistics provided to you. I can give statistics that are old, but I would like to make sure that I give you statistics that are current post pandemic. As you would be aware, statistics pre pandemic probably don't mean a great deal. As I was about to inform Senator McCarthy, there have be a significant number of measures that have been put in place in recognition that we have a high number of older Australians who find themselves out of work.
Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?
What advice does the minister have for the 460,000 women who are aged over 35 years, are without work, face a future of living on $40 a day, have been excluded from the Morrison government's hiring credit scheme and will need to compete against younger subsidised jobseekers?
One of the things that I can absolutely confirm to Senator McCarthy is that this government understands that older Australians often find barriers to getting into work, which is why, amongst a number of initiatives that were put in place prior to the pandemic—
Opposition senators interjecting—
If you'd listen, I will tell you about the measures that we have put in place, including, as an example, the Restart program. With the budget this week, we talked a lot about the wage subsidy for younger Australians. I would just like to advise the chamber that in the 2018-19 budget the government put in place the Restart program, a wage subsidy for older Australians. So employers of older Australians over the age of 50 have access to a $10,000 wage subsidy. I am really pleased to advise the chamber that 50,000 older Australians have been the beneficiary of that wage subsidy specifically dedicated to older Australians.
Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question?
Research released by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office last week revealed a 23 percentage point increase, to 71 per cent, in the number of women on unemployment benefits for years. The Morrison government excluded many of these women from JobKeeper. Isn't their exclusion from the hiring credit scheme just the latest example of the Morrison government leaving women behind?
Not at all. The Morrison government has been absolutely dedicated to supporting all Australians before the pandemic but most particularly through the pandemic with an absolutely unprecedented amount of money that has been provided to support all Australians—and that includes older Australians. As I said before, we already had in place a number of very significant packages to help older Australians. But we must not forget that when the pandemic hit we saw a doubling, or a 100 per cent increase, in the number of people who required the support of our unemployment benefits system, and a 150 per cent increase in those under the age of 35. I would suggest that if I had come into this place after a budget where we hadn't actually addressed youth unemployment, you would be standing there criticising me for not assisting young people who have been disproportionately impacted by the number of jobs that have been lost. I think our track record in supporting older Australians stands.
Order, Senator Ruston!
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister update the Senate on what the Morrison government's 2020-21 defence budget delivers for Australia's national security?
I thank Senator McLachlan for his question and also for his very strong support for the South Australian defence industry and more generally.
Protecting our nation's security and sovereignty is essential to Australia's economic stability and also its prosperity. The 2020-21 Morrison government's defence budget is all about a safer and stronger Australia now and into the future. This government remains firmly committed to keeping Australians safe while protecting our nation's interests and also assisting our economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. This budget sees sustained and very strong investment in Australia's defence, with a 10-year funding model of $575 billion over the next decade. This delivers on the Morrison government's commitment to grow the defence budget to two per cent of GDP in the 2020-21 financial year. This achieves a commitment we made in 2013.
Our focus in the budget and in our strategic update is on regional security, on maintaining our capability edge while creating Australian jobs. It also focuses on boosting cyber-resilience and supporting Australia's sovereign defence industries. This budget locks in $270 billion of investment over the next 10 years to continue to develop the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. There is also a $1 billion investment that provides new and unprecedented opportunities for Australia's defence industry, which has been impacted by COVID-19. This will sustain over 4,000 Australian jobs. Also, Defence is committed to supporting Australians right here at home during emergencies of national significance. That's why the Morrison government is strengthening the ADF's ability to respond to natural disasters, to domestic emergencies and to pandemics both here in Australia and overseas.
Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator McLachlan, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise the Senate how the government's defence investments are creating jobs and helping rebuild our economy, including in my home state of South Australia?
I thank Senator McLachlan for that question. Continuing to develop Australia's sovereign defence industry is crucial to our nation's economic recovery, and also, as I've said, to the creation of many more multigenerational jobs for Australians. Currently there are already over 15,000 Australian companies in the defence supply chains. That represents over 70,000 Australian workers who are benefiting from our government's investment in defence. These numbers are continuing to grow even during the COVID-19 pandemic. South Australia is a key part of the government's investment in building Australia's maritime defence capability and also our defence industries. Just last week the Prime Minister was in South Australia opening the $535 million world-leading shipyard in Osborne South, which heralds the beginning of another local shipbuilding job boom in South Australia.
Senator McLachlan, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister outline the importance of long-term certainty for the defence budget?
As I've said many times in this chamber, the Australian strategic environment is increasingly complex and it is also increasingly contested. That's why this government's unprecedented investment in defence capability and also long-term funding certainty that we have committed to in this budget is vitally important. It is not only important for the Australian Defence Force and for defence; it is also vitally important for all of Australia's defence industries. This 10-year investment of $575 billion, as I've said, includes $270 billion for new capability which will strengthen not only the capability and the resilience of the Australian Defence Force but also our industries and provide many tens of thousands of jobs right here in Australia. This government is delivering the much-needed certainty for the Defence Force, and the result of that will be that our defence forces will not only today be postured to deploy military power to shape our environment, to deter actions and also to respond— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women, Senator Ruston. Approximately 200,000 women have lost their jobs since March and 110,000 have left the labour force. Why did Mr Morrison's budget provide nothing to support women's workforce participation?
I thank Senator Keneally for her question. I would actually refute that the budget brought down on Tuesday night by Mr Morrison and the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, didn't contain anything in relation to women's workforce participation. In fact, the very substance of the Women's Economic Security Statement is around enhancing women's economic participation. We all know that, prior to the pandemic, economic participation by women in the Australian workforce was actually at an all-time high and we had also seen the gender pay gap reduced to its lowest level ever. So as part of the Women's Economic Security Statement on Tuesday night, we sought to undertake a number of initiatives that are really focused on making sure that we provide specific and particular initiatives around workforce participation. But that must exclude the fact that many, many other initiatives in the budget that were not contained in the Women's Economic Security Statement are also available for women to access.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
Those opposite can be mucking around, but the reality is that women are able to benefit from just about every single measure in the budget. Women benefit from university educations, women benefit from workplace and employment programs; I mean, Senator Cash's skills programs also benefit women. But targeting specific women's economic participation was the Women's Economic Security Statement. There are a number of initiatives contained in this statement, with five very specific priorities to build and repair women's workforce participation and to further close the gender pay gap. That was absolutely the specific reason for and the absolute priority of the Women's Economic Security Statement, along with many other measures in the budget.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Recent studies by KPMG and Grattan reveal women returning to work can lose 20 cents for every dollar they earn from an extra day's work due to childcare fees. Why did the Morrison government's budget fail to make child care cheaper for Australian families?
What I would say is the Morrison government has a very proud track record when it comes to the affordability of child care for Australian families, particularly for Australian women seeking to return to the workforce, and there is a very, very important component to make sure that women's workforce participation is at high levels. As I said in the answer to the primary question, before the pandemic Australia's women's workforce participation levels were at an all-time record. I would also draw to the attention of the chamber the fact that this government, the Morrison government, will spend in this 2020-21 year $9 billion supporting Australian parents with childcare subsidies. That is in addition to the $900 million that was specifically set aside during the pandemic to help Australian parents through the very, very difficult circumstances that they all found themselves in during the pandemic, particularly those people who were taking on important care and support roles.
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, taking on two-thirds of the unpaid care work at home. Why, despite racking up $1 trillion in debt, is there no assistance to help get these women back into the workforce?
I would once again refute the premise of the statement that was just made by Senator Keneally that the government is not doing a number of things to assist all Australians, including Australian women, back into the workforce. As I said, there's an absolute record investment in child care to enable them to get back to work. Investment has been made in the portfolio area of Minister Cash around making sure that we focus on reskilling. In the Women's Economic Security Statement, as an example, there are a number of initiatives that focus specifically on empowering women, getting women into leadership roles and making sure that women are able to—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Ruston, please resume your seat. There are interjections across the chamber. I can't hear the minister. Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Well, give leave to Senator Rennick to make the statement about child care he made. Go ahead!
That's not a point of order. Points of order are for points of order, not for debate. Senator Ruston, you may continue.
As I was saying, in the Women's Economic Security Statement there are a number of initiatives that particularly target making sure that we are providing the support for women to be able to get back into the workforce, get ahead in the workforce. We're expanding and boosting the female founder initiative, a fantastic initiative that's already under way. The paid parental leave— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The arts and entertainment industry was the first and hardest hit by COVID restrictions. It will be one of the last to recover. It has seen the second-highest number of job losses, after accommodation and hospitality, which, of course, rely on the arts and entertainment sector as well. For every million dollars in turnover, arts and entertainment produce nine jobs. Construction produces only one. Yet the Treasurer on Tuesday night didn't even utter the word 'art' in his speech. Why has the $112 billion a year arts and entertainment industry been so forgotten by your government?
Far from being forgotten, because the arts and entertainment industry was one of the first and hardest hit, it was one of the first to get support from the Morrison government. The Morrison government are working hard to deliver on our plan to support the arts and entertainment sector during COVID-19. We have secured almost $800 million in extra arts and entertainment funding on top of our record annual investment of around $750 million in core funding and on top of the $336 million provided to date through JobKeeper. During one of our nation's most testing times, Australians have looked to our leaders to provide accurate and honest information, provide support to those who need it and to manage public money responsibly and that is, of course, why our government has provided very substantial support to this sector, and it would be great if senators across the chamber could recognise that very strong commitment and contribution that we've made.
Senator Hanson-Young on a supplementary question?
The German government has pledged one billion euros in response to this crisis; the UK government, 1.57 billion pounds. France extended its unemployment scheme for actors, performers, musicians and technicians, guaranteeing the pay for 1.3 million people. Senator Cormann, how will your ignoring of the arts play in your bid to become Secretary-General of the OECD?
Let me just reconfirm—I'm sure that our friends in France, nos amis en France, and our friends in Germany, unsere deutschen Freunde, would be very impressed to see the very serious commitment that the Morrison government has made to supporting the arts and entertainment sector here in Australia. Of course, every country and every economy deals with the challenges it faces in its own way, consistent with its capacity. We are doing the best we can in the context of what is clearly a very challenging situation, and I think that all reasonable Australians and all of our friends across the OECD would very much agree with that.
Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?
It's mostly women who work in the sectors that have been hardest hit—hospitality, retail, and the arts and entertainment sector—yet the Morrison government has largely left them out. Minister, do women matter, and has Tony Abbott's 'women's problem' infected the Prime Minister?
Of course women matter. They matter very much. Under our government, under the first six years of the Liberal-National government, we had the highest workforce participation of women ever on record. The gender pay gap was the lowest ever on record here in Australia, after six years of a coalition, a Liberal-National government.
Of course, women and young people have been particularly hard hit by the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, but women and young people have also, proportionately, been the biggest beneficiaries of the recovery getting underway. Our plan to get Australia out of this COVID recession, our plan to maximise the strength of our recovery, our economic and jobs recovery, is very much going to be beneficial to all Australians and, in particular, women and young people around Australia. They will proportionately benefit the most from the strong recovery that our government is working on.
My question is to the Minister for Finance, probably my last question to you in question time, Senator Cormann. I know you'll miss me! I refer to analysis by the Institute of Public Affairs based on data from the Morrison government's budget and the ABS, which reveals that gross Commonwealth government debt will peak at $2.05 trillion in 2045. Is this analysis by the Institute of Public Affairs accurate?
I thank Senator Gallagher for that question. I think Senator Gallagher wanted to make sure that, before I left this chamber, I truly had seen everything. I now have, with the shadow minister for finance quoting the Institute of Public Affairs! That is exhibit A! The answer to that question is, no, I can't confirm that analysis. The Labor Party is trying to suggest that we can't make projections 10 years out, and Senator Gallagher is now suggesting that somehow there is a capacity to make projections 35 years out. The argument that the opposition is prosecuting right now is that we should spend more and that we should have a lower deficit and lower debt, as if that is totally consistent!
We are facing a very challenging set of figures. We are, though, in a better position than most other countries around the world as a result of the hard work that we've done during our first six years in government. The reason your figures weren't worse after six years of Labor government is because you started with a surplus, no government net debt and a positive net asset position. Guess what you left behind for us? You left us massive debt and deficit and a deteriorating trajectory. We have turned that situation around. We are in a better, stronger position than we would have been if we hadn't fixed the situation you left behind. Every reasonable Australian knows why we're here when it comes to the fiscal position we are in, and that is because of the COVID recession and the impact on the COVID recession on revenue, in particular, and government payments, and because of the cost of the decisions we've had to make to support the economy and to support jobs.
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
The analysis by the IPA also revealed that gross Commonwealth government debt will not be paid off until the year 2080. Can the minister confirm that a child born today will be 60 before the Morrison government's record $1.7 trillion of debt is paid off?
A child born today will have better opportunities to get ahead—
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Watt, take a breath!
in the future because of the hard yards that our government did in the first six years in government to repair the budget and to strengthen the economy. A child born today will be in a better position, have better opportunities to get ahead, because of our plan to get Australia out of this COVID recession, because of our plan to create jobs and because of our plan to maximise the strength of the economic and jobs recovery. People across Australia know that if we had not stepped up earlier this year young people today and into the future would have been worse off, would have faced a more challenging environment and would have found it harder to get ahead. It is as a result of our hard yards in our first six years in government and through this coronavirus pandemic and coronavirus induced recession—it's because of our work—that young people today and into the future will have the best possible opportunity to get ahead.
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister confirm the IPA's assessment that under the Morrison government 'a budget surplus will not return until 2046'?
I've got to say I'm quite impressed by Senator Gallagher's optimism about the Morrison government in 2046. I commend her for her optimism that we will still have good government, good Morrison government, in Australia in 2046, and, let me tell you, the Australian economy will be stronger and better for it.
My question is to Senator Cormann, representing the Prime Minister. For the anthropogenic-global-warming hypothesis to be accepted scientifically, it must be based on physical empirical data. During my meetings with the CSIRO it was confirmed that CSIRO relies only on erroneous, unvalidated computerised climate models, not physical data. This is the third admission of CSIRO's lack of empirical evidence proving causation. Both types of climate models have repeatedly failed to match physical data and observations, yet CSIRO has allowed this government to take confidence in climate models and that has led to policies economically destructive on the Australian economy. Senator Cormann, will you support an inquiry that would analyse and assess quantitatively the accuracy and levels of confidence in CSIRO's climate models?
Australia's committed to effective action on climate change. The debate that we've had in Australia over the last decade is about what the best methodology would be to achieve effective global greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is economically responsible. We think it is very important to maximise the emissions reduction effort in a way that is economically responsible. Of course, our success in securing emissions reductions in a way that is economically responsible and doesn't undermine the opportunities for working families to get ahead is a very important way to lead by example for the rest of the world, because if the rest of the world can see that we can achieve both emissions reductions and economic and jobs growth then other countries will follow our lead. We want all countries to do the best they can to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is economically responsible, and I commend that approach to you.
Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?
Respected economist Dr Alan Moran has compiled government data to show climate policies and renewables subsidies are costing Australians $13 billion extra in higher electricity costs per year, and that is $1,300 extra per household. Minister, is it fair and reasonable that the most vulnerable people in our society—the poor, the elderly, students, the unemployed—are paying 39 per cent of their electricity bills on a fanciful, pointless crusade to change global temperature? It is a highly regressive impost on these people.
Our government has worked very hard to reduce the costs of electricity and to improve both the reliability and the affordability of energy supplies at the same time as working to reduce emissions and meet our emissions reduction targets agreed to in Paris. I'm pleased to report to the Senate that we are being very successful in that endeavour. Electricity prices are coming down, both for households and for business, and emissions are coming down. And we are meeting our emissions reductions targets—both those that we committed to in Kyoto and those that we committed to in Paris. So we are achieving what we set out to achieve, but we are doing it in an economically responsible fashion, which we believe is very important. And it's only fair, for the working families of Australia, that that's how we do it.
Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question?
Using the government's own data, Dr Moran has calculated that energy users subsidise every wind turbine by $526,000 every year for 15 years. Australia has 2,691 wind turbines. That means you are making electricity users pick up the bill of $1.4 billion each year. That is $21.2 billion over their short lifetimes. How can you justify adding this massive cost burden to consumers and to industry?
Our government, for very good policy reasons, is committed to effective action on climate change. We are part of the global community and we are part of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We've got to do that in a globally coordinated fashion and a way that is economically responsible. That is the policy of the Australian government and that is what we are effectively pursuing.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Senator Birmingham. Australia's resources sector represents nine per cent of Australia's GDP, employs over 65,000 people in Queensland alone and is anticipated to pay over $4 billion in royalties to the Queensland government in the 2019-20 financial year. The Morrison-McCormack Liberal-National government has committed more than $200 million worth of measures to support the resources sector as part of this week's budget. Can the minister outline why our government is steadfast in its commitment to this important industry?
I thank Senator Canavan for his question. Senator Canavan is a renowned champion of the Australian resources sector in particular. The Australian resources industry is a world leader when it comes to the extraction, production and export of high-quality resources. The industry represents a significant proportion of Australia's economy and is the backbone of many regional communities and towns across Australia, as Senator Canavan and all my Liberal and National colleagues know and appreciate. The resources industry represents some nine per cent of Australia's GDP. Importantly, that grew last financial year by 0.5 per cent, worth $7 billion extra to Australia's economy as a result. In 2019-20 our resources and energy exports reached a record of $290 billion for Australia. Our iron ore was the first commodity to ever record more than $100 billion in export revenue. Our gold industry is poised to become the world's largest producer; it is forecast to record some $31 billion of production in 2020-21.
Even in the midst of the most significant global pandemic and economic shock, the resources industry is investing in Australia, and in Australians and Australian jobs, with mining capital investment increasing by 5.4 per cent over the course of the last financial year. The resources industry is already a supporter of Australian jobs, employing 247,000 Australians in August this year, an increase of almost 6,000 compared with February this year. Of course, they are just the direct contributions; the resources industry supports so many more jobs than those direct contributions. That's why the Morrison-McCormack government recognises its importance and continues to invest in the industry and its growth potential. (Time expired)
Senator Canavan, a supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister outline what commitments our government has made as part of this week's budget to ensure the continued investment and expansion across our mining industry in this great country?
We've made a number of new investments to support energy, minerals and groundwater resources and to improve their understanding and development during this budget. A $124.5 million expansion for the Exploring for the Future program will improve the understanding of Australia's resources, identifying the resource potential of key regions across Australia. We understand the importance of developing our natural resources, which is why we've committed $28.3 billion for five strategic basin plans, charting a quicker pathway for their development. We also recognise the need to provide communities living in gas development regions with independent and transparent information, hence our support for the CSIRO's Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance with some $13.7 million.
As part of our commitment to emissions reduction and to meeting the targets of the Paris agreement we have provided a further $50 million towards the Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Development and Demonstration Fund. Indeed, our government, in recognising the potential for use of our resources, is of course investing in manufacturing, and— (Time expired)
Senator Canavan, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any risks to the mining industry and jobs in my home state of Queensland? And, while I have the time, could I also ask if the minister has the time on this Saturday to come up to Clermont in Central Queensland and attend our Bob Brown tribute rally, where we will be highlighting those risks once again?
I thank Senator Canavan for the further question and, indeed, for the invitation!
In terms of threats, Senator Canavan and others know a little more about Queensland politics than me, but it's tempting to say that one of those threats could indeed be Jackie Trad, as I understand it—a name that I hear again and again in terms of the risks that are faced by the Queensland resources sector. Sadly, Queensland, even coming in pre COVID, had amongst the highest unemployment, the highest level of bankruptcies and the lowest business confidence in Australia. It's an economy that is so reliant on the resources, energy and mining sectors. That's why it's disappointing to see delays in approvals for developments such as New Hope's New Acland Stage 3. It's a prime example of legal and bureaucratic intervention delaying the potential creation of new jobs and new opportunities in a state like Queensland. And of course losing the potential for 500 additional jobs through these types of delays doesn't— (Time expired)
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs.
Government senators interjecting—
Order on my right! I'm going to ask Senator Faruqi to start that again. I've asked for silence during questions.
Thank you, Mr President. My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. Last month, ASIO advised the parliament that right-wing violent extremism occupies between approximately 30 and 40 per cent of ASIO's current case load in counterterrorism work, an increase from 10 to 15 per cent prior to 2016. This is an extraordinary increase over a very short period of time. In August, the Nine papers reported that ASIO has been focused on the possibility of extremists being inspired by killers such as the Christchurch gunman. As a Muslim and as a progressive senator, I find these reports incredibly troubling, but they align with what I see online, on social media and in the correspondence I receive. While it's good that the security services are investigating these threats, there appears to be zero political appetite to invest in new initiatives to address the growth of far-right extremism. What is the government doing to tackle the growing threat of far-right extremism and white supremacy?
I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. The government has made it abundantly clear that we are absolutely committed to protecting Australia and Australians from all threats.
In terms of our laws, you will be aware that our arrangements are ideologically agnostic and that they focus on the threat of criminality. As a government, we make no distinction in targeting threats to the Australian community. Our agencies—and I commend our agencies—are working hard to tackle the threats from all sources, whether they be from Islamist extremism, right-wing extremism or any other source. Australians should have confidence that Australia's counterterrorism arrangements work equally well for right-wing-motivated groups and individuals as they do for Islamic extremism. I will make the point, though, that under the former Labor government, Labor actually cut $128 million from the AFP between 2010 and 2011, and between 2013 and 2014.
But our laws and arrangements are ideologically agnostic and they focus on threat and criminality.
Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?
Minister, a national antiracism strategy has not been funded at the federal level in five years. In a July 2020 inquiry submission the Australian Human Rights Commission reiterated its support for a strategy, stating:
A national anti-racism strategy is necessary to protect the unity, safety and security of our society and to ensure our citizens and diaspora communities are protected from racial discrimination and race hate.
Why does the government continue to refuse to fund a national antiracism strategy?
Senator Faruqi, you would be aware that we have laws in relation to racism. Those laws already exist and, if you are in breach of those laws, there are consequences.
Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?
Is the minister concerned by MPs in the Liberal and National parties who have in the last few years attended far-right rallies, spoken at far-right rallies and engaged with and given interviews to far-right media outlets? Will the minister condemn those members for their behaviour, including George Christensen MP, who last week fessed up to following extremist social media groups? Will you condemn him and others?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
Unfortunately, I did not actually hear the last part of your question, Senator Faruqi, due to the noise in the chamber.
On a point of order: if the minister didn't hear the question because of all the shouting, I would like the indulgence of the Senate to repeat the question.
I was going to ask: can you repeat the last part of your question? I ask senators again to remain silent during the question even if it is a contested matter. There's a time for it to be debated afterwards. Senator Faruqi, if you could repeat the last part of your question.
Will the minister condemn those members for their behaviour, including George Christensen MP, who last week fessed up to following extremist social media groups?
Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I'm not aware of the circumstances that you are referring to, but certainly I would condemn right-wing extremism. I would condemn left-wing extremism.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. What guarantees can the minister give that that government's hiring credits scheme will not be used by employers to cut the hours of existing employees, who are ineligible for the subsidy, in order to employ new workers who are eligible for the subsidy to replace them?
That is a very fair question and it's obviously something that we considered as we designed the program. The JobMaker hiring credit is only available for additional jobs. Employers cannot reduce their current workforce, either by dismissing employees or reducing their hours, and engage new workers performing the same work to receive the hiring credits. We've put some integrity measures in place. The most important ones include the fact that any employer who wants to take advantage of this scheme has to demonstrate that both the size of their payroll as well as the number of employees is going up. So the business's total employee head count, with a minimum of one additional employee from the reference date of 30 September 2020, and the payroll of the business for the reporting period as compared to the three months to 30 September 2020, have to be higher. To demonstrate that the job is additional, those specific criteria must be met, so they must meet these double-barrelled additionality criteria in order to access this credit.
As Senator Sheldon would be aware, all employees also have protections under industrial relations laws from unfair or unlawful dismissal, including non-genuine redundancies, and there are other integrity measures in place to ensure that employers cannot reclassify existing workers from contractors to employees to receive the hiring credit or move employees between entities within a single group. I hope that addresses Senator Sheldon's question.
Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question?
What assurances can the minister give that the government's hiring credit scheme will not incentivise employers to lay off casual workers working more than 20 hours a week and then hire more workers who are eligible for the subsidy?
I think that I've fundamentally answered that question. Clearly, as we were putting this scheme in place, we put these integrity measures in place. What is the incentive for the employer not to do this? If the employer were to do this, they would no longer be eligible for the scheme. I would have thought that, if the employer wants to access the scheme, they can't do what Senator Sheldon has just described.
Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question?
What assurances can the minister provide that a young worker hired under the government's hiring credit scheme will still have their job once the scheme ends in October 2021?
The usual industrial relations laws apply. What we're doing through this hiring credit is giving young people an opportunity to work over this 12-month period and to establish a track record of work performance which will stand them in good stead as they pursue their career moving forward.
I have a question for the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the budget's JobMaker plan is backing small businesses to recover, rebuild, reinvest and employ more Australians as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. Mr President, you'd be aware that this week's budget is all about jobs—backing those Australians who are in jobs and ensuring that they stay in those jobs and, obviously, getting as many Australians back into work as we can. A fundamental part of that plan is backing our small and family businesses every step of the way. They are the engine room of the Australian economy in so many different ways. They're major drivers of employment—in fact, employing over six million Australians—and they contribute around $418 billion to our national economy. The CEO of the Council of Small Business of Australia, Peter Strong, has welcomed budget 2020 as providing great things in it for small business people.
In terms of what we're doing for small businesses across Australia, we are, of course, allowing them to invest in themselves—we're supercharging the instant asset write-off by delivering temporary full expensing, allowing businesses to write off the full cost of eligible depreciable assets until 30 June 2020. We understand that so many businesses have done it tough as a result of COVID-19 and they need that important cash flow, so we're providing $4.9 billion in tax relief through temporary loss carry-back. This is going to allow businesses impacted by COVID-19 to write off their bad years against their previous good year. We're also expanding access to small business tax concessions. We're providing $105 million in tax relief to an additional 20,000 businesses and their employees. Importantly, in the skills space, we're removing costly barriers for businesses to train their employees by exempting employer provided retraining from fringe benefits tax. This will allow small businesses to capitalise on our $7 billion skills investment. Small and family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy and, in budget 2020, we are backing them every step of the way.
Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?
COVID-19 has meant that many businesses have had to adapt, innovate and build their digital capability. How is the budget's JobMaker Digital Business Plan supporting small businesses to grow digital and grow their businesses?
One of the things that COVID-19 has shown us is the importance of digitisation and building resilience for small businesses. In fact, so many of those businesses that were able to pivot overnight—in particular in the hospitality industry—were those businesses that were digitally literate. COVID-19 has well and truly accelerated digital growth in our economy, and an important part of our budget is supporting small businesses to adapt to this challenge.
We are investing, as you're aware, $800 million in our JobMaker Digital Business Plan. That is all about supporting small businesses to embrace digital technologies. We are investing over $19 million to support small businesses to go digital by expanding the Australian Small Business Advisory Services—otherwise known as ASBAS—Digital Solutions program to a further 10,000 small businesses. In fact, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have endorsed the policy, noting it will create the jobs Australia needs.
Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?
We've seen the impact of health restrictions and shutdowns and how they put enormous pressure on the mental health of all Australians. How is this budget helping to support the mental health and wellbeing of Australia's small business owners?
As we would all be aware, COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on Australia and Australians. But, in particular, it has brought considerable challenges for our hardworking small business owners and their staff right around Australia. That is why the government in this budget is investing a further $7 million to support the mental health of small business owners through our business balance initiative. Business balance will expand Beyond Blue's new access program to small business owners and it will provide them with free, accessible and tailored support to help manage the pressures of COVID-19. We're also providing funding to expand Deakin University's free accredited professional development program to build the mental health literacy of trusted advisors like accountants and bookkeepers. It's been welcomed by Beyond Blue's chair, the Honourable Julia Gillard AC, and it will assist small business owners who have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women, Senator Ruston. Today, Mr Morrison referred to those expressing concern that women have been left behind by his government's budget as 'voices of disruption, of division.' Does the minister agree with Mr Morrison that Australian women concerned about being left behind by this government are just 'voices of disruption, of division'?
Thank you very much, Senator O'Neill, for the question. One of the things that has probably most greatly concerned me over the last few days in response to the budget by those opposite and others has been the lack of understanding of the depth of the measures in this budget that support Australia's women. As a woman in this place, and representing today the Minister for Women, Senator Payne, it is very distressing that we have not seen credit for the massive level of investment that has been made in all Australians over the last seven months, as we have managed our way through the pandemic and, again, on Tuesday night with the measures put in place to help Australia's women. As I said, apart from all of the general measures of which the majority are accessible to women, there are dedicated measures that are specifically targeted towards assisting women in this budget. We've been through them on a number of occasions in this place, but I'm more than happy to stand here again and talk about some of the great initiatives in Tuesday night's budget for women. These are on top of a number of measures that have been announced over the past seven months as Australia has come to terms with a pandemic that has never been experienced in the lifetime of anyone sitting in this chamber.
We on this side will absolutely stand by our record as a government in support of women. I too am happy to stand by my record in the time I've been the minister responsible for families and social services for initiatives we have undertaken to assist Australia's women. The Women's Economic Security Statement is absolutely specifically targeted at making sure we return the level of work participation by Australia's women back to the highest levels and hopefully— (Time expired)
Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
In response to criticisms of the Morrison government's budget, the Prime Minister's office has said, 'No-one credible was making that criticism.' Is that really the government's position?
Thank you once again, Senator O'Neill, for your supplementary question. What I would say is that I have been extremely disappointed at some of the commentary we have received about the budget that has lacked any understanding or acceptance that there are a number of measures in this budget specifically targeted towards women. But, equally, we have a number of measures—in fact, just about every single measure that is contained in the budget—that apply to women. And the idea that we would have a budget that's gender specific in every single measure that's contained in it is completely ludicrous. Equally, we have a number of measures—in fact, just about every single measure that is contained in the budget applies to women. The idea that we would have a budget that is gender specific in every single measure that's contained in it is completely ludicrous.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I note that Senator McAllister asked me about just one measure. I can go through many, many measures. We can talk about the paid parental leave changes. We can talk about the advanced apprenticeships for women. We can talk about the female leaders imitative. We can talk about a number of measures. (Time expired)
Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?
In his International Women's Day address last year Mr Morrison said of gender equality:
We want to see women rise. But we don't want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse.
Is this why Scott Morrison's budget has left women behind?
First and foremost, the Morrison budget delivered by the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, on Tuesday did not leave women behind. In fact, I would say that the budget on Tuesday night was one of the most comprehensive suites of interrelated measures to support all Australians, and the support has been specifically targeted at areas of greatest need. Clearly, there are initiatives contained in the budget that are targeted specifically at women. We've been through them on numerous occasions, but, as I said, I'll go through them again if you want to ask me another question.
Equally, we have other measures that have targeted other areas of our community where there is greatest need. Clearly, the work credits that have been put in place were targeting the fact that so many young people have lost their jobs during the pandemic. Clearly, there are other initiatives that are contained in the budget that are focused on Indigenous Australians in areas of need. This budget is targeted, focused and measured.
Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Chandler.
My question is to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. The Morrison government is ensuring maximum opportunities exist for young Australians, with the best available opportunities in education and employment prospects and the most appropriate assistance for those who require help during the COVID-19 crisis. How is the government's plan for jobs, as outlined in Tuesday night's budget, supporting young Australians to access job opportunities and rebuild their connections to employers during these times?
I thank Senator Chandler for her question. We know as a government that young Australians have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting impacts on essential services, but Tuesday night's budget paved the way for a road to recovery. The coalition government has committed $4 billion to support young people into work through the JobMaker hiring credit, which provides a wage subsidy of $200 a week for up to a year to make an eligible position available for a young person aged 16 to 29 or $100 a week for those aged 30 to 35 who have been receiving the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance or parenting payment for at least one month within the last three months before they were hired.
The Morrison government has always focused on creating jobs. Since the election of the coalition in 2013 to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic we have seen the Australian economy create 1.5 million new jobs. The budget on Tuesday night further demonstrated our government's commitment to getting the Australian economy back on track and Australians back into the workforce, with young Australians being a key focus of that commitment. The JobMaker hiring credit will accelerate growth in employment during the recovery by giving organisations incentives to take on additional employees who are young jobseekers 16 to 35 years old. It's expected that the JobMaker hiring credit will support around 450,000 positions for young people to move back into employment. As the Treasurer outlined in the budget speech, having a job means much more than just having an income.
Senator Chandler, a supplementary question?
Minister, I recognise, and this government recognises, the important role of our apprentices to our economy and communities across Australia. What initiatives is the government investing in to recognise the importance of our young apprentices and trainees?
This government is acutely aware of the devastating impact that COVID-19 has played on the employment of many young Australians. That's why the Morrison government has announced $1.2 billion to encourage employers to take on apprentices and trainees through a new commencement wage subsidy. This additional $1.2 billion will enable us to support 100,000 new apprentice commencements. As someone who started their working career as a tradie, I can only commend it to any young person out there who is looking to start work. It's a great start in life. This measure will help prevent future skill shortages and create opportunities for women and young people, including recent school leavers. Employers of any size or any industry, Australia-wide, who engage Australian apprentices from 5 October through to 30 September 2021 will be eligible under this program. (Time expired)
Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question?
On top of recent actions to engage young people and to identify the mental challenges they're facing, what investment is the government making to ensure young Australians have access to mental health support?
This is one area where young people have been impacted significantly, and we all remain extremely concerned about their mental health. We're committed to ensuring that the mental health of young people is maintained through our ongoing investment into youth mental health and suicide prevention measures.
The Australian government has invested an unprecedented $5.7 billion in mental health in 2020-2021 alone. We've doubled the number of Medicare-funded psychological services from 10 to 20 through the Better Access initiative and additional mental health support will be available to young people living in bushfire affected regions and those bearing the brunt of COVID-19. On top of this, the government is driving the largest expansion of the headspace network, from 124 services to 153 services nationally by 2022. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Leave is granted.
I thank the Senate. I note, given today's announcement, that today is Senator Cormann's last question time. I know that we will have the opportunity tomorrow to say nice or not nice things about him, should we wish! But I did want to take the opportunity on his last question time to make a comment about ministerial accountability.
Ministerial accountability to the people through the parliament is central and fundamental to our democracy, and question time is central to that accountability. Whilst I would say that at times I thought he could have given better answers, Senator Cormann does understand: he understands that belief in democracy demands respect of norms and institutions, and he has sought to reflect that in his behaviour. My hope is that more in the executive government could always do the same.
I thank Senator Wong for those kind remarks and I look forward to a more extensive conversation tomorrow.
by leave—I move:
That divisions may take place on Friday, 9 October 2020.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to questions without notice asked today by Senators McCarthy, Keneally and O'Neill relating to the budget.
The Prime Minister has described those expressing concern that women have been left behind by his government's budget as 'voices of disruption and division'. More disturbingly, some young man—I assume it was a young man—in the Prime Minister's office took time out of his busy day to ring up a female journalist and take her to task for her coverage of his government's budget, saying that 'no-one credible' was making criticisms of the government's budget on the grounds of its inadequacies in terms of women. When the Minister representing the Minister for Women was asked about these comments, her response was simply to say she's concerned about the level of understanding about how her budget works. How patronising! When Australian women raise their voices and raise objections about how this government performs and responds to their issues, the answer is, 'Oh, they clearly just don't understand.' Well, I'll tell you what: if I have to choose between the Morrison government and the credible women who are raising concerns about their budget, I know who I will choose. I will choose the credible women every single day.
For the people on the other side who don't understand the issues—because I think it's this government who doesn't understand; it's not Australian women—let me take you through it. We are facing the worst recession in almost 100 years. It's a recession triggered by a global pandemic, and it has disproportionately affected Australian women. Women have lost their jobs and they've lost their hours, and they've lost them at a faster rate than men. Since March, almost 200,000 women have lost their jobs, and 110,000 women have left the labour force altogether. At the peak of the coronavirus restrictions earlier this year, more than one million women had no work whatsoever, and outside the workforce a whole lot of new tasks accrued to women in the home: homeschooling and looking after unwell people—a massive increase in the burden of work at home.
But, during the pandemic, what did the government do to support women? Well, they set up JobKeeper in a way that excluded short-term casuals, and that overwhelmingly impacted women more than men; they withdrew JobKeeper from the childcare sector, unbelievably; and the women who were excluded from other measures of support were told that what they should do was draw down from their already meagre super balances, forcing women to choose between their financial security now and their financial security in retirement.
The government had an opportunity to redeem themselves in this budget. They had an opportunity to fix some of this stuff-up, because there is no doubt that Australian women have borne the brunt of the pandemic and the Morrison recession that's accompanied it. But, despite racking up more than $1 trillion worth of debt, the Prime Minister's office rehashed the women's economic statement and allocated $230 million in new funding, 0.024 per cent of the new spending measures in the budget. For absolute clarity, we are spending more in this budget on a waste-recycling program than we are on the Women's Economic Security Statement. We are planning to spend more on buying petrol than we are on the Women's Economic Security Statement. We're spending twice as much on putting in a new computer system in the Department of Human Services as we are on the Women's Economic Security Statement in this budget. So, when credible women say to you on the government benches, 'Your budget does not deliver for us,' a humble government—a listening government—would actually take that concern seriously. It would listen and respond. It would not try to demean and diminish the voices of people who raised their concerns about its performance, because that is essentially the kind of arrogance that will not be rewarded.
People who raise concerns about women's issues are not voices of disruption or of division. We are ordinary voices of Australian women who are tired of having our interests ignored by a government that only sees the world through male eyes and appears incapable of appreciating women's perspectives, uninterested in addressing them and hostile to hearing women's voices. I stand with the credible women.
What a great day to be doing a motion to take note, because I get to talk about my favourite subject: women. I'd like to give a shout-out to my beautiful wife; my beautiful daughter; my beautiful sisters; my mother, who has passed away; and my grandmothers. They were all working women. The one thing that we will never do on this side of the chamber is leave women behind. The other thing we will never do on this side of the chamber is leave our children behind or leave our families behind.
I'd like to reflect on the comments of another great Australian woman, Quentin Bryce, Australia's first female Governor-General, who said when talking about the complexities of trying to raise children and going back to work, 'You can have it all; you don't necessarily have to have it all at once.' I think it's terribly presumptuous of those on the other side of the chamber to think that they know what every woman wants. Some women don't necessarily want to go back to work straight away. Some might like to stay home while their children are young. If that's what they want to do we on this side of the chamber will support that, because we on this side of the chamber believe in choice and believe in our children. That's different to that side of the chamber, which believes in command and control. This side: choice, children, families. That side of the chamber: command and control.
Of course, there's more to it than Labor like to make out. We've got it here from our old friend Aunty, the ABC. They're not the greatest friends of the coalition. A few years ago Fact Check did a piece called, 'Was Labor's childcare fund only ever about the union?' And the result was 'in the ballpark'. It says:
However, there are reasonable criticisms of the amount allocated to the fund, the uneven way it was distributed and the adoption of a first-come-first-served policy. This process favoured the union.
One thing we will never do on this side of the chamber is unionise parenthood. That is the difference between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber. That side of the chamber puts unions first. It doesn't put our children first. It doesn't put women first. It doesn't put the welfare of all Australians first. It puts the unions first all the time. Whenever they're talking about these issues, you can always be sure that, in the background, it's always about the unions. It's always about the unions.
Let's just look at some of the numbers in the budget here. There are allegations that there's no money in the budget for women and no money in the budget for women's support. Let's just quote a couple of figures here. Women are getting $242 million for women's workforce participation. We're spending $240 million to get women back into work. I should also say there's $9 billion in this year's budget for child care. On top of that, there's $20 billion for the family tax benefit. I forget who it was, but one of the Labor senators mentioned that two-thirds of people who stay at home are women. We're supporting stay-at-home parents to the tune of $20 billion. There's parental income support of another $7 billion. There's child support of $2 billion. Support for the childcare system is $1.5 billion. There's another $600 million for families and children. All up, there's about $40 billion to help families—you know, women are a part of families. There is a lot of money in this budget for child care, for families and to help women get back into the workforce. So I totally refute the allegations that the coalition doesn't support women.
We should just touch on a few other big discounts in the budget here. I note Senator McAllister raised the issue of superannuation. If we look at the biggest tax concession in the budget—guess what it is! The second and third-biggest are concessional taxation of superannuation entity earnings and concessional taxation of employer superannuation contributions—over $40 billion in superannuation contributions. Wow! So I tell you what— (Time expired)
I find it hard to believe some of the contributions and some of the answers that we've received to our questions today about what is, in actual fact, confronting Australian women at this time. I also find hard to believe not only the tone-deafness of the answers that they've given us today but their inability to hear the reality—to see and understand the reality—of what is happening to Australian women right now in the course of this Morrison crisis that's been inflicted on us—I do mean the Morrison recession, but it's a crisis of great proportion because there is no adequate response. For example: before the recession, the Central Coast, which is in the electorate of Robertson, where I live, had the highest underemployment of unskilled female workers in the entire country.
They have not been noticed. They have not been heard. There is no response. Despite putting us in debt as a nation to the tune of $1 trillion, those women's needs remain unanswered. These were women at the front line of the aged-care crisis and the front line of the pandemic, and the government has now turned its back on them. Women on the Central Coast of New South Wales lost work hours much faster than men, they were 50 per cent more likely to stop looking for work than men and they are suffering more significantly than men. You'd think a government would know about these things. You'd think the government would have some plan in their response, in their budget, to that reality. Data from the New South Wales Parliamentary Library shows us that employment growth slowed to a trickle while more people than ever were leaving the coast to commute for many hours for jobs. That's the reality before these guys got to the pandemic, and it's so, so much worse now.
Senator Rennick mentioned the union movement, and I want to stand firmly with the SDA union and other great union leaders who are the only voices standing up for workers, who are much maligned by this government. As they said, this is a blue budget for a pink recession. There is totally inadequate support for women. Two hundred thousand women who work in accommodation services, food services and the retail trade sector all missed out on JobSeeker due to its design flaws around casual employees. They're suffering, their families are suffering and, of $1 trillion that is going to be racked up as debt for this country, there is no relief in sight for those women.
The number of women on JobSeeker has jumped by 124 per cent over the past 12 months, surging past their male counterparts in August. What does it mean for the women who end up on JobSeeker? Let me give you a little bit of the flavour of what it was like for an amazing woman who gave evidence to a committee hearing that we had in Launceston at the end of 2019. This is the kind of Australian woman this government is leaving behind. Her name is Debra and this is what she said:
I've worked a total of 35 years for Australia, and my last position was for 22 years. I've worked 30 of those 35 years in factory work so it was physical labour and your body can only take that for so long. In 2016, I was made redundant. The factory I worked at closed in November of that year, and I was made redundant in July. I went to Centrelink to be told that I had to live on my redundancy for 18 months, which I did. After that they put me on Newstart.
The equivalent of Newstart is JobSeeker. Debra went on to say:
So to say that going from a paid job to Newstart is a shock to the system is a bit of an understatement because budgeting is impossible. There's just no money to budget. There's just not enough money to go around.
I've followed all the instructions from Centrelink and my job provider to the letter. I've had my payments suspended five times so far this year due to no fault of mine, and that's stressful. … When you get a text message—actually, on Wednesday I reported and, when I got to the end of my report, it said: your payment has been suspended. So I had to get out of that, ring my job provider and ask, 'What's going on?' It just happens all the time…
… … …
My medical scripts cost about $80-plus a month. I've used all my redundancy. I have very few savings left. Frankly, I'm scared about what's going to happen to me when my car rego and my insurance et cetera come in because there are no savings left—that's what I've been living on. I mean: am I going to have be forced to live in my car? It makes me very sad, and it's demeaning when our Prime Minister says that Newstart recipients are a blight on the Australian economy.
That is the Mr Morrison who created the budget that we saw on Tuesday night. That is why Australian women are being left behind, because he simply doesn't care. (Time expired)
It is bizarre, to say the least, to hear opposition senators come into this place and talk about the 'Morrison recession', as we just heard Senator O'Neill mention. Obviously this is an issue which has gone right through the Labor Party. Dr Chalmers yesterday sent around an email talking about the 'Morrison recession' as if the COVID-19 crisis didn't exist. Now, the budget papers during the week revealed that, yes, the Australian economy has shrunk by seven per cent in the June quarter. That compares to a 20 per cent reduction in the UK and 12 per cent in New Zealand, so this is the global recession that the Labor Party don't seem to be able to come to terms with and that is inflicting damage upon the world's economy. Given that this discussion is about women, I will now turn to that matter.
This budget is about improving the economic standing of this country and improving the standing of all the citizens of Australia. Yes, our whole economic response to this pandemic has been to try to be as broad based as possible. We've spent $100 billion on the JobKeeper scheme, and that has kept businesses afloat. It's kept people in their jobs. It's kept people alive.
We can talk about the issues that have been raised during this motion to take note. As I say, the budget is based on a rising tide lifting all boats, 'all boats' being the Australian people. But of course there is a gender pay gap, which under our government, leading into this pandemic, is the lowest it has been on record, and so there is a recognition across our government that there is a need to deploy measures to deal with some of the issues that women, in particular, face. In relation to child care, which is often raised, I have never seen this as an issue for women. It's an issue for families. It is an issue for men and women. It's an issue for everyone. And so solving child care is not solving something which is a problem that should only accrue to women. It is something that families need to work together on, and I don't see this issue as just falling into women's bucket. But across the board we have deployed measures in this budget which deal directly with some of the shortcomings in our economy.
One of the roles I'm performing in this place is chairing an inquiry into fintech. During that inquiry it has become clear that there is a need for us to do more training and to spend more time, more effort and more resources ensuring that women have the skills to run tech businesses and to be successful in the tech space. And so in this budget we have deployed $25 million into STEM cadetships for women. We've also put money into boosting enterprise amongst women, with 280-odd startups expected to be created because of this scheme. In the course of this inquiry it's been a great pleasure to meet many founders and CEOs of fintech and regtech businesses who are women. There are many of them that are successful already, and we want to see more and more businesses in this space.
In this budget a number of recommendations of the fintech committee have been adopted. The research and development tax incentive recommendations have been adopted. There have also been changes to the fringe benefits tax arrangements that will be forthcoming. All of these things are designed, of course, to improve the amount of private investment into the tech space where men and women work, but we do want to see more women in this space, which is why we're deploying the STEM scheme. I reflect on some of the interactions that we've had at the committee, where there have been some brilliant women who've come up with a tech idea, gone into the market and established these businesses. They're now deploying things in the buy-now, pay-later sector and whatnot. This is a great tribute to female enterprise, but we do want to see more, so we are trying to provide some positive discrimination here in this field.
I summarise my comments by saying this is a budget for all Australians. The rising tide does lift all boats.
One trillion dollars in debt and nothing for women over the age of 35.In the Morrison government's budget, women are being left out and left behind. Day after day, we see new evidence of the disproportionate impact COVID-19 is having on Australian women, but in response the Morrison government has failed. Women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, taking on two-thirds of the unpaid care work at home. Even before the pandemic hit, a significant number of JobSeeker recipients were middle-aged women. In August, there were 754,100 women receiving JobSeeker. Of those, 61 per cent were over 35. The same research revealed a huge increase in the number of women in their 40s, 50s and 60s relying on unemployment benefits for years. A third of women aged at least 55 have been on unemployment support for at least five years. There are 460,000 women aged over 35 years who are without work and who face a future of living on $40 a day. They have been excluded from the Morrison government's hiring credits scheme and will need to compete against younger, subsidised jobseekers. So if you're a woman in your 40s who's been on JobKeeper during this recession, had your hours reduced, work in hospitality or retail and, come March or April, you lose your job, what is in the budget for you? Nothing. The Morrison government excluded many women from JobKeeper. The Morrison government only provided JobKeeper for two-thirds of early educators and then ripped JobKeeper from the sector before any other profession. Ninety-six per cent of early educators are women working on the front line of the COVID-19 crisis.
What about First Nations women? Let's have a look at their story. There's no additional education funding for young First Nations women. The Clontarf Foundation funding supports the education of young First Nations men only. There was no additional health or legal services for First Nations women, no new money for further frontline domestic violence services, including no additional emergency and social housing to meet increased demand due to COVID-19, and no COVID-19 recovery support for unemployed Indigenous women over 35 years of age to regain employment.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that of the 64,644 First Nations people who sought specialist help for homelessness back in 2016-17, 61 per cent were women. First Nations women comprise 34 per cent of all female prisoners compared to two per cent of the overall Australian population. Although the majority of people in prison are male—97 per cent—First Nations women are the most rapidly-growing population of prisoners, with rates increasing by 150 per cent since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody—twice the rate of other females and double the rate of First Nations males from 2000 to 2016. These women have often experienced poverty, grief and loss, domestic violence, racism and poor mental health.
Senator Ruston noted the Women's Economic Security Statement contained $240 million in specific initiatives for women. Despite the $1.1 trillion of debt, the Prime Minister's women's economic statement contains just $240 million for 51 per cent of the population. This is a pittance compared to multibillion-dollar commitments directed to various male-dominated industries.
The 2020 budget contains nothing to address the significant job losses in industries dominated by women, yet women have represented more than 50 per cent of job losses during the coronavirus-led economic downturn. There's no new funding for frontline domestic and family violence services that support women and their children escaping violence, nothing new to address the gender pay gap, nothing on superannuation and women's economic security in retirement, nothing on child care, nothing on social housing and no plan for women in Australia.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to the arts and entertainment industry.
I rise to take note of the answers given to my questions to Senator Cormann in relation to the lack of support for Australia's artists, the arts community, the art and creative sector and the industries that rely on our artistic and creative workers. On Tuesday night, artists right around the country were shocked that the Treasurer, after six months of the industry suffering because of the various levels of restrictions and the hard blow to the industry because of COVID-19, could not even utter the word art in his budget speech. It's just a disgrace. Hundreds of thousands of Australian workers within our arts and creative sector have been left out in the cold. Very little support has been put on the table for them. The government talks about the fact that they could have access to JobKeeper or JobSeeker without actually understanding that because of the nature of this industry, many, many artists and creative workers across the country have gone without anything. They don't qualify for JobKeeper, and some may be on JobSeeker, but, of course, we know that the government's about to force those people back to living on $40 a day, so it's hardly helping those who are struggling within those areas of work.
The budget failed to recognise that this industry needs support, that it was one of the hardest hit, that it was the first hit by the COVID-19 recession and that it will be the last to come out. You'd think that this government would have bothered to put more support on the table. But, of course, there was nothing. One of the saddest things about all of this is that it pales in comparison to what other countries have done. I asked Senator Cormann about this. In the UK, the government have put 1½ billion pounds on the table because they understand that the arts and cultural institutions and industry and sector are vital to a functioning democracy, vital to the economy. Germany has put billions of euros the table. We know that in France they have allowed for a special unemployment scheme for actors, for performers, for artists who are out of work because of COVID-19. Of course, Senator Cormann is about to go and try and win the plum job of secretary-general of the OECD. It's not much of a track record you're taking from Australia, Senator Cormann, when it comes to the arts and creative sector.
One of the worst parts of this budget has been that it's those sectors which mainly employ women who have been the hardest hit. We're talking the arts and the entertainment sector. We're talking hospitality, tourism, retail. Despite all of that—most people who have lost their jobs because of COVID, being women; most people who have lost their hours because of COVID, being women; most people who are suffering through this recession, being women—there's really nothing in there for women. So, if you happen to work in the arts and entertainment industry and you happen to be a woman, it's a pretty bad budget for you—a terrible budget for you. You've been left on the scrap heap. It's absolutely appalling, and it begs the questions: Does this government have a problem with Australian women? Does this government have a problem with supporting Australian women to get back into work, to have enough income to pay the bills and to have affordable child care so they can get on with doing it? Why has this Prime Minister left Australian women on the scrap heap? Why has this Prime Minister left women out in the cold? He doesn't seem to like art very much. He doesn't seem to like culture very much. He loves the footy. He loves his tradies building renovated kitchens. And he's done nothing for women. It's a pretty sad day for Australian women and a pretty bad budget to boot.
Question agreed to.
I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Autism—Select Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Marielle Smith
Economics Legislation Committee
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Paterson to replace Senator Brockman for the consideration of the 2020-21 Budget estimates from 19 October 2020 to 2 November 2020
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Marielle Smith
Environment and Communications References Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Marielle Smith
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Chisholm
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology—Select Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Kitching
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Select Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Pratt
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Publications
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Farrell
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Tobacco Harm Reduction—Select Committee
Appointed—
Senators Sheldon and Urquhart
Participating members: Senator Ayres, Bilyk, Brown, Carr, Chisholm, Ciccone, Dodson, Farrell, Gallacher, Gallagher, Green, Keneally, Kitching, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh, Watt, Wong.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Kitching
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee
Discharge—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Ciccone
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith.
Question agreed to.
Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 27 September 2020, of the Hon. Susan Maree Ryan AO, a senator for the Australian Capital Territory from 1975 to 1988 and a minister. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate record its deep regret at the death, on 27 September 2020, of the Honourable Susan Maree Ryan AO, a former Senator for the Australian Capital Territory and Minister for Education, Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and Special Minister of State in the Hawke Government, places on record its appreciation for her service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
Susan Ryan was a passionate advocate for gender equality and a pioneer in the fight for the interests of Australian women. She leaves behind an extensive legacy full of firsts: one of the Australian Capital Territory's first senators and the first ACT senator to represent the ALP; Labor's first female cabinet minister; the first woman to hold the women's affairs portfolio; and Australia's first Age Discrimination Commissioner. But her signature achievement was the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984—legislation that made sexual harassment unlawful and was a largely successful attempt to ensure that women had the same access to jobs, services and accommodation as men. The act has had a lasting impact on Australian women. It encouraged more women to seek education and employment, making it possible for women to hold employment and have a family life. These important social changes raised Australian family incomes and gave women more opportunities and economic independence.
Born on 10 October 1942 in Sydney, Susan was one of four children to Arthur and Florence Ryan. Growing up in Maroubra, Susan was educated at the Brigidine school and was the first in her family and school to receive a scholarship to the University of Sydney, where she studied teaching. Upon graduating in 1963 Susan married Richard Butler, with whom she had two children. She worked briefly as a schoolteacher and then, after the arrival of her first child, Justine, she switched careers, running a small business from her home in Cremorne, the Living Parish Hymn Book Publishing Company.
In 1965 the family moved to Canberra, and Susan embarked on a Master of Arts degree in English literature at the Australian National University. Her studies were interrupted when Richard was posted to the Australian embassy in Vienna. Shortly after arriving Susan and Richard welcomed the birth of their second child, Benedict. In 1970 the family moved again, this time for a posting to New York. But less than a year later Susan returned to Australia with her two children and resumed her master's degree. She joined the Women's Electoral Lobby in 1972 and the Belconnen branch of the Australian Labor Party shortly thereafter. The Women's Electoral Lobby began to push for direct political representation in 1974. Susan agreed to stand for preselection in the new ACT seat of Fraser. While she was unsuccessful at that election, coming third in the ballot, Susan would get her chance again in 1975, when legislation to provide the ACT with two Senate positions was enacted. Running on the slogan 'A woman's place is in the Senate', Susan was elected as one of the first two senators to represent the ACT and the first woman and ALP senator to represent the territory.
Susan entered parliament during a dramatic and challenging time for the ALP. The party had just suffered a landslide election defeat after the dismissal of Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister by then Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. But Susan was not deterred. She came to this place to work hard and make a difference. She had ideas and ambitions. Two years later, when Bill Hayden became opposition leader he gave her the shadow portfolio responsibilities for communications, arts and the media as well as for women's affairs, a portfolio she would hold until her resignation in 1988.
Susan was focused on developing social policy, and when Bob Hawke led Labor back into government in 1983 she was appointed as the minister for education and as the minister for women's affairs. She was the first woman in the Labor Party to hold a cabinet position. During her time on the frontbench she would deliver important reforms, as I previously mentioned, including the Sex Discrimination Act, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, the Public Service Reform Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act.
After five years in cabinet, Susan decided it was the right time to retire from her parliamentary career, and she took up a role as the managing editor of Penguin Books. Susan felt she had given the best she could to politics, and in 1990 she was awarded an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to the Australian parliament. In her 1999 memoir, Catching the Waves, Susan reflected on her achievements, saying she was driven by the view that women should be able to pursue opportunities unencumbered by stifling stereotypes and that women and men should be judged on their merits—concepts that, thankfully, are entirely straightforward and universally accepted today.
Susan served in many roles in her post-political career, including executive director for the Plastics Industry Association, executive director of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and pro-chancellor of the University of New South Wales. She also continued to fight to end discrimination and to fight for better rights for all Australians, serving as Australia's first Age Discrimination Commissioner and, later, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner. During her time as the Age Discrimination Commissioner, she worked tirelessly to advance the rights of older Australians. After the release of the 2015 Intergenerational report she argued that Australia should move to a retirement age of 70, given we are living longer than ever before. In fact, in 2015 Susan wrote:
Why are individuals leaving paid work at 60, or often earlier, rather than 70? Even if they are more likely to live to 100 instead of 150 … Age discrimination in employment is a huge barrier preventing older Australians from continuing in the workforce.
She said the report also implied:
… all those older than 65 are in need of substantial and growing public support—
and that it ignored the economic potential of older people. She argued that it was time to have a conversation about how to realise the economic and social potential of an ageing population.
In her first speech to the Senate in 1976 Susan noted there were only six women in the Senate. In 2019 the Senate reached gender equality in terms of representation. In part, this was achieved because of groundbreakers like former senator the Hon. Susan Ryan. Susan Ryan will be remembered as someone who dedicated her life to social justice and to making this nation a better and more equal place for all Australians. To Susan's partner, Rory, and her surviving children, Justine and Ben: on behalf of the Australian government and the Senate, I offer our deepest condolences.
We honour today the life and contribution of former senator and minister the Hon. Susan Ryan. I speak on behalf of all Labor senators in offering our sympathy and solidarity to her family, especially her partner, Rory, and her two children, Justine and Benedict, and her grandson, Amir, and to her many friends.
It is often said 'you cannot be what you cannot see', and yet someone has to go first. Those are the truest of leaders, who have the vision of what is possible, the courage to take on the fight against those vested in the status quo, the intellectual power to craft the strategy and the charisma and humanity to bring people with them. For us, for Labor women, that was Susan Ryan. She could see it: she could see a woman at the cabinet table, and she could see what Australia needed, what Australia needed that woman to achieve, and she made it happen. She wasn't a timeserver; she was a reformer. She came through first, but she brought others with her. She showed us the way. My generation of Labor women looked up to Susan. She inspired us in word and deed. She took a personal interest in all of us. When I saw her here, she would greet me with an enthusiastic hug, and she would always offer me encouragement and assure me I was doing well, that she was proud of me and of so many others who had followed her. That pride was mutual. Labor women have lost our sister and we will miss her.
Susan was born in Sydney and her early life had education at its centre. After convent schooling, she completed a Bachelor of Arts at Sydney Teachers' College before relocating with her family to Canberra, where she embarked on a postgraduate degree in English literature. This was interrupted when she accompanied her then husband, Richard Butler, on two overseas postings. As she described it, marriage at that time meant going wherever your husband went. She made the most of these experiences to gain knowledge and exposure to new and different thinking. She reflected that, on her return to Australia from their first posting in Vienna in 1969, the preoccupations of Labor at that time were vastly different to that of comparable parties in Western Europe. Opposition to the war on Vietnam was the touchstone for those in her generation who were politically active and with whom she would later serve.
On their second posting, in New York, Susan was sparked in different ways by the ideas of Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem, and she found herself questioning the place of women in society relative to the place of men. She questioned why everything in personal and public life was arranged for the convenience of men, and why people pretended that even dull men were clever. At the same time, gifted, passionate women were passed over, neglected and restricted. She said, 'Those of us caught in the whirlwind saw that society was structured and manufactured by its rulers to achieve these endless disparities between the sexes. Our subordination was not destiny; it was a construct of men in which we had acquiesced for far too long.'
Well, Susan Ryan would acquiesce no more. Her arrival back in Canberra led to deep engagement in both Labor and feminist politics. At the same time as becoming active in her local Labor branch, Susan Ryan joined the Women's Electoral Lobby as a foundation member. Across the country, like-minded women came together and began to organise politically—women like Wendy McCarthy and Eva Cox. Their objectives are familiar, perhaps depressingly so: confronting sexism, ending discrimination in education and employment, taking control of reproductive health, improving access to child care and achieving equal pay for equal work.
In the Australian Labor Party, Susan Ryan hoped for a practical pathway to redressing the wrongs done to women using legislative power to effect change. She rejoiced in the victory of the Whitlam government, although she missed out on an appointment to the groundbreaking new role of women's adviser. Her political activism led to a role running the national secretariat for the Australian Council of State School Organisations, a role that would connect her with another early leader of our movement, Joan Kirner, for the first time, and they would go on to have an effective partnership and lasting friendship.
The Whitlam government lasted only three years but it changed our nation forever. Susan saw Labor as the key to a more humane, vibrant and equal society, believing that a feminist lobby was necessary but not sufficient. Instead of being on the outside lobbying, she wanted to be inside making the laws, and, before long, she was encouraged to run for preselection. Susan Ryan was elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly and, after a false start seeking preselection for the House of Representatives, she ultimately prevailed in preselection to the Senate. In her characteristically tongue-in-cheek telling of it, she said that she overcame several reasonably glamorous male candidates. She was elected by the ACT as its first senator in 1975, one of just six women in the parliament, all senators.
In the wake of the Whitlam government's defeat, she made the most of the opportunity to help rebuild Labor. She cut her teeth in the Senate in her first couple of years by taking every speaking opportunity, a whip's delight. This saw her contribute on debates ranging from Aboriginal affairs, social welfare, health and education to broadcasting, employment, defence and national security.
When Bill Hayden became opposition leader after the 1977 election loss, she became the first woman to serve in Labor's shadow ministry. Her portfolios over the next six years included communications, the arts and media, and, later, Aboriginal affairs. Perhaps most significantly, though, in 1979 she also gained responsibility for women's affairs. Her predecessor in the role had been a man—imagine a man serving in the women's affairs portfolio in any modern political party! I wonder when you have to go back to? She would hold this portfolio in opposition and in government for nearly a decade until her resignation in 1988.
Labor entered the 1980 campaign with a program for women called 'Towards equality'. We made gains at this election—not enough to take government but gains that delivered new female parliamentarians to the ranks. However, these were offset by the defeat of others mostly as a result of internal preselections that saw men take the place of women. This became one of the many impetuses for the introduction of affirmative action provisions within Labor: first for internal positions and, eventually, for parliament.
Affirmative action is part of why I'm in this place today. I was proud to take Susan's legacy on affirmative action forward with my dear friend, Sharryn Jackson, the then member for Hasluck, at the 2002 special rules conference, where we changed the rules to ensure more talented women got into the parliament. Labor now has more women than men in the Senate. That is the reason why the majority of senators in this place are women for the first time in Australian history. There are many opposite who argue that affirmative action is unnecessary and undermines the principle of merit based selections. I recall that catchcry from some in the Liberal Party: 'quota girl'. I'll leave it to others to judge the extent to which merit is the key metric for the selection of all of those opposite. Affirmative action recognises that structural change is required to achieve equality. It recognises that power doesn't just fall into the hands of those who haven't had it for much of the course of human history.
After the 1980 election, the Fraser government no longer had control of the Senate, and Susan Ryan used this opportunity to pursue two significant private senator's bills. The first of these was legislation that sought to implement antidiscrimination and affirmative action measures for women. This approach garnered support, fanned substantial media debate and committed Labor to action. Whilst that bill did not progress into law, Susan had started the fire and she would not stop until all of us were guided by its light.
The second bill related to her portfolio of Aboriginal affairs and sought to provide land tenure to First Nations people living on reserves in Queensland. At the time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens in Queensland were more thoroughly dispossessed than in any other part of Australia. With the backing of the Labor caucus and cross-party support, Susan Ryan confronted the blatant racism of the Bjelke-Petersen regime head on. This time the bill passed the Senate—only the 30th private senator's bill to do so since Federation—but did not get a vote in the House of Representatives. While progress on land rights was not as quick as Susan Ryan had hoped, there's no doubt she helped to spur momentum.
When the Hawke government took office in 1983, Susan Ryan became the first female cabinet minister in Labor history. She was appointed Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. She set about implementing the feminist agenda she had envisioned. At the top of this was to bring her private senator's bill on sex discrimination into law. That the Sex Discrimination Act passed the parliament in the first year of the Hawke government speaks volumes about Susan Ryan's advocacy and the impact of her capacity to transform ideas into action.
It has become common in some quarters to dismiss many of the policy achievements of the Hawke government as some kind of bipartisan project that was shared across the parliament. That is plainly inaccurate. The Sex Discrimination Act encountered significant opposition both inside and outside the parliament because of the magnitude of its reform. It's hard to remember that at this time it was not unlawful to discriminate in this country on the basis of sex in employment, education, accommodation and the provision of goods and services. A woman's credit rating and earning capacity weren't enough to get a loan from a bank. She could only secure credit if her husband or her father took responsibility. Landlords refused to rent homes to single mothers. Community clubs throughout the country were able to bar women. Women were sacked because of their age, marital status or pregnancy. All of these injustices and inequalities were in the sights of Susan Ryan. She called the Sex Discrimination Act 'probably the most useful thing I've done in my life'. I think that was a serious understatement. It is hard to imagine life in this country without it or, indeed, an argument against it. Every woman and every girl has benefited from Susan Ryan's leadership. Nevertheless, the opposition was fierce. Indeed, 38 conservative members and senators voted against it, including the then leader of the National Party and one Liberal MP who went on to become a Howard government minister.
The Sex Discrimination Act was followed by the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, which became law in 1986. At that time, the Australian labour market was the most sex-segregated in the OECD. The act ensured women in the workforce had the opportunity to be recruited, trained and promoted on an equal basis with men. Susan Ryan heralded it as not just one of the biggest single steps forward in Australia's history for equality of women in the workplace but as a model of consensus decision-making consistent with the Hawke government's overall approach.
Parallel to these and other achievements for Australian women, Susan Ryan was also making significant inroads in education policy. When she started a minister, just three in 10 Australians completed high school. By the time Labor left office, eight in 10 students finish school—because of the change that she, and the Labor government of which she was a part, started. In her four years as minister, Susan created over 36,000 places in higher education, 4½ times the number created in the last four years of the Fraser government. She also strongly argued against the reintroduction of tertiary fees—at significant personal and political cost. Susan believed in education as a tool for social justice. She recognised its importance in lifting people out of poverty. On her retirement, Bob Hawke reflected that she had been a minister who drove rapid change and fundamental reform, and she remains Australia's second-longest-serving minister of education. In her final year, she also served as Special Minister of State and in other roles while retaining her position as minister assisting the PM on the status of women until her departure in 1998.
In the 30 years after she left parliament, Susan Ryan would continue to make a substantial public contribution and held various roles in the private sector. She was recognised in 1990 with the award of Officer of the Order of Australia for her contribution to this parliament. She held various roles in the superannuation sector. She continued to work for human rights and, in July 2011, she was appointed as our first Age Discrimination Commissioner. In 2014 she was appointed as Disability Discrimination Commissioner. She brought a particular focus to the economic security of women. She also served as Pro Vice-Chancellor at the University of New South Wales, and her interest in seeing Australia become a republic led to her taking on the role of deputy chair of the Australian Republic Movement from 2000 to 2003.
Susan Ryan broke new ground in Australian politics. Unsurprisingly, she endured misrepresentation and abuse. She had to cut through the predictable and tiresome preoccupation of public commentators, and even of her colleagues, with how she looked and her marital status. We need only reflect on how other female political leaders have been treated—and I'm thinking especially of Prime Minister Gillard—to recognise that Australian politics and public discourse still has much further to travel.
Thirty six years after the passage of the groundbreaking Sex Discrimination Act, we continue to see gross underrepresentation of women across our society. I return to the structural nature of inequality and discrimination. Many who have power in society like to believe it is because they earned it, that it is because they are the most talented and the most worthy. But do you know what? More often than not, they started out with power; and that means others started without it. Unless we take action, unless we make deliberate policy decisions, those structures will stay in place, recreating themselves generation after generation. Not only is that unjust to those who started without power and remain disadvantaged from birth to death it is a great loss to us all. It is a great loss to society because people have talents and abilities that never see the light of day.
In acknowledging all of Susan's many achievements, she would also expect me to point out some of what remains to be done, because across this country we find more women in lower paying jobs and more in precarious employment, resulting in women finding it harder to be economically independent. Susan Ryan's wisdom helped give us some tools to see how much more there is still to be done. The organisation we now know as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency tells us that the full-time remuneration gender pay gap is at 20.8 per cent, meaning men working full time earn $25,600-plus on average a year more than women working full time. The full-time salary gender pay gap is 15.5 per cent.
You see, as Susan observed, society was built by men for men and that is why Labor women understand there is a limit to 'leaning in'. We need to break down the structural barriers that block women's full participation and equality in Australia. We already have women retiring with 47 per cent less superannuation than men. Around three-quarters of the Australians who have been forced to withdraw from their super this year are women. That is not empowerment; that is impoverishment. Women over 55 are the fastest-growing group of people at risk of homelessness in Australia. Women over 60 represent the largest cohort on JobSeeker. Without access to affordable child care, many parents will be forced to give up or turn down work, and we know that is a sacrifice most often taken by women. Study after study has shown that affordable child care would increase women's workforce participation.
This budget, which should have been a blueprint for our economic future beyond the pandemic, does nothing to increase women's participation, nothing to tackle insecure work or improve access to child care, nothing to address the gender pay gap or shrinking super balances and has no plan to help women and their children escaping family violence. A cabinet with Susan Ryan at the table would never have made those decisions. She would never have acquiesced, and she taught those Labor women who have followed her not to acquiesce either. She was the first, but her legacy in this nation will last not just in the laws she wrote but among the Labor women who follow her, because we will continue the project of building a truly equal Australia.
Our entire movement mourns the loss of one of our greatest. As we mourn her passing, and in closing, I once again extend my personal sympathies and the sympathies of all my colleagues to Susan Ryan's family—to Rory, Justine, Benedict and Amir—and her many friends. I spoke with Justine earlier today. She spoke of how completely her mother dedicated her life's work to the Labor movement.
Susan Ryan was more than an effective legislator—although she was certainly that—she really wanted to make Australia better. Justine told me how she recently found her mother's first campaign T-shirt, which declared 'A woman's place is in the House and in the Senate.' Well, in this chamber today and looking at those behind me, it is clear that is yet another campaign that Susan Ryan won.
I rise today to express condolences on behalf of the Australian Greens to the family, friends and colleagues of the Hon. Susan Ryan AO. I'd like to associate our party with the remarks that have been made already about this remarkable woman. As has been said, former Senator Susan Ryan was a trailblazer for women's representation in parliament and for gender equality in all workplaces. I imagine she would have been pleased to see that, just this week, the Senate has finally reached the point of being majority women with the arrival of Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe, a proud First Nations woman, on Tuesday to this place.
Susan Ryan once said of her motivation for entering politics:
I felt from the youngest possible age that it was unfair, intolerable really, that females were regarded as second-class citizens. That was going to be the big thing that I wanted to change.
And so she did. She helped establish the Women's Electoral Lobby. She was elected to parliament as a single mother and became the first woman in the ALP cabinet. She was the first minister for the status of women and she set her sights on dismantling gender inequality. She introduced the first women's budget impact statement in 1984, which persisted until 2014 when former Prime Minister and one-time minister for women Tony Abbott axed it. Her work to introduce the Sex Discrimination Act was a crucial reform that has continued to shape Australian society. In abuse that will be familiar to many women in this place, conservative sectors called Susan Ryan 'radical' and targeted her as 'Australia's feminist dictator'. Yet these are the things she was trying to change: making it unlawful to sack a woman because she got married or pregnant, making it unlawful to sack someone because they were a woman, making it unlawful to sexually harass your staff, providing paid parental leave, allowing women to get home loans and increasing women's participation in university. Today, it would be completely unacceptable for those basic inequalities to persist. The change in that attitude is a testament to the work that Susan did.
Anne Summers's tribute to Susan noted the brutal reality of politics, noting that Susan's remarkable policy wins were often more hard-won than is appreciated today and seldom achieved without what were often excruciating compromises. Again, this is something with which many in this place are familiar. Too often women are expected to compromise. While much remains to be done to achieve gender equality, Susan's pioneering efforts built the platform for progress to continue to be made. I and the Australian Greens pay tribute to her fortitude, resilience and determination and thank her for opening the door for a better Australia for women and girls. A woman's place is in the House, the Senate and the cabinet.
I, too, rise to speak. I rise representing the Minister for Women, the Hon. Marise Payne, who's unable to be here today. I would also like to have my remarks associated with others in this place and with the remarks that were made by the Prime Minister in his condolence motion for the Hon. Susan Ryan AO.
In the 45 years since Susan Ryan was elected, much has changed for the representation of women in this place. When Susan Ryan entered this house in 1975, she became just one of six women in the upper house. As has been said by those before me, her election slogan at that time was, 'A woman's place is in the Senate.' Today, that is absolutely true. It was very much an early pronouncement of the passionate advocate for women that Susan Ryan would become. Whilst I didn't know Susan Ryan, I have no doubt that she would be very pleased with the representation that we see in this place today, with more women than men now representing the Australian people in the Senate. At the time Susan was elected, there were no women in the House of Representatives. Not only that; there were no women leaders or ministers in any state parliament in Australia. From what I hear, there was constant confusion about who Susan was. Most young women in Parliament House were secretaries and assistants, and people would often ask Susan which senator she worked for. I can't imagine the kind of response that they might have got to that question! Susan focused on the job at hand and learning the ropes, ignoring the commentary, and has become known as one of the great trailblazers for women in this Senate.
She was also clearly someone who was determined never to become a single-issue politician. During those early years, she spoke on an incredible range of topics during her speeches, questions and Senate committee work. She talked about the environment, Indigenous issues, telecommunications, tax reform and urban planning, amongst many other things. She had an extraordinarily broad range of interests and, clearly, a focus on the community. She was rightfully proud and excited when she was sworn in as a minister in 1983—the first woman in a federal Labor cabinet. Many of us have seen the group photos of Susan with all her male colleagues at the time. I think it absolutely a true reflection of what this place was like back in those days.
She combined her 12 years here in the role of senator for the ACT with her role as a mother. She managed to balance these two roles, as many people now do these days, without even a thought. So her trailblazing as a mother and a senator delivering on behalf of the Australian people is certainly a great accomplishment that she should always be recognised for.
As Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, she had many, many significant achievements, not the least of which was the significant increase in year 12 retention rates. She was also the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women for almost half a decade—a position proudly held today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women, the Hon. Marise Payne, whose remarks today are being delivered by me as well.
Susan was the architect of the Sex Discrimination Act, which made sexual harassment illegal for the first time and outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status and pregnancy. Characteristically, after leaving this parliament Susan kept on looking for ways that she could make Australia a better place for everyone. She became our first-ever Age Discrimination Commissioner and also served as the Disability Discrimination Commissioner. From 2000 to 2007 she was the President of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, and she was the Chancellor of the University of New South Wales for over a decade. These roles in postpolitics life allowed Susan to follow her passion for helping people transcend limitations and overcome constraints, with a focus on all people equally.
Susan was a powerhouse, a lively and energetic part of Australia's national story and absolutely a true groundbreaker. Susan's sudden death was a shock to many. While I did not know Susan personally, I know that in the parliament the memory of Susan as a woman leader will be honoured well into the future. I know the Minister for Women would have liked to be here today to make remarks and associate herself with the condolence motion being given today, because I know that Susan played a very, very important role in Minister Payne's life, as she did for so many other women in this parliament. Without a doubt, every one of us here today is a beneficiary of the legacy that she leaves us. To her partner, her children, her friends and her close ones we offer our heartfelt condolences. To Susan: we give you our thanks.
As Leader of The Nationals in the Senate, I rise today to acknowledge the passing of former senator and minister the Hon. Susan Ryan and associate the National Party with the comments of senators and leaders here today.
Whilst we can argue the toss on structural change or cultural change when it comes to women's changing and evolving role in society and in parliament as one of the key institutions of our liberal democracy, I think all of us in this chamber can be very proud—albeit our different approaches—of increasing women's involvement in parliamentary life and public debate and how that will actually have flow-on benefits to the broader community. But for Senator Susan Ryan to be the first meant that the burden was heavier and you needed to get it just right so that there would be successive women after you. I think it's amazing, what she was able to achieve. The slogan that I think Senator Wong mentioned, 'A woman's place is in the House and the Senate,' was a T-shirt I also was given on getting preselected, so I think that slogan resonates with a lot of us who get here.
I think being the first woman to hold a ministerial office is something to note, and also that she championed education. To that point, it is the National Party constituency that really benefited from that increase in higher education places and that increase in year 12 attainment. Previous to the Hawke government's reforms, the percentage of Australian young people that headed off to university was incredibly small and predominantly came from elite families in capital cities. So opening that up really increased the enfranchisement and inclusion of people who don't go to grammar schools, which is also a good thing—and I say that as a proud grammarian. It was a great reform.
Her lasting legacy, though, is the landmark Sex Discrimination Act and the affirmative action act. Senator Waters stood up and proudly proclaimed how many female senators the Greens have, and I know the Labor Party have some structural mechanisms to ensure that they get a certain number of female senators and House of Representatives members in this place. The National Party is proud that 80 per cent of our senators are female. We did not have structural readjustment but had a grassroots full enfranchisement of our membership voting for every single one of the strong, articulate, intelligent women our divisions have sent here. I think that speaks more broadly to what we can all do, on both sides of the chamber, to increase the diversity of our parliament. We come here with different value systems, obviously, and therefore represent the broader Australian public, but we can all do better in our own way.
When Susan Ryan came to the Senate in 1975, there were just six women senators. I think Senator Ruston made great comments about how this chamber really reflects the work of Susan Ryan and all who've come after her, on both sides of the chamber, to increase the inclusion of women. Also, being a single mum and a minister is pretty tough, and I think it is an incredible feat to be the first woman to do so before partners might have chosen to look after kids or there was even childcare available. That speaks to her strength and her determination to represent her community and her government. Sympathies to her family and friends. Vale, Susan Ryan.
As a senator for the ACT, I want to pay special tribute to the Hon. Susan Ryan and send condolences to her family and to her loved ones. As has been pointed out, Susan Ryan, like a few of us in this chamber, had a background in what was a precursor to the ACT Legislative Assembly, as Senator Gallagher and I did, before going on to represent the ACT in the Senate. Susan Ryan had the great honour to represent the ACT as a senator from 1975 as one of the first two senators representing the Australian Capital Territory. It's great that we can now follow in the footsteps of others.
We talk about the legacy of Susan Ryan in terms of being a trailblazer for women. We've seen that, obviously, in the ACT Legislative Assembly, which has had a number of female chief ministers from both sides of politics, with Labor's Rosemary Follett, Liberal Kate Carnell and now-Senator Katy Gallagher, and a number of women in senior positions. I make a similar point to one that was made in terms of female representation, as we celebrate the fact that females are in a majority in the Senate. In the ACT Legislative Assembly we see the same thing. We see that both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have a majority of women as we speak, but we've gotten there using different paths. The ACT Liberals have chosen to get there not through the use of quotas, but we do believe that we have outstanding representatives one way or another. It's been a great privilege to see that evolution, and in Canberra I think we see it most particularly.
Susan Ryan had the opportunity to serve in the Hawke ministry, first as the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women and then as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Some of her achievements in both of those portfolios have been touched on, but I think Susan Ryan was most proud of one of her achievements in education, and that was changes to the year 12 retention rate. I commend that work. She had a very distinguished career after politics, after leaving this place, when she held very important positions, a number of which have been mentioned, including positions at universities, in superannuation and as the Age Discrimination Commissioner.
Susan Ryan was a senator when I was growing up here in Canberra, along with the great Margaret Reid, former President of the Senate, so we were well represented. As a young boy growing up in the 1980s, I didn't know Susan Ryan in her role as one of the senators representing the ACT, but I did have the opportunity to meet her in her later role as Age Discrimination Commissioner. I found her to be a thoroughly decent, highly engaging, highly intelligent and very impressive human being. But I also found that, given her reputation, I was quite struck by the great humility which she displayed in the way that she dealt with those around her.
Of course, there are a couple of those great contributions that have been mentioned that are worth reiterating: the Sex Discrimination Act and making sexual harassment illegal for the first time—a great step forward—and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act. Susan Ryan once reflected that politics is like diving into the surf. She said: 'You don't linger at the edge; you jump in and fight your way through the breakers. Finally you get to the still, deep water beyond. You see if you can catch a wave and ride it to the shore. Few things in life are as exhilarating. When the wave has finished, it's not the end of the story.' I pay tribute to Susan Ryan's life and to her public legacy, and I send my condolences to her loved ones, her friends and her family. May she rest in peace.
'An advocate for equality', 'feminist', 'trailblazer', 'the first'—these are all attributes mentioned in association with the late Susan Ryan AO. Former Senator Ryan was elected as the first Labor senator for the ACT in 1975. Her slogan at the time was, 'A woman's place is in the House, in the Senate and everywhere decisions are made.'
Her path to the Senate is reasonably well known. Susan trained as a teacher and worked in the profession until the birth of her first child. Along with her family, Susan moved to Canberra in 1965 and enrolled as a postgraduate at ANU. Despite living overseas and studying, she never lost her passion for education and was appointed as the national executive officer for the Australian Council of State School Organisations in 1973. Her involvement in the women's movement, particularly the formation of the Women's Electoral Lobby, convinced her that her fight for equality had to take on a more pointed political approach. So she joined the Australian Labor Party and became active on behalf of her local community. A short stint on the non-governing ACT House of Assembly preceded her election to this chamber in 1975. Some years after her time in the Senate, she said of her election:
After being elected in 1975, I joined four women who had already been in the Senate for a short period, Liberal Senators Guilfoyle and Martin, and Labor Senators Coleman and Melzer. Senator Walters from Tasmania was also elected in 1975. So there were six … Across Kings Hall in the House of Representatives there were no women … There was no woman leader or minister in any state parliament … Margaret Guilfoyle became the first, and sole, female cabinet minister in the Fraser Government.
Her election was greeted with much media interest, mainly emphasising her gender, her age, her hair colour, her marital status—she was divorced—her physical size and her motherhood. There was very little, if any, commentary on her political agenda or policy interests and experience.
Susan joined the shadow ministry not long after she joined the parliament. She was a passionate and highly articulate debater and used her time in the Senate to great effect. Her central objective of economic independence for all guided her many achievements as Labor's first female cabinet minister in the Hawke government. Susan's view was that economic independence meant the capacity to provide for your own needs and the needs of those for whom you are directly responsible.
She began her work in two key areas: tackling discrimination against women, lifting the high school retention rate and increasing funding and places at universities and TAFEs. Just as we take the increased participation and leadership of women in politics and other spheres for granted now, we also assume nearly all high school students will complete year 12. In the years leading up to Susan Ryan being sworn in as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs in 1983, the high school retention rate in my home state of Tasmania was 27 per cent. Nearly three-quarters of Tasmanian high school students in the early 1980s did not complete Year 12. Susan took a proposal to the National Economic Summit in 1983 that this appallingly low rate needed to be lifted to at least two-thirds by 1990. This was overwhelmingly achieved in most states and territories. What flowed from this was an increased demand for places in universities and TAFEs—a cause she also advanced with passion.
Of course, Susan Ryan is remembered for her pioneering sex discrimination bill and the affirmative action bill. Her work highlighting the impact of government and policy decisions on women began much earlier than that. In 1981, from opposition, Susan made a detailed analysis of the effect of the budget on women and published it. From this the Women's Budget Statement was born. The first official publication of the statement was produced by the Office of the Status of Women in 1984. Her statement announcing this was met with much derision from some of the then opposition. In fact, the first time the Liberal Party embarked on a similar process was when Dr John Hewson was Leader of the Opposition.
After she left her successful political career, Susan Ryan went on to have an equally successful role in publishing, superannuation and industry. Her great friend Wendy McCarthy says of Susan and her work: 'Every 10 years or so she would change careers, and we would all follow her and support her. You couldn't help but get caught up with her enthusiasm for reform and change, her generosity and her great sense of fun.'
In addition to her paid roles, Susan Ryan threw her enthusiasm and commitment into the Australian Republic Movement. In more recent times, Australians got to know Susan as our first Age Discrimination Commissioner. She brought all the attributes Wendy McCarthy identified and combined them with her deep knowledge and understanding of government and its processes to advocate for real change for older Australians. For a short time she was also Disability Discrimination Commissioner.
Although her role as Age Discrimination Commissioner ended in 2016, Susan's advocacy for older Australians didn't. She was a frequent panellist on television and would happily use whatever platform was offered to highlight her concerns about the treatment of older Australians. In 1990 Susan was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia.
As with any political career, hers wasn't all smooth sailing, but it was one of incredible achievement. Her friends, colleagues and many associates remember Susan as frighteningly intelligent, politically savvy, funny, optimistic and committed. Susan Ryan really was the life of the Labor Party during her time in parliament. Generations of Australians, particularly women, have and will follow where she led thanks to her commitment to equality and education reforms, and that is her legacy. From the time of her community involvement until her untimely death, Susan was a true feminist.
Some time ago, someone asked her about post-feminism. In typical Susan style she replied:
I struggle with post-modernism in architecture, literature and literary criticism and I think that post-feminism is uncalled for.
Along with all the members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, I extend my condolences to Susan's partner, Rory, her two children and her extended family and friends. Can I also place on record my thanks to them for sharing Susan with the Labor Party, the wider Labor movement and our nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to rise today and speak on the sudden and tragic passing of former senator Susan Ryan AO, former Hawke cabinet minister—indeed, Labor's first female cabinet minister. She was a pioneer in every sense. She broke that glass ceiling in the territory, in this party and in so many areas of civic life following her retirement from politics. And she was a loving and proud mum and grandma as well. To her family I want to say I'm so sorry for your great loss and I thank you for your great generosity in sharing her with the nation, whose history she changed. I want to associate myself also with the remarks of those who've contributed to this condolence motion this afternoon, and I think Senator Wong's framing of the life of Susan Ryan as a critical driver of significant historical change is a very accurate summary of the powerful, powerful impact that Susan Ryan had on our nation.
Born in Sydney in 1942, Susan grew up in the great Labor suburb of Maroubra, achieving a BA at Sydney Teachers College before working as a school teacher, a small-business owner and a second secretary at the Australian embassy in Vienna. After moving to Canberra, she graduated with a Master of Arts degree from ANU and became a foundational member of the Belconnen branch of the ALP and the Women's Electoral Lobby—one of countless political actions she would take for the empowerment of Australian women. She was subsequently elected to the ACT House of Assembly in 1975 before becoming one of the first two senators for the ACT, elected on that much repeated mantra that has featured in the speeches this afternoon, the unabashedly feminist statement: 'A woman's place is in the House and the Senate and everywhere decisions are made.'
She made history as a 33-year-old single mother, and eight years later would change history as a pivotal member of the Hawke government. In her role as a cabinet minister she was able to make the changes for women that were so desperately needed at that time. When Hawke was elected in 1983 she was made Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and the first ever minister for the status of women. She wasted no time, and soon set about tearing down the barriers that Australian women had faced for generations. Her landmark work was, of course, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which sought to eliminate so far as is possible discrimination against persons on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy or potential pregnancy in the areas of work; accommodation; education; the provision of goods, facilities and services; the disposal of land; the activities of clubs; and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. This wide-ranging act ensured that the rights of women were protected by legislation. It was a giant step forward for women all across the country. This act, along with the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, embodied the greatest beliefs of the Labor movement, that through fair and equitable employment in a fair and equitable society humanity can flourish and people can build a life worth living.
Her tenure as education minister was no less successful, with Paul Keating remarking that her great achievement was to lift year 10 retention rates in schools, which was an abysmal three in 10 when she took office in 1983, to end at nine in 10 in 1996. This included the doubling of the number of female graduates from high school. This surely helped pave the way for the economic successes that flowed in the decades after the Hawke and Keating era as a whole generation of young Australian women transitioned through that schooling into the jobs of the future. Even after she left parliament she continued to break ground, as others have said, serving as the first Age Discrimination Commissioner, as Disability Discrimination Commissioner and as President of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, while continuing to campaign for an Australian republic and an Australian bill of rights.
Her life was also marked with a long affiliation with her Irish heritage. Like myself, she was an Australian of Irish flavour, Catholic and Labor. She remarked that her lifelong desire for social justice was kindled due to the strong values based teaching she received at a Brigidine school in Sydney. The Brigidines are a teaching order of nuns founded in Ireland in the 19th century who contributed significantly to Catholic education in Australia. Several decades later Susan was awarded the lifetime achievement of the Brigid Award by the Irish Labor friendship women's group in 2016—indeed, she was the inaugural awardee of that award named after St Brigid, whose values and philosophy inspired the Brigidine nuns who taught Susan. Her love of the Irish people was profound. I'm advised my good friend Dermot Ryan, who I know is a good friend also of Senator Tony Sheldon, is preparing an obituary for The Irish Times. Susan's family tree connects her back to County Wexford. This is an important thing for Irish people: it's not enough just to be from Ireland; you have to be from a particular county.
Even in later life, Susan joined the annual Irish Winter School in Sydney to learn the Irish language—in order, she said, to be able to fit in when she visited the country. She championed the project to erect a monument in Sydney to the Irish Great Famine, which commemorated the thousands of Irish women who escaped the famine by emigrating to Australia, and she spoke at the fifth annual commemoration ceremony in 2004. Susan was also a member and a speaker at the Aisling Society, an Irish-Australian cultural group. She was a frequent supporter and patron of O'Punsky's Theatre Company in Sydney, and in 2019 she was named one of the top 100 Irish Australians of all time by the Irish Echoup there with Paul Keating, Ben Chifley and John Curtin.
It's not surprising that the last conversation I had with Susan Ryan, earlier this year, was at an Irish event around St Patrick's Day. It was to mark the 20th year of the presence of the Irish consulate in Sydney and was convened by the Consul General there, Owen Feeney. It was to celebrate 20 historical Australian-Irish figures. As she always did, Susan took the time to talk to everyone in the room. She took me aside and, as she had done on many occasions, encouraged me, supported me and understood me as only a woman in the great Labor Party can.
Susan's legacy will be felt by generations of Australians to come, and her example will shine to all Australian women. Her work will live on as the best example of Australians' belief in a fair go for all, no matter the circumstances of your birth. She was a credit to this chamber, to the great Australian Labor Party and to the nation. I echo the words of the Brigidine Sisters, who gave their thanks across the Brigidine international network last week for Susan's rich life and for her public service to Australia. I, like them, offer my sincere sympathy to her family and friends. Vale Susan Ryan: you are already missed.
Today I rise, along with many others, to make some personal remarks and to pay tribute to the wonderful Susan Ryan. The strength of her legacy is immeasurable and it is indelible in my own life as I reflect on being a young woman completing her high school education in the 1980s, with that lift in retention rates across the country for girls—and, indeed, young working-class men—in particular. Along with that came a much greater diversity of subjects which we could study and a greatly improved quality of education that indeed has had a long-term legacy. My mother had great respect for Susan Ryan. My mother, Sandra, was also an early member of the Women's Electoral Lobby. As a woman, she struggled with being unable to get a home loan in her own name and being paid less than men, at a lower hourly rate within the same profession.
For me as a woman in the Labor Party—as someone who joined in the early 1990s, at the end of Susan's parliamentary career—she was indeed an inspiration for me to join the great Australian Labor Party. But my own knowledge of Susan comes through my work in this place, in particular from her work at the Australian Human Rights Commission as the Age Discrimination Commissioner. Her enormous capacity to understand intersecting human rights debates has been of great benefit to the nation right from her participation in these debates in the 1960s and 1970s through to her work as Age Discrimination Commissioner.
She made some remarks while she was the Age Discrimination Commissioner at an event called the Australian Homosexual Histories Conference back in 2014. She said there, in good humour:
I am in some senses an unlikely candidate as an advocate for homosexual law reform. As a young heterosexual woman coming of age in post war Australia, educated in a strict and conservative catholic environment, I really didn't know much about homosexuality until well into adulthood. In fact we were not taught much about sexuality in general (our own or anyone else's). In this sense I was very much the product of my generation.
She went on to talk about how she became involved in debates in gay law reform here in the ACT in very early votes in the 1970s to decriminalise homosexuality—and, indeed, also in abortion law reform debates here. So she was active not just in sex discrimination but in disability discrimination and in sexuality and gender identity discrimination throughout her career.
As the Age Discrimination Commissioner, she was at the Human Rights Commission at a very important point in time for the LGBTI community, when this parliament, under the Labor government, considered the reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act, to amend the Sex Discrimination Act so that it not only covered sex discrimination but covered sexuality, gender identity and intersex discrimination. I'm very grateful that Susan was the Age Discrimination Commissioner at the time because she was really able to help see the enabling of the exemptions to the Sex Discrimination Act being lifted out of aged care so that you can no longer discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in aged-care services and facilities here in Australia. This is a principle that needs to extend across all Commonwealth and community services so that there aren't exemptions to any primary service that should be someone's right to access.
I am profoundly grateful for the inspiration of Susan Ryan's life. As I have listened to people today talk about her colour and vibrancy as a person, I'm also reminded how deep she had to dig to continue that work. It's great inspiration to me in a tough week and on a tough day in politics in this chamber to know that you can really see what a difference one person can make to our national fabric.
I will be brief, because people have said so many wonderful things about Susan Ryan. I'd, firstly, like to offer my condolences to Susan's family, friends and colleagues.
I'll be so bold as to say that every woman in Australia has benefited from the work that Susan Ryan did. I think there are a number of young women today that still don't really get or believe that some women were forced to resign when they got married and that some women had to get their sons to go guarantor for loans. Nowadays younger women appreciate that strides have been made, but they don't get that people like Susan put so much effort into achieving those changes.
I wanted to go to some of the work I did with Susan Ryan when she was the Age Discrimination Commissioner. I believe that she carried on the excellent work that she did in this place and in many other places as the Age Discrimination Commissioner. She was the inaugural commissioner, and she really got how older people were—and still are—being discriminated against in many areas, including in aged care. I was part of that discussion, having been the aged-care spokesperson on those issues and having worked with some very close friends in Western Australia on that particular issue as well. So I'd like to particularly comment on that, but also on employment in general. This is why the work that Susan was doing is so important right now—the discrimination that is still going on for older workers and particularly for older women workers. They are the fastest-growing cohort of those who are unemployed. They are ageing into poverty as older women not being able to find work on very low income support payments. They are ageing into poverty as they wait to be able to move onto the aged pension, using up all their savings. It's absolutely imperative that these issues are dealt with, and Susan knew that. She was working on that. She held forums, and I attended some of those, on how to work with business and with employers to ensure that older workers are taken on. She was always raising those issues about older women.
Then, as has also been pointed out, she became the Disability Discrimination Commissioner. Again, I had a related portfolio at the time. Susan took the same gusto to disability discrimination issues as well. Not only did we have a number of discussions—and Susan was very active throughout the country—but I asked her questions across the estimates table when she was commissioner. She was always very glad to talk about the issues across the estimates table.
Susan Ryan made an enormous contribution to this country—particularly to the women of this country. She'll be remembered for all the work that she did. There are some things from your childhood and your young adulthood that you take with you your whole life, and throughout my life I have taken with me the work that she did. It was an honour to be able, just to a small degree, to work with her on these really important issues. Vale Susan Ryan; you won't be forgotten.
All of us women of the Senate stand here on the shoulders of a magnificent woman, Susan Maree Ryan. When she was elected to one of the two newly created ACT Senate seats in 1975, as everyone in this place has said, she campaigned on the slogan, 'A woman's place is in the Senate.' And it is. In fact, the only Labor senators from Tasmania are women. We're all women. How very pleased she must have been when the Senate finally achieved gender equality a little over a year ago. How much we owe her.
Many adjectives have been used to describe Susan, whose Senate career from 1975 to 1986 was only part of a long and multifaceted working life dedicated to equality and human rights. She's been described as a luminary, a fierce champion, a trailblazer, a feminist hero and a Labor giant. She was all these things and more, and she will be remembered as a fierce champion for women's rights and other discriminated Australians after her sudden death just 11 days ago.
Those before me have outlined her groundbreaking positions and work as a minister in the Hawke government, so I won't go over that. Labor leader Anthony Albanese said that she changed Australia for the better, and I do agree with that. This is something that we must all aspire to. In her lifetime, she saw and influenced incredible changes. We must not forget a world where women were pilloried for seeking elected office, where women could be sacked simply for falling pregnant, where equal pay was a faraway dream, where the idea of a woman taking up a blue-collar trade or becoming a CEO was unheard of, and, in fact, shunned. Rights for older Australians and those living with disability were barely imaginable. Many of these things that we today take for granted were issues which were championed by Susan, and she stood up to years of vilification because of this work. Paul Keating said her great achievement was to set in motion the lifting of year 12 retention rates from three in 10 in 1983 to nine in 10 by 1996. This revolutionised education in Australia most particularly for girls, he said—and he was correct.
The best thing all 39 of us, all today's women senators, can do is to pledge that we will pursue her legacy. We will confront the obstacles and rise above them. We owe Susan Ryan a debt that is best paid by redoubling our commitment to equality for all Australians—a commitment to not seeing older workers thrown on the trash heap because of a recession, to not seeing Australians with disability ignored and denied opportunities and resources, to ensure that discrimination does not hobble the lives of Australian women and to ensure that, regardless of your sexual orientation, gender, cultural background, ethnicity, age and ability, you get a fair go in this country we love.
I want to personally thank Susan Ryan not because I knew her well but because without her example—her voice, her steady hand and her carefully considered and articulate arguments—I simply might not be here and my daughter and hundreds of thousands of Tasmanian women, older Tasmanians and Tasmanians living with disability might not have the education and opportunities they have today. In saying that I note that the job is not done. With recession upon us and so many young Australians wondering where they will find a place in life, with so many older Australians worried about being left out of the workforce and others frightened that their retirement and old age may not be one where they will have the resources to allow them to live with dignity and receive the care they need, with so many Australians living with disability still denied the opportunity to fully participate in society, with Indigenous Australians still denied the voice and opportunity that is rightfully theirs, and with the cost of obtaining an education moving out of reach for many and the cost of child care leaving many women unable to carve out a career of their dreams, there is still so much more to struggle for and to win. We will do that with our path illuminated by the bright light held in Susan Ryan's steady, intelligent and guiding hands. My sincere condolences to her partner, Rory Sutton, her children and all who loved her.
I rise today to honour the life of Susan Ryan, architect of the world-leading Sex Discrimination Act, first female Labor cabinet minister and icon for social justice in Australia. She was the woman who, as education minister, more than doubled the high school retention rate, including for girls. She was one of our best fighters. It says volumes about her values and capacity when you look at the fact she worked so hard for the rights of humanity—women and men, able and disabled, and most recently older Australians and Australians living with disability—as Age Discrimination Commissioner and Disability Discrimination Commissioner, and was a major ally to increasing the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and young people. How sorry we are that we don't get to hear her views this week on the coalition's federal budget—the two biggest failings of which are the ignoring of the impact of this recession on women and on older workers.
Susan Ryan died suddenly last week. We should never forget what she has done for all Australians by making our society fairer, more inclusive and more willing to back in the aspirations of all women and men, and their families. She lived a life of firsts. Her Irish working-class parents, Florence and Arthur, worked as a sales assistant and as a public servant respectively. She was the first in her family to go to university. She was the first in her school to win a scholarship to university. It is a stark reminder to all of us of how unequal our society was at the time that she was forced to pay back that scholarship because she got married. We should all remember that it was not long ago that all women had to resign from the Public Service when they got married and could be fired from any job when they became pregnant. She was also, of course, the first female member of a Labor cabinet when she joined the Hawke cabinet in 1983 as education and youth affairs minister.
Even when she left the parliament, she kept fighting for the rights and power of working people. She was Deputy Chair of the Australian Republican Movement from 2000 to 2003, and of course there was her important work on strengthening superannuation. In her seven years as the President of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees until 2007, she fought for the right of all Australians to have access to a dignified retirement and for super funds to continue to play a role in democratising financial systems in Australia.
We have come a long way since the 1950s and 1960s, when Susan Ryan was educated in the Brigidine Catholic college in Sydney's eastern suburbs, where her passion for social justice was encouraged and where she was a brilliant debater and a fearless advocate for her schoolmates. We must never forget how hard it was to get even basic employment protections for women and how stubborn inequalities persist in Australia still, like the gender pay gap and the harassment and discrimination experienced by women every day in our workplaces and institutions.
I want to say something about the dogged activism of Susan Ryan as well. She was a respected legislator and a pragmatic political operator, but her pragmatism and her wily role in cabinet were first and foremost in the service of her ideals. She did not court power for its own sake. She focused on outcomes, and she often clashed with her cabinet colleagues on points of principle. She worked hard across the factions and across the aisle to give all working people real power to shape their own destinies. She was also loved for her sense of humour. In Susan's memoirs, Catching the Waves: Life In and Out of Politics, she said:
I am by temperament quite gregarious, but the combination of my gender and my politics meant that the position I occupied most often was that of a shag on a rock.
However, now, due to her determination and drive, she is no longer isolated, and there are many people who adored her, share her views and are determined to continue her accomplishments.
I want to share an anecdote from a good friend of mine whom Susan was also a good mate of, Dermot Ryan; my colleague mentioned Dermot before. He is a very active person in the Irish Labor groups within Australia and has just recently written a tribute to Susan in which he said:
But what really stood out was our shared memories of her warmth and her sense of fun and mischief. At social events, she moved seamlessly from singing a hymn to singing The Internationale. She was a committed Australian republican and was also an Irish republican. Whenever we met, she would cheekily address me as "Comrade Ryan, my favourite Irish Unionist", (her knowing full well that 'Unionist' has a very different meaning in Australia to Ireland). My own late Mother having shared her name, I would retort "Hello there—my 2nd favourite Susan Ryan".
A fighter for a just society for women and men, Susan Ryan has earnt a place in the hearts of the Labor movement and all Australians. I offer my condolences and solidarity to her family and friends. Vale, Susan Ryan.
I too rise to associate my comments in relation to the passing of Susan Ryan with all senators in here, although I have to say that, unlike Senators Sheldon and O'Neill, I'm neither Catholic nor Irish. But nevertheless I have a place in the Labor Party.
Susan Ryan was first and foremost a feminist. She was a trailblazer, an activist and a republican. She was the first in so many fields but none, in my view, as important as being elected as the first female senator for the ACT and going on to be the first woman in the Hawke cabinet. Indeed, when I joined the party in the early eighties, Susan Ryan was there, and she was someone that I looked up to in this place all the way from Western Australia. I looked at her in awe. But nevertheless she showed us, as women in the Labor Party, that there was a place for us, because we could see what we could be.
She was truly amazing. The bills that she introduced—the Sex Discrimination Bill, in particular—have stood women in good stead and have enabled women to really advance in our society. But it is sad, as a number of people have reflected, that we've still got a long way to go. As a feminist in the Labor Party, Susan certainly made pathways for the rest of us. She would have applauded the fights that we had to get our affirmative action policies in place, and today she would have been honoured when our leader, Mr Albanese, dedicated Labor's budget statement to Susan Ryan. She was the first to have a particular budget statement for women and today, when we launched our statement, it was in honour of Susan Ryan.
I met Susan in her role as the Age Discrimination Commissioner when I was the National Assistant Secretary of United Workers Union and had responsibility for aged care. She was just as strident there as she was as a member of the Hawke cabinet. Yes, she was warm, and that certainly came across, but she was fierce in her advocacy. I would like to end my contribution by paying my most sincere condolences to Rory, her partner, and to her children Justine and Ben. Most of all, I say thank you to Susan Ryan for being that feminist, for paving the way for other Labor women.
I rise as the almost final speaker on this condolence motion for the Hon. Susan Ryan AO and to associate myself with all of the previous contributions that have been so lovely and comforting in the sudden and tragic passing of Susan within the last fortnight. Susan was not the first woman in this place but she was a woman of many firsts. She was the first Labor senator for the ACT, the first Labor woman appointed to a frontbench position, the first Labor woman appointed to a ministry and, of course, the first Labor woman to enter cabinet. She achieved all of these firsts in what was firmly a man's world, joining the federal parliament at a time when there were only six women, and all were in the Senate. I can only imagine what that was like for her. For me, as a woman in politics, Susan didn't just pave the way. She actually built the pathway that so many women have now taken, not only to this place in Australia's national parliament but to so many places—community organisations, unions, businesses. She proved to us that there was a seat at the table for all of us.
It's really hard to describe or measure just how much trailblazers or pioneers of the women's movement like Susan Ryan have changed our country for the better. Her achievements, of which there were so many, were vast. Her influence in the parliament for 12 years, her life post politics where she kept doing what she'd always done—applying herself to every cause she championed with more than 100 per cent of her energy, bringing people with her, forming coalitions and, really importantly, being strategic about the pathway to victory and the pathway to lasting change. She campaigned for equality for women, for older Australians, for education for all. She was a staunch feminist in the Senate at a time when a lot of people, including some of her own caucus members, probably didn't know what that meant. She formed her political aspirations from second-wave feminism and she knew that women's inequality required a political solution that would be best enacted by women themselves.
Before her parliamentary career, she sought to impact political decision-making by helping to form the Women's Electoral Lobby and later became an effective part of the 1972 electoral campaign. In her own words, this lobbying was necessary but not sufficient. It left women on the outside of political power, waiting, persuading, threatening but not acting directly to achieve change. How much more efficient, how much more effective it would be if women were in there making the decisions themselves, instead of knocking on the doors trying to attract support.
Debate on the ill-fated Lamb-McKenzie abortion reform bill in 1973 exemplified the problem. The debate was conducted in an all-male chamber while the women that this law was to affect were outside rallying, organising, shouting through loudhailers, preparing themselves for disappointment. Susan decided that, next time, she would be in there making the laws. In 1975 she was elected on the famed slogan 'A woman's place is in the House and in the Senate'. But that was just a subset of a much larger mission for Susan, which was that a woman's place was at the table where all the decisions were being made. She became minister for education and youth affairs when Bob Hawke was elected to office in 1983, and was tasked with the first portfolio on the status of women. At the time—and many speakers have reflected on this—women were unlikely to be approved for home loans; faced limited maternity leave provisions, if any; and were able to have their employment legally terminated on account of marital status or falling pregnant. Susan Ryan sought to change this, with her central objective for parliament being to achieve economic independence for all, including women.
Perhaps there is no greater example of the nation-builder that she was than in her pivotal role in two landmark acts—the Sex Discrimination Act and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act. Later in life, she described her advocacy on the Sex Discrimination Act as 'probably the most useful thing she had done in her life'. Today, whilst not perfect by any means, we do generally live in a society that accepts that discrimination on the basis of gender is unlawful. But that wasn't the case during Susan's time in this place. She, along with her Labor colleagues, some of whom she'd had to convince, set about to change that. Again, I can only imagine the pushback that came to her from some—both personally and professionally—from waging the campaign that that would have brought on. The nation was changing. Change is always difficult, and she was there helping that change come about.
But it would be wrong to simply describe Susan as a trailblazing pioneer feminist. She was of course that, but she was so much more. She was an activist, an organiser, an educator, a senator, a mentor, a proud republican, a partner, a mother, a grandmother and a dear friend to so many. She was a community campaigner, a fighter for equality across the board, an advocate for older Australians and a friend of First Nations. She joined organisations, and if they didn't exist she started them. She was the proud founder of the Belconnen sub-branch of the ACT Labor Party and, as I said, she was a founding member of WEL. She created communities of like-minded people and set about delivering the change that was needed. She drafted laws and campaigned for them; importantly, she brought people with her, and those laws passed. The impact of her work in this place is enduring.
To me as a single mum wanting to get involved in politics, Susan Ryan showed me that not only could it be done but it must be done, that there was an expectation on us to get involved and that it was only by getting involved that change happened. She, along with Joan Kirner, told me that women like me can't vacate the field; we have to step up. They convinced me, a single mother, that it was an asset, not a disadvantage, to bring my background to politics and that I would be a better politician because of it.
You always knew when Susan was in the room, because she had a presence. It was something that was hard to pin down, but it was welcoming, supportive, kind, strong, principled, determined and focused—and she was always present. She managed to project all of that at the one time. It's hard to believe that we won't get to be in the same room with her anymore, but we are given strength and comfort in our knowledge that her reforms, her influence, her legacy and the things she changed remain all around us guiding us and reminding us of the unfinished work before us.
To Susan's partner, her family, her children, her grandchildren and so many of her friends who have spoken over the past 11 days or so and are deeply grieving at the moment and remain devastated by her passing, I extend my sincere condolences.
I would like to rise and add my voice to this condolence motion for the Hon. Susan Ryan AO, and I'd like to associate myself with the many wonderful remarks in this condolence motion. As a senator, as the first woman to hold a cabinet role in a federal Labor government, as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women in the Hawke government and, later, as Special Minister of State, Susan Ryan was indeed a trailblazer. I remember the mark that she made when I was a young girl and a young journalist during the time she successfully steered through the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Of course, much has changed in the Australian Senate since Susan Ryan was elected in 1975. My swearing-in as a senator in October last year marked the first time that the number of female senators reached 50 per cent. When Susan Ryan was elected, there were only a handful of women senators. In the wake of the tumultuous dismissal of the Whitlam government, she was elected as one of the ACT's two senators. Observing her from afar, as I did, I always got the impression that she was much more of a warrior for women and education than for party politics. I think this was to her great credit and also, of course, very much to her legacy. Her election pitch, as we've heard so often in this debate, was, 'A woman's place is in the House and the Senate and everywhere that decisions are made.'
I want to particularly acknowledge Susan Ryan's work in the area of sex discrimination. In November 1981, Susan introduced a private senator's bill to outlaw sexual discrimination. The bill did not pass, but it did pave the way for the Sex Discrimination Bill, which was passed eventually in 1983. The Sex Discrimination Bill embodied half of Susan Ryan's 1981 private bill, seeking to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy. It also contained provisions outlawing sexual harassment in the workplace and in educational institutions and provided for redress against individual acts of discrimination. It is, of course, quite difficult to imagine an era where sex discrimination was not actively prohibited. It was a time, of course, when there was very substantial systemic discrimination levied against women in all sectors of Australian society, whether it be a situation where women were refused a bank loan because they were women, or whether they lost a job because they became pregnant, or whether they were refused entry to or service in a hotel. Even joining the Nippers movement as a young surf lifesaver was not an option for girls. Surf lifesaving clubs did not even allow women to join as members until 1980, which is now something that young girls and women could not possibly comprehend.
Susan Ryan was a successful champion of causes, and her achievements were very considerable. Apart from combating sex discrimination, she oversaw increased funding for women's refuges and for child care, as well as an increase in the retention rate of year 12 from 35 per cent to 53 per cent during the first four years of the Hawke government.
After leaving parliament, Susan Ryan took on a number of private sector roles before she served as pro-chancellor for the University of New South Wales. She went on to be deputy chair of the Australian Republic Movement. In July 2011 she was appointed Australia's first Age Discrimination Commissioner, and in 2014 she was appointed Disability Discrimination Commissioner.
I wish to convey my sincere condolences to her family and friends. I wish to acknowledge the wonderful contribution that Susan Ryan made to this place and to the betterment of our country, particularly for Australian women. Vale Susan Ryan.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
On behalf of the Appropriations, Staffing and Security Committee, I present the committee's report Estimates for the Department of the Senate 2020-21and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, Senator Hanson, I present the interim report of the committee and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the Procedure Committee's second report of 2020, entitled COVID-19 and the Senate, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
On 3 September 2020 the Senate agreed to a resolution moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate affirming the right of the Senate to determine its meetings and meetings of its committees. The resolution reminded state and Commonwealth executive officers to have regard to the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and senators in devising and implementing public health measures. Wherever possible, where such measures affect the capacity of senators to undertake their parliamentary duties they should be developed in consultation with representatives of the Senate. The resolution referred consequential matters to the Procedure Committee.
The report I have tabled today records the committee's oversight of arrangements to ensure that the sittings and estimates hearings scheduled for the remainder of the year can proceed in a COVID-safe manner. As part of those arrangements the committee endorsed the continued application of the rules for remote participation during the budget week sitting, and noted that estimates hearings were also expected to make extensive use of video participation by both senators and witnesses. Final arrangements would be a matter for committees themselves.
The report also identified several operational matters as critical to ensuring that the scheduled estimates hearings proceed in a safe manner, and the committee is overseeing the development of appropriate protocols for senators, staff and witnesses, implementing current health advice. The committee will continue to have a watching brief over these matters as long as it's necessary.
The other issue that arises in this place from time to time is when we have ballots, which are necessary. We believe—and certainly I, as the Chair of the Procedure Committee, believe—that it is time that we referred to the Procedure Committee the issue of pairs when the Senate has to hold a ballot.
I commend the report to the Senate.
Debate interrupted.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the interim report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Australia's Family Law System in my capacity as a member of that committee. The interim report contains a comprehensive review of the evidence the committee has heard to date. The committee has received a significant amount of evidence covering many issues facing family law in Australia. A total of 1,692 submissions have been received, and the committee has heard from 64 organisations and professionals and 85 individuals, in 11 public hearings. We've also held 13 in camera hearings. The committee has continued its work, although it hasn't been able to travel, for obvious reasons, during this pandemic.
On 31 August 2020 both houses of parliament agreed to extend the reporting date for this inquiry to the last sitting day in February 2021. The committee felt that it would be timely to table an interim report, providing the parliament and the community with an update on the committee's work. The interim report is comprehensive, running to 12 chapters and over 300 pages. This is reflective of the breadth of issues that have been raised within the community.
Some of the key issues explored in the report included perceptions of bias within the system, the role of family consultants and expert witnesses, legal fees and the costs of the family law system, delays in the Family Court and issues in relation to family violence. The report also considers issues arising in parenting and property disputes. There is so much in terms of the evidence that has been brought before the committee that you can't help but be touched by the emotional and the psychological impact that a dispute going through the family law courts unfortunately has on all those involved, particularly children.
This is an area of law which is not only complex but highly emotional and draining for individuals and families. When relationships break down and families separate, often the family law system works to ensure the most appropriate outcome for the parties involved. But, from the evidence that we've received, I don't believe there's any family that ends up in the Family Court that isn't permanently scarred by the experience. It is extremely expensive, it's costly and it's time consuming. The personal stories of pain and anguish were not lost on any members of the committee, and I'd just like to, at this point in time, thank all of those who are on this select committee, because it has been an enduring commitment to continue this inquiry through this COVID pandemic.
I note that this committee should never have really existed though. That's the reality. This committee was formed as part of a political deal that was done. We know that there have been countless reports into the family law system in this country. In the last two years alone there has been a report sitting on the Attorney-General's desk and the Prime Minister's desk, with 93 recommendations on how to improve the family law system in this country, but nothing has happened. Like so many reports that are done by fantastic committees and secretaries who put countless hours and weeks and months into these inquiries, those recommendations just sit and gather dust. This is the time to actually act, to change, to invest in and to properly resource the family law system in this country. While we can make recommendation after recommendation, if there is not the will of the parliament and there is not the will of the government, nothing will happen. But it must happen.
I want to make my perspective very clear: it is very hard when allegations are made in evidence, as given to committees, when you only ever hear one side of that particular story. It is confronting to hear the tragedies, the heartache and the pain that is caused through relationships breaking down. A lot of the time the contributions made by witnesses were heart-wrenching and touched people through to their souls, in my view. When I was first put onto this committee, we were all advised that there would be counselling available for committee members and for witnesses, and I, for one, thought, 'Well, that won't really be necessary,' but I understand now why people do need counselling. This is such an important area of law in this country that affects not just individual families and extended families; it also affects our communities.
I'd also like to put on the record an issue from my home state of Tasmania. I live in Launceston. Mark Dreyfus from the other place, the shadow Attorney-General, and I and others have been lobbying for many years to have improvements done to the Launceston family law court. And finally, in this budget—I commend the government for finally, after too many years I might add, doing this. My concern still is that this funding is over four years. I would urge the government to do everything that it can to ensure that the new family law court in Launceston makes that transition as soon as possible because the benefits, as I said, go way beyond those individual families which go through the court system. Those who sit on the bench, their lawyers and advocates—everyone—will benefit if that court can be relocated as soon as possible.
But I just don't want to see the $5.4 million over four years for the relocation happening and then find that we're back here in a few years, asking, 'When is that going to happen?' So I urge those people on the other side to join with me in urging that the relocation happens sooner rather than later.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the 2021 Budget day statement of the committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard.
The statement read as follows—
BUDGET DAY STATEMENT
Presented in the Senate by Senator Matt O ' Sullivan
Wednesday, 7 October 2020, after 5.00 pm
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
2020-21 Draft Estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present this statement on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office—the ANAO—and the Parliamentary Budget Office—the PBO.
The Committee is required, under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, to consider the draft budget estimates of the ANAO and the PBO, and make recommendations including to both Houses of Parliament regarding these estimates.
The respective Acts of the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as well as the Committee's own legislation, require each of those officers to provide all the information necessary for the Committee to consider their budget estimates.
With regard to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Committee has been informed that the PBO has sought supplementation in the 2020-21 Budget.
The Committee understands that, since the COVID-19 pandemic, the PBO has focused its research on publications relevant to the current fiscal situation, reflecting a heightened level of interest in publications that inform the Parliament and the public about fiscal matters.
Accordingly, the PBO has sought temporary supplementation of $3.1 million over four years, from the 2020-21 Budget, to maintain and expand its research publication program in light of COVID-19.
The Acting Parliamentary Budget Officer has advised the Committee that this supplementary funding would enable the PBO to maintain and expand its research program over the peak period associated with the next election and deliver additional research publications in other non-election years.
In the PBO's Budget Submission, the agency requested temporary supplementation for an additional team of five research staff available from the second half of 2020-21 to the end of 2023-24. The total budget impact of this would be $3.1 million over four years, including $0.4 million in 2020-21, and $0.9 million per annum between 2021-22 and 2023-24.
The Committee acknowledges the benefit to the Parliament and public discourse of the PBO's research program. The Committee notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on many departments and agencies across government, as well as the broader budgetary position, and therefore provides a qualified recommendation in support of the PBO's request for temporary supplementation.
With regard to the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO has informed the Committee it is seeking supplementation in the 2020-21 Budget over the forward estimates.
The ANAO states that to restore its ability to deliver an appropriate number of performance audits, conduct mandatory financial statement audits, and meet increased costs associated with changes in work patterns due to COVID-19, supplementary budget funding of $6.3 million in 2020-21 is needed. The ANAO has proposed that this would rise over the forward estimates to $9.1 million by 2023-24.
The ANAO has advised that this additional funding would meet IT and data storage costs, improve cyber security measures and meet cost increases in financial statements audits. Further, the funding would assist in increasing the ANAO's internet bandwidth to support remote working arrangements due COVID-19, undertake controls testing for new COVID-19 measures in financial statement audits, and address quality control risks.
The JCPAA is aware that cost pressures have existed for some time, as evidenced by recent ANAO budget outcomes. According to the ANAO's Annual Reports, the agency's operating result in the most recent two financial years was a deficit of $3.117 million in 2019-20 and a deficit of $4.778 million in 2018-19, excluding depreciation and amortisation. The Committee also notes that previous budget statements in 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 advise that the ANAO was not seeking supplementation.
Between 2019-20 and 2023-24, the ANAO's Budget Submission indicated significant rises in depreciation from that in previous years. The ANAO has outlined that these increases predominantly arise from the fit-out of a new building and upgrades to the agency's IT asset base.
The ANAO has advised the Committee that performance audits in 2020- 21 are projected to fall to 42, with further reductions over the forward estimates if supplementary funding is not provided. With the proposed supplementary funding, the ANAO advised the Committee it would return to meeting its annual target of 48 audits per annum by 2023-24. The Committee recognises that the ANAO has had a target of achieving 48 performance audits for several years and requires adequate funding to meet this objective.
Members are also cognisant of the current difficult budgetary environment and the unprecedented impact of the Coronavirus on departments and entities that the ANAO audits, as well as the broader budgetary position.
Acknowledging the difficult fiscal situation, the Committee provides a qualified recommendation in support of the Auditor-General's request for supplementation. The Committee recognises that the Government will determine its view on the Auditor-General's resourcing via the Budget and recommends that sufficient funding be provided to enable the ANAO to meet its KPIs over the forward estimates.
The Auditor-General is also seeking an exemption from the efficiency dividend, to not apply to ANAO appropriations from 2020-21 onwards.
The Committee's majority recommendation is that the ANAO not be exempt from the efficiency dividend. The Committee acknowledges the argument put by the Auditor-General that as an Officer of the Parliament he should not be subject to the efficiency dividend which provides funds to Executive Government for reallocation to other priorities, however the majority of the Committee is of the view that this measure continues to serve an important role in ensuring efficiencies are generated across a broad range of agencies.
Ultimately this is a matter for the government to determine further.
The Committee thanks the Auditor-General and the Acting Parliamentary Budget Officer for their work in support of the Parliament and the Committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
With the very short amount of time that I have left to comment on this report, I'd like to say that there are some very good recommendations which address both the Queensland government and Australian government. These go to making sure that there is a good relationship and understanding about reef science in the agricultural community, addressing the concerns of the stakeholders who gave evidence before this committee which addressed some of the issues which were raised.
What was very clear from the beginning of this inquiry was that this was a politicised inquiry which was bought through the Senate to try to tee-up a campaign so that the LNP could go out there and try to win votes in Queensland before the Queensland election. That's why we've seen this report tabled today and people from the LNP waiting to speak about this report, because they want to make this a political issue. Can I just say this: science shouldn't be a political issue. We should accept what scientists say, when they have years and years of experience. They have years of experience in an area that is so important for jobs and the economy in Cairns, in Far North Queensland and in the rest of the Queensland economy. We should accept what scientists say when they tell us that water quality impacts on the Great Barrier Reef.
Unfortunately, there were members of the community who were not willing to accept that evidence. So I assume that there will be a dissenting report that goes through the science, tries to dispute it and tries to pretend that some of the senators in this place know better than scientists. But they do not! They do not know better than these scientists. What we have is a report and recommendations that explain to the Senate how we can have people better understand the science of the reef and how desperately important it is to save the Great Barrier Reef, because we know that it supports thousands of jobs.
This was a highly politicised inquiry and it's a highly politicised campaign, and it actually led to people saying that there had been a misuse of Senate procedures and the Senate inquiry. What a shameful and damning thing to have been said about what should be an inquiry that looks into the science that protects jobs in Queensland! What an awful thing for someone in the public to say about the Senate or any senator, that someone would misuse Senate procedures to try to politicise what is an incredibly important body of science that has been built up over so many years. The very important question now for Queenslanders is whether they support a government that supports reef jobs or whether they support the LNP opposition, which is planning on ripping up these laws—
Order, Senator Green. You will be in continuation when this comes back on.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion now be put.
It appears that no-one wishes to speak, so we'll put the motion. The question is that the bill be read a third time.
I seek leave to have the opposition's 2020-21 budget reply speech incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
My fellow Australians.
We live in a great country.
Amidst all the chaos and hardship that has shaken our world in 2020 - there is nowhere else we would rather be.
The credit for that, as always, doesn't belong to the politicians here tonight.
It belongs to the people of Australia.
We are coming through this pandemic because of their hard work, their sacrifices, their sense of community.
Their willingness to put not just their friends and neighbours, but people they have not met and probably will never meet, ahead of themselves.
Their values. Australian values.
That we look after each other.
And – it's that spirit, those values, which should define what happens next.
Because the challenge – and the opportunity – facing us now is not just a matter of getting things back to the way they were.
We have to aim higher than that, strive for more than that.
We have a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild our economy and our country for the better.
To launch a recovery that delivers a stronger, fairer and more secure future, for all Australians.
This Budget fails the test.
The Budget reflects the Government's character of being guided by short term politics, not long term vision.
Our economy was already struggling coming into the crisis. Slow growth, flat wages, declining productivity, business investment going backwards, a doubling of debt.
Now they are cutting wage subsidies, slashing unemployment benefits back and have no plan for childcare, aged care or social housing.
This Budget leaves people behind.
Women have suffered most during the pandemic, but are reduced to a footnote. The best the Government can offer is they can drive on a road.
And if someone is over 35 they have certainly been left behind.
This week their wage subsidy was cut.
In March their wage subsidy disappears.
If they are unemployed they get $40 a day and are forced into poverty.
Then they will compete to get a job with people who will have their wages subsidised.
A quadruple whammy.
The Morrison recession will be deeper and longer because of this Budget.
Mr Albanese was brought up to look on the bright side.
His mother, Maryanne, was a great optimist.
She was crippled with rheumatoid arthritis and other health conditions, which meant constant pain and long stints in hospital.
A single mum who raised him in public housing and relied on a disability pension, she did it tough.
But she always had a smile on her face, she never complained about her lot in life.
Like every Australian parent, her greatest aspiration - and the reason for all her sacrifice – was to make sure her child had a better quality of life and greater opportunity.
That aspiration for others has been on full display in 2020.
Volunteers fighting bushfires.
Healthcare workers fending-off a pandemic.
Cleaners and supermarket workers and truckies working around the clock to keep our economy going.
Teachers re-defining education, practically overnight.
Farmers and regional communities who had already copped drought and bushfires.
Small business reinventing themselves - and locals backing them in.
Trade unions agreeing to temporarily put aside hard fought industrial gains, to maintain jobs and keep businesses going.
Public servants reminding us of the honourable profession they belong to.
Australians rallying to help each other through tough times.
But if this crisis has reinforced what we know is good about our country…
…it has also revealed what is wrong with our economy.
The Budget figures tell the story.
An end to 3 decades of economic growth.
A million unemployed, with 160,000 more by Christmas.
A trillion dollars of debt.
Debt which had already doubled under this Government now 4 times that which the Coalition inherited.
And there were the damning silences.
Too many Australians are in insecure work - the first to be laid off, with low wages and few entitlements.
… and this Budget said nothing about that.
Too many women are shut off from economic opportunity - earning less and retiring with less.
… and this Budget said nothing to change that.
Too many family budgets pushed to breaking point by the cost of childcare.
… and this Budget said nothing to help with that.
Too many older Australians who built this country are being treated without the respect and dignity they deserve.
Too many older Australians are lonely prisoners of a broken aged care system.
Facilities run for the highest profits at the lowest standards.
A care economy workforce in childcare, aged care and disability care that is overworked and underpaid.
And Tuesday's Budget said nothing and did nothing about that.
How can the Government push the national debt to a trillion dollars and yet leave these fundamental problems unresolved?
Tonight, the Labor Leader, Mr Albanese, outlined how we can change this for the better.
How we can emerge from this crisis with a stronger economy and a fairer society.
The pandemic has shown that Labor's values of fairness, security and the power of government to change lives for the better are the right values in a crisis.
They are also the right values for the recovery.
Throughout this crisis, Mr Albanese and Labor have been constructive.
As the party that led Australia safely through the Global Financial Crisis, we understand, that in the middle of an emergency, the priority is on urgent action.
Still, we sought to make improvements including arguing for wage subsidies, which the Prime Minister rejected as "very dangerous".
We wanted casuals, universities and the arts to be included. This would have saved tens of thousands of jobs.
We warned of the damage caused by a smash-and-grab on superannuation, forcing desperate people to raid their own retirement savings while they waited for support to arrive.
We called for Telehealth and mental health support.
We backed the trade unions' call for the Government to introduce a national scheme of paid pandemic leave so no-one had to choose between turning up to work sick or putting food on the table.
Our constructive approach contrasts with the Coalition during the GFC which voted against the Rudd Government's economic stimulus to protect jobs – and complained about the debt they inherited which was one quarter of the debt created by the Morrison Government.
The only legacy delivered by this Budget is trillion dollar debt. A reform desert.
The decisions in this budget should be about setting Australia on a course for the next decade and beyond.
And when those decisions are wasteful, or unfair, or short-sighted or just plain wrong…then it's not the government who pays in the long run, it's the whole country.
Just look at the NBN.
The Liberals have wasted years trashing Labor's plan for broadband delivered by fibre to the home and business.
They went out and bought 50,000 kilometres of copper – enough to wrap around the entire planet – so they could build a slow, third-rate network that was out of date before it started.
Now instead of leading the world on internet speed, business connectivity and online learning, Australia is playing catch-up.
If we're going to come out of this recession stronger and fairer, then our country needs a plan to ensure no-one is left behind, and no-one is held back.
Our plan to take Australia from recession to recovery is this:
Rehire our workers.
Rewire our economy.
Recharge workforce participation of women.
And rebuild our nation.
Labor knows education is the key to opportunity.
Our schools, TAFE and vocational education and universities are vital national institutions.
And making sure a quality education is accessible and affordable for every Australian doesn't just open doors of opportunity for individuals, it makes us a smarter, more productive, more future-ready country.
And investing in education needs to begin at the beginning – with quality childcare.
We all know how much our kids change and learn and grow before they're at school.
Ninety per cent of human brain development occurs in the first five years of life.
What children learn at childcare is so vital for giving our kids the best possible start. But the current system of caps and subsidies and thresholds isn't just confusing and costly, it actually penalises the families it's meant to help.
Right around Australia, instead of childcare supporting families where both parents want to work …the costs – and the tax system – actively discourage this.
And - as is too often the case – it's working mums who cop the worst of it.
For millions of working women, it's simply not worth working more than three days a week.
This derails careers, it deprives working women of opportunities they've earned.
And it costs workplaces – not just day-to-day productivity but years of valuable experience and knowledge and skills.
If Mr Albanese is elected Prime Minister, he's going to fix this.
Tonight, Mr Albanese announced that a Labor Government will, from 1 July 2022, remove the annual cap on the childcare subsidy, eliminating once and for all, the disincentive to work more hours.
And we will increase the maximum Child Care subsidy to 90 per cent - cutting costs for 97 per cent of all families in the system.
And we will order the ACCC to design a price regulation mechanism that will ensure every taxpayer dollar spent flows directly through to savings for Australian families.
This is real reform. It will boost women's workforce participation, boost productivity and get Australia working again.
Building a childcare system that works for families will turbocharge productivity in workplaces, delivering a much-needed boost in economic growth of up to 4 billion dollars a year.
For Mr Albanese, the principle is very simple:
Early education is vital for our children's future.
And childcare is an essential service for families – and for the economy.
So our long term goal – and the mission we will set for the Productivity Commission which will be asked to report in the first term of a Labor Government – is to investigate moving to a 90 per cent subsidy for child care for every Australian family.
Labor created Medicare - universal health care.
We created the NDIS - universal support for people with disability.
We created superannuation – universal retirement savings for workers.
And – if Mr Albanese is Prime Minister – he will make quality, affordable childcare universal too.
This global pandemic has exposed the terrible damage seven years of Liberal Government has done to Australian manufacturing.
Mr Albanese doesn't want our country to always be the last link in a worldwide supply chain.
His vision is for us to have the skills and smarts and people and industry to make things here and sell them on the global market.
So, tonight he talked about Labor's plan for a Future Made in Australia.
A mass mobilisation of resources, an across-the-board strategy for:
- Job creation
- Training and skills
- Lower energy prices
- Infrastructure
- Government purchasing
- Manufacturing and construction
A plan to grow our economy out of this recession – and build for the future too.
The first policy Mr Albanese announced as Labor leader was to build on the success of the Infrastructure Australia model and create Jobs and Skills Australia.
This is about joining-up the needs of our economy now – with training opportunities for the future.
We have a shortage of nurses, welders, brick layers, engineers, and hairdressers.
Yet under this government, there are 140,000 fewer people doing an apprenticeship or traineeship than there were seven years ago.
We want to equip every Australian with the skills for a good secure job.
And we want to make sure every employer has access to a well-trained Australian workforce.
And right at the heart of our plan for skills and training is the great institution of public TAFE.
But there's more government can – and should – do.
Every year, the Commonwealth spends billions of taxpayer dollars on building and upgrading roads, maintaining railways and repairing bridges.
To deliver maximum public value for money, Labor will create an Australian Skills Guarantee.
On every major work site receiving Federal Government funding, one out of 10 workers employed will be an apprentice, a trainee or cadet.
These common sense measures will train tens of thousands of workers.
We will also consider how this principle can be extended to Federal Government subsidised sectors like aged care, disability care and childcare in co-operation with providers.
And we'll bring the same approach to defence acquisitions too.
Over the next decade, there is $270 billion of defence spending on the books.
These investments in national security should also deliver a dividend for national skills, training, research and manufacturing.
A Labor Government will implement concrete rules to maximise local content and create local jobs.
At best, the Liberals' approach is all over the shop when it comes to Australian content.
Remember when one of this Liberal Government's Defence Ministers said he wouldn't trust Australians to build a canoe?
Australians will never forget that it was this Government that drove Holden, Ford and other car makers out of Australia, taking tens of thousands of jobs in auto manufacturing, servicing and the supply chain with them.
This wasn't just dumb and devastating in the short term.
Cutting down the Australian auto industry also cut Australia off from the next round of opportunities, dealing us out of a new wave of technology that could have been made in Elizabeth and Altona and Geelong but instead is being made in Detroit and Tokyo.
It's the same at a state level.
Liberal Governments have consistently said we can't build trains here.
And yet the ones they've bought from overseas have been too long for our stations, or too narrow for our tracks, or too tall for our tunnels.
Last December, Mr Albanese visited the Downer EDI site in Maryborough, Queensland, where skilled Aussie workers are refitting rail carriages purchased from overseas by the former Newman LNP Government.
This work is being done in a factory that's been building quality trains since the 19th Century.
Our country has the skills and the knowhow. What's missing is a government that believes in manufacturing and has a plan to deliver.
Tonight, Mr Albanese announced that a Labor Government will create a National Rail Manufacturing Plan.
We will provide leadership to the states and work with industry to identify and optimise the opportunities to build trains here in Australia - for freight and for public transport.
Labor will invest in the skills and research and training to kickstart the next generation of Australian manufacturing jobs.
And we'll deliver the affordable, reliable energy to power industry into the future.
The Liberals have had 22 energy policies in 8 years.
And all they have to show for it are higher electricity prices and higher emissions.
Australia can do so much better.
We can be a renewable energy superpower, with clean energy powering a new era of metal manufacturing and hydrogen production.
Labor has a clear target to tackle Climate Change - net zero carbon pollution by 2050.
Every State and Territory Government - Labor and Liberal - supports this goal.
The Business Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Energy Council and the National Farmers Federation agree on it.
Qantas and Santos and BHP and a host of other major companies all back it too.
Everyone but the Morrison Government, which is frozen in time while the world warms around it.
Of course, there's a lot more we can do right now to make energy more affordable.
Australia's electricity network was designed for a different century.
For a time when solar panels ran pocket calculators, not the 1 in 4 households which have rooftop solar.
The current network takes no account of the rise of renewables as the cheapest new energy source, and doesn't help link these new sources up to the national grid.
A Labor Government will tackle this head on.
We will establish a new Rewiring the Nation Corporation to rebuild and modernise the national energy grid.
By using the Commonwealth's ability to borrow at lower interest rates, it will be done at the lowest possible cost.
The projects needed to rebuild the grid have all been identified in the Australian Energy Market Operator's Integrated System Plan.
The planning work is done.
Rebuilding the grid will create thousands of jobs – particularly in regional Australia - and deliver up to $40 billion in benefits.
Fixing transmission is technology neutral and will allow the market to drive least cost, new energy production.
Reforming childcare, rebuilding the National Energy Grid and revitalising Australian manufacturing are at the heart of Labor's plans for job creation over the next decade
But in the middle of the first recession in 30 years – we know Australia needs a plan to create jobs, right now.
One of the fastest ways to lift economic growth and get tradies back on the tools is to invest in social housing.
There's 100,000 social housing dwellings around the country that are in urgent need of repair.
The roof leaks, they're full of mould or damp, the plumbing isn't up to scratch.
If these were MPs offices they'd be fixed overnight.
These are people's homes – and they're a job creation plan ready and waiting in every city and town.
Tradies could be ordering from suppliers today, they could be on site, tomorrow.
And the pipeline of work doesn't stop at existing houses that need fixing.
There are new houses that need to be built too.
200,000 Australians are on waiting lists for social housing.
Mr Albanese grew up in public housing.
He knows when someone does not have much, having a roof over their head provides security and makes all the difference.
So many economists have identified investing in social housing as the best way to provide immediate stimulus to the economy.
It would create thousands of jobs in construction and the trades…
…and just like for Mr Albanese's mum, it would give thousands of people a better life.
The pandemic has exposed Australia's vulnerability.
This has particularly impacted the elderly with more than 670 deaths in aged care, in a system described by the Royal Commission in their one word title of the Interim Report issued last year, as "neglect".
This Budget has done nothing to address this neglect and nothing to ensure aged care residents have enough nurses, carers and other staff that they need and deserve.
The Royal Commission declared last week there was still no plan for aged care.
It is also the case that our pandemic preparedness was poor. The last national pandemic preparedness exercise was run by the Rudd Government in 2008.
A Labor Government will establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control to bring us into line with other advanced economies.
On Tuesday night, Australia needed a plan to seize the economic opportunities of the next decade.
We are, after all, located in the fastest growing region of the world in human history.
Instead, we got an incoherent grab bag, fixated on the photo opportunities of next week.
And that's the defining flaw of this government – and this Prime Minister.
They think an announcement is the end in itself.
Always there for the photo opp, never there for the follow up.
We see it time and time again.
Remember the "Back in Black" mugs they were selling last Budget, ahead of delivering the biggest deficit in Australian history?
Perhaps the mugs should have said "dirty deeds, done dirt cheap".
When we look at the waste and the grift and the pork barreling exposed by the Australian National Audit Office that's had its funding cut in this Budget as payback.
The Sports Rorts scandal
The $30 million paid for airport land that was worth just $3 million …
Two years after announcing they would support a National Integrity Commission, the legislation is as visible as a Morrison Government surplus.
A Labor Government will deliver a national anti-corruption commission to restore faith in our democracy.
In seven years, the gap between what they've promised on infrastructure – and what they've delivered – is nearly $7 billion.
They turn up, they turn over the first sod and years later weeds are growing on the empty lot.
And in spite of a Budget drowning in red ink, there were no new game changing infrastructure projects funded.
As Australia's first Infrastructure Minister, Mr Albanese knows what a missed opportunity this budget represents.
Then there's the Emergency Response Fund.
This $4 billion fund was created in the aftermath of the catastrophic bushfires with $200 million available each financial year from 2019-2020.
It's for recovery, as well as resilience in the lead up to bushfire seasons.
Not a dollar has been spent. Not one.
This week Mr Albanese spoke to Zoey Salucci in Cobargo.
The Prime Minister should remember her. She was the young pregnant woman who had lost her home and asked for more help for the Rural Fire Service. She was reluctant to shake his hand.
Zoey's son Phoenix turned 6 months old this week, named after the Greek mythological bird that obtains new life by rising from the ashes.
When Phoenix was born, Zoey, her husband and their two year old daughter Uma, were still living in a van. She despairs that so many of her community are still living in temporary caravans on land that is yet to be cleared.
Yet the $4 billion funding announced remains untouched.
That's why the true test of this Budget isn't this week's headlines.
It's not the rhetoric or the promises.
It's whether money reaches the people who need it.
Australia is at a crossroad.
It's not of our choosing but the choices we make could change everything.
This is an opportunity to reset and renew.
There was a time when the average wage let an Australian buy a house. When secure jobs with sick pay were the norm.
Before the balance tipped so far one way that ordinary people were left vulnerable.
Let's use this opportunity to get the balance right again.
Let's put security back into work – so that people don't have to choose between their bank account and their health.
Let's transform childcare so that it's affordable and accessible to every family.
Let's fix our aged care system so that it's driven by dignity and care, not profit.
The choices we make now will define who we are in the future, so Australians should ask themselves – what sort of country do they want?
Do we want to return to the same work insecurity, the same cuts to TAFE and unis, the same 2nd rate services for the bush, the same stale arguments over climate change?
Mr Albanese wants us to do better.
He wants a country that makes things, creates wealth – and shares it.
A country where the next generation inherit opportunity and prosperity – not debt and doubt.
A country which respects our farmers and miners in the regions and our cleaners and musicians in the cities.
A country that respects those who've come across the sea to enrich our society – and one that recognises the privilege of having the world's oldest continuous culture and recognises First Nations people in our Constitution – and gives them a Voice to this Parliament.
A country where – when the going gets tough – government is on the Australian people's side.
That's the Australia Mr Albanese believes in.
That's the better future he wants us to build together.
The year 2020 has been the year from hell.
But during this calamity we learnt a lot about ourselves. And about each other.
A man called Tom Uren was the closest person in Mr Albanese's life he had to a father figure.
Tom fought in World War 2, he spent his 21st birthday as a Japanese prisoner of war on the notorious Thai-Burma Railway.
He never talked much about what he went through.
But he always said Australians survived because of a simple code:
The healthy looked after the sick, the strong looked after the weak, the young looked after the old.
Those values are at the heart of what it is to be an Australian.
And those values are why Mr Albanese is optimistic about our country's future.
Because just as our people have rallied to each other and risen to the challenges of this pandemic.
Mr Albanese knows Australians can seize the opportunities of the recovery, seize the chance to rebuild and renew our country.
But people can't do it on their own.
Mr Albanese's mum battled a ton of adversity to give him opportunities she never had.
But government played a part too: it put a roof over their head, it gave him an education and a start.
That's why Mr Albanese wants to be Prime Minister.
Because he knows government has the power to break down barriers of disadvantage, to change lives for the better.
He's seen it. He's lived it.
And that's what Labor's plans are all about.
Creating jobs for today – and training our people for tomorrow.
Making quality child care a right for all, not a luxury for some.
Rebuilding our manufacturing sector.
And powering our recovery with clean energy
Tonight, Mr Albanese talked about how we can make this once-in-a-century crisis the beginning of a new era of Australian prosperity and Australian fairness.
With the right plans, the right policies – and the right leadership – Mr Albanese truly believes our country can make this moment our own.
Strength and fairness.
We can beat this recession, we can launch a recovery and we can build a future where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind.
I rise tonight to make a contribution in budget week as National Party Senate leader, noting that today the Deputy Prime Minister handed down a regional statement about how our government budget affects and supports rural and regional Australians, the seven million of us who live, work and love our regions right across our country. What we handed down today, and what he spoke about today, was how this budget shows our government standing with regional Australia through its most difficult time. We started 2020 with bushfires and by coming out of drought. We were then hit by COVID-19. Our government makes a commitment, through the measures outlined in this budget, to stand with them as, together, we face COVID recession. It's a plan that outlines our opportunities going forward and is reminiscent, I think, of the courage and leadership shown by the Menzies-McEwen government post-World War II. I just want to reflect for a moment on the words of Sir John McEwen, Country Party leader during that period:
Australia is one of the few countries in the world that is not only self-sufficient in food and important raw materials but has an export surplus in these things. We have a sophisticated workforce and a sophisticated field of management that enables us, in a highly competitive world, to continue to grow as a manufacturing country. It would be a great mistake if our manufacturing potential were to be neglected or underestimated. So, considering our self-sufficiency in food and materials, our capacity for industrial growth and our tremendous land area capable of absorbing additional population from around the world, I look forward with a high level of confidence to the future of Australia.
These words were said by 'Black Jack' McEwen half a century ago, and it was his vision for our country following a war—leaving Britain behind, taking in immigrants who were fleeing from war-torn Europe. How do we build a nation that is independent, sovereign and prosperous? It is by securing our national security and our economic security, and he chose to do that through pursuing a policy of full employment. If you look at our budget measures handed down this week, they do too. The McCormack-Morrison government are actually pursuing budget measures that seek to get more Australians back into employment, because we know that is how to drive an economy, and to ensure our economic security and our prosperity going forward.
'Black Jack' McEwen's vision of and high confidence in a strong and prosperous future for Australia is something that we, in the Nationals, absolutely share, and we fundamentally believe the regions are going to be key to achieving that. As Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack outlined today, this week's budget delivers economic security because it delivers jobs, and more than half of those who lost their jobs are already back to work thanks to our measures. The government estimates the economy will recover over 950,000 jobs over the next four years because of the measures—a whole suite of measures across a raft of portfolio areas—delivered on Tuesday night.
Madam Deputy President, 2020 has been a year like no other and now is the time for vision: a sound plan based on sound principles that puts our national sovereignty at its centre. The Nationals in government are investing in regional people and regional businesses. We know that $32 billion in cash flow will boost around 800,000 small businesses. More than 99 per cent of businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion can write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase for their business. This is great for them, but it's also great for the suppliers in their local communities that provide those products. This has been a singularly popular measure. I've heard about it over the past two days as farmers and small businesses call in to our offices to say: 'Thank you. It's been tough. This is a real and tangible practical measure that's going to help us pay our bills. That means other businesses keep employing people, but it also will allow us to keep our employees on the payroll.'
The Nationals in government are delivering a record $110 billion in transport infrastructure programs and a $3.5 billion rolling water infrastructure fund to support local jobs and businesses. If you don't come from where we come from, you might not get the relationship between access to water and jobs, productivity and local growth. It is absolutely fundamental to us. With the resilience capacity of our local community and population and with the skills and knowhow grounded in the deep, lived experience of our farming communities, all you need to do is add water out in the regions and we will be a $100 billion ag industry in no time. Just add some workers, Senator McCarthy and Senator McMahon, to get those mangoes off! And we're working on that as well.
As someone who is quite excited about the legacy of Black Jack and the contribution he made and our party made through that period to our national economy and security, I'm getting quite excited about our renewed focus on advanced manufacturing. There is $1.5 billion handed down in this budget over four years for our Modern Manufacturing Strategy. Settle down everyone! This is not 21st-century protectionism; it's actually backing our natural capabilities: food, fibre, minerals, forestry—what a wonderful sustainable industry forestry is. This is around six particular key areas: resources, critical minerals, food and beverages, medical products—we've seen some great examples of this out in regional communities in my home state of Victoria, like Shepparton, where they're actually turning their hand to that PPE task quite quickly—clean energy, and defence and space.
We're not wanting this across the board; we're actually wanting to make sure that we are competitive in the areas where we already have a unique competitive advantage. What I love about it is that in over half of these areas of strategic importance the primary product is based in the regions. So the smart thing is also to have that value-adding piece out in the regions too. We need to make Australia make again. We need production lines humming. We did it post World War II. This is a budget that seeks to help us recover in a similar way with a similar sense of optimism and the building of confidence right throughout our community. I'm confident that we can do it. We must focus on our sovereign manufacturing capability. What the pandemic has actually exposed is the fragility of so many supply chains across the globe. I'm really excited about ensuring that we make here at home again things that we might have outsourced—things that are fundamental to ensuring we can feed ourselves, we can keep ourselves safe and we can actually plan with renewed focus on the future.
I'm very proud to be part of a party in government that is a specialist in one thing and one thing only: working for rural and regional Australia and making sure that those seven million Australians have a proud and very loud voice here in the Senate, in the House and within government to ensure that our road to recovery from COVID-19 backs the regions and backs their natural advantages, and I know that together we can get through this.
This budget has been delivered in truly exceptional circumstances. We are in the middle of a global pandemic that has hit us hard, but the pandemic has also exposed many pre-existing fault lines in our economy and in our society: insecure work, poverty, privatisation, social isolation and underfunded public services. These times, and this budget, may well be defined by a global pandemic, but even before any of us had heard of COVID-19 we had massive challenges facing us, and those challenges remain today. The earth's climate is breaking down around us. We are living through a mass extinction event. Nature is being destroyed at record pace. The ecological systems that our economy and our society rely on are in crisis.
In economic terms, we are also in exceptional circumstances. Interest rates are at the lowest rate in the history of the Federation. Globally, interest rates are at the lowest level in recorded human history. Borrowing money has never been cheaper. Australian households are now carrying more debt than they ever have, and Australia's level of household debt is second in the world only to Switzerland. Yet despite people borrowing more money than ever, more cheaply than ever, homeownership rates are going through the floor. In Australia, homeownership rates are now back to where they were in the 1950s. This is not because people don't want to earn money. Workforce participation is at the highest rate it's ever been. More people than ever are putting their hands up for a job. But wages growth is at the lowest rate since the Australian Bureau of Statistics started keeping records on it in the 1950s.
So we've got wages growth at record lows but we've got the proportion of national income going to company profits at record highs. The end result of all this is that wealth inequality is entrenched, it's significant and it's rising. Record low interest rates, record high household debt, falling homeownership, record workforce participation, record low wages growth, record high company profits, rising wealth inequality—this is what we faced before we entered a global pandemic, and this is what 40-odd years of naked neoliberalism has delivered. More and more people are getting less and less, despite making a greater and greater effort. Meanwhile the big corporations and the super wealthy who own and run them sit back and pocket ever bigger profits and amass ever greater wealth.
Neoliberalism rewards wealth more than it rewards effort. It is a system where the rent seekers rule. It's a system that, instead of repaying the biggest workforce in our country's history with the standard of public infrastructure and public services that a prosperous nation such as ours should share and enjoy, has privatised and deregulated. It's a system that's created gouging monopolies that pay exorbitant dividends to the wealthy few and, at the same time, forces millions of Australians to take on paralysing levels of private debt just to keep their heads above the water. This is a system where if you're not amongst the chosen few you must, to paraphrase Lewis Carroll, run as fast as you can just to stay in place, and to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that. This is a system where the game is rigged.
Undoubtedly COVID-19 is the trigger for the recession that we're in. But this recession and the pathway to recovery will be made monstrously more difficult for the vast majority of Australians because of the four-decades-long neoliberal assault on the spirit of our country through privatised public utilities, outsourced public services, a mad obsession with budget surpluses, a deregulated industrial relations system, a deregulated financial sector, trade deals that diminish the sovereignty of our country, manufacturing forced offshore, a property market rigged in favour of the speculators, and massive tax breaks for miners and polluters who are pillaging our common wealth and cooking the planet. All of these have been deliberate policy choices of successive Australian governments, starting with the Labor Party, under Hawke and Keating, and supercharged under the Liberals. They have chipped away at the social fabric of our country. They've rewarded the individual at the expense of the collective. They've rewarded capital at the expense of labour. They have wound back the clock on much of the progress that was made in the middle of the last century towards a more equal society and a more shared prosperity.
Thanks to neoliberalism, we entered the pandemic with an underfunded healthcare system, with an underfunded and privatised childcare system, with an underfunded, privatised and barely regulated aged-care system, with an underfunded education and training system, with 40 per cent of our workforce in insecure work, with entrenched high rates of unemployment and underemployment, with a social safety net set below what people need to survive, and with the most overpriced housing in the world. The pretence of more competition and more choice delivering some kind of market nirvana for people was always a con. Neoliberalism has done to this country what it was always going to do: concentrate wealth and widen the divide between the haves and the have-nots. And all of this has been facilitated by the two major parties that sit in this place today and by an all-powerful financial industry which is a rapacious parasite on our country that has hollowed out the real economy and left behind nothing but a fragile shell. This is why the cheapest money in history is no longer enough. We are truly through the looking glass.
In the face of all this, we've got this year's budget. So how does it stack up? Is it a turning point? Is it a not-since-wartime budget? Is it a whatever-it-takes budget? A budget that builds a nation? A budget that gives hope to people? Is it a budget that offers us the hope that we so desperately need that we can live good lives and respect nature and climate? No, of course it's not—not from this Prime Minister, not from this Treasurer, not from this government. This budget is a neoliberal train wreck that will impoverish poor people, steal hopes and dreams from young people, entrench wealth inequality, entrench unemployment and underemployment, and line the pockets of the big corporates and the super rich.
Don't believe the government's budget hype. This budget does nothing to change the structure of the Australian economy or the underlying social, human and natural problems this structure has created. It perpetuates the same old failed, trickle-down, crony capitalist, fake economics rubbish that is simply about big corporations and the super-rich gorging themselves on the hard work of others and rigging the rules to suit themselves. The only difference this time is that it's neoliberalism on tick. But don't be fooled by a new-found tolerance for government debt, because this budget seeks to protect and project the same old neoliberal ideas.
The government could have used this budget and increased the debt to invest in a shared future, providing the infrastructure, the income support, the jobs and the public services needed to create a cleaner, fairer and more equitable future. It could have used the debt to create jobs in renewable energy, reforestation and rewilding, helping reduce emissions, restore ecosystems and draw down carbon from our atmosphere. But instead it chose to use the debt to further rig the system so that the big corporates and the super-rich can keep making off like bandits while millions of Australians will endure the kind of hardship and poverty that nobody, and I mean nobody, in a nation as rich as ours should ever have to suffer—hardship and poverty that will scar for a lifetime, hardship and poverty that is a stain on our country's history.
This is a bloody great budget for coal companies and gas companies. It is a magnificent budget for the banks. It is a bonanza for the arms manufacturers. This is a budget by the government's mates, it is a budget for the government's mates and, boy, does this budget deliver for the government's mates and for the government's political donors. But if you are a young person, if you're renting, if you're a woman, if you're First Nations person, if you're unemployed, if you're underemployed, if you're struggling to pay the bills, if you're worried about the climate crisis or if you're worried about the biodiversity crisis, this is not a budget that offers you the hope that you so desperately need.
This budget continues to ignore women. There is no new money to make child care accessible, there is no new money to build affordable public housing and there is no new money to fund frontline domestic violence services, despite 37 women having been killed by violence already this year and rates of domestic violence having increased since the start of the pandemic. Its main selling point—tax cuts—will deliver twice as much money to men as they will to women.
People working in arts and entertainment were some of the first to be hit by the social-distancing requirements. The sector has suffered tremendously through the lockdown and will be one of the last to recover. It is a sector that gives so much spirit to life in this country, yet the Treasurer could not even find it within himself to utter the word 'art' in his budget speech earlier this week. Arts and entertainment workers were largely excluded from JobKeeper and many are now faced with trying to survive on $40 a day on JobSeeker. Clearly, the $112 billion a year arts and entertainment sector does not matter to the Morrison government.
Universities have been literally decimated by this crisis. A full 10 per cent-plus of their workforce is gone, and what's the government's response? Slash support, deliberately and on multiple occasions exclude them from JobKeeper and massively hike the price of getting a degree. There is no new money in this budget for environment conservation and effectively nothing to help protect our threatened native species and natural ecosystems in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction event in our planet's history. There is no serious action to close the gap, a shameful betrayal of promises made just four months ago. Meanwhile, the surveillance state will continue to grow, our rights and liberties will be further eroded and more power will be concentrated into the dangerous hands of the Department of Home Affairs.
This budget also turns Australia's back on the world's displaced people. It cuts Australia's humanitarian intake and refugee intake by 20,000 places over the next four years. What is happening to this country?
This budget gouges almost $1 billion of support for refugees and people seeking asylum, and gives its straight to the big corporates and the super wealthy in tax breaks and $99 billion every year in corporate welfare. And with more than a dash of good, old-fashioned xenophobia and racism, this budget, shamefully, introduces an English language dictation test for partner visas. I'm hearing echoes of the White Australia policy. There is no funding in this budget for the desperately needed federal anticorruption watchdog, and the Liberals have taken revenge on the National Audit Office for exposing sports rorts by slashing its funding.
The centrepiece of this budget is the bringing forward of the stage 2 tax cuts, supported by the Australian Labor Party. That will see millionaires get 2½ thousand bucks a year extra in their pockets and the working poor get 250 bucks a year in their pockets. The unemployed can line up for their regular kick in the teeth; they will get nothing, because a tax cut is worth nothing to you if you haven't got a job. Don't be fooled by the spin. The additional offset for low- and middle-income earners is a one-off; it'll be gone in a year's time. There's a temporary boost for the millions and a permanent boost for the millionaires. And stage 3, which will arrive in four years time—unless it's brought forward in the meantime—is even worse. By that point, the top 10 per cent will be getting 50 per cent of the additional benefit. Stage 3 was voted for by both major parties in this place when it was legislated. Under both stage 2 and stage 3 of these tax cuts, tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit high-income earners, men get twice the benefit women get. These tax cuts will further entrench gender inequality and further disrespect the massive contribution women have made and continue to make to our country.
Borrowing money to give the wealthiest Australians tax cut is, obviously, patently unfair. But it's also really bad economics. There is nothing Keynesian about using the public purse to enrich the already very wealthy. There is nothing smart about tax cuts that leave behind young people, unemployed people and women. These tax cuts will not create jobs. These tax cuts will not trickle down. These tax cuts will not work.
How do we know they won't work? We tried them last year and they didn't work. Last year, when increased tax offsets landed in people's bank accounts, household incomes rose by the highest rate in a decade. But, in the same quarter, household consumption grew by what was then the lowest rate in a decade. Even before we were in recession, people were saving; they weren't spending, because the economy was already stretched to breaking point, as were so many household budgets.
And now that we're in the middle of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, people will obviously do the same again—and more. And fair enough, too! In the face of insecure work, low wage growth, high levels of household debt, high unemployment and massive underemployment, it's the natural thing to do. The point is that tax cuts won't do what the major parties say they are going to do. The money will not make its way out into the economy. The tax cuts simply will not work. And we know that trickle-down economics is one of the world's great political cons: the people at the bottom are dying of thirst waiting for a few drops to reach them. If low- and middle-income earners weren't spending before COVID hit and weren't spending before we got into a recession then high-income earners certainly won't be spending in the middle of a recession. What will happen is that high-income earners will accumulate yet more wealth by buying more shares or paying off the mortgage on their investment property.
It's also worth remembering that this is the third consecutive budget where this government has put forward some version of these tax cuts, going further and faster every time. The first two times around, it was the magical impending surplus—which didn't last long, mind you—that supposedly enabled the tax cuts. The third time around, there is not a surplus in sight and yet here are the tax cuts again. What this shows is that these tax cuts are ideological, pure and simple. Surplus or no surplus, pandemic or no pandemic, deficit or no deficit, debt or no debt, this government is always going to let the wealthy accumulate more wealth. And here's a newsflash for you: tax cuts are of absolutely no benefit if you don't have a job.
Instead of giving tax cuts to millionaires, we should be helping the millions of Australians who are unemployed and underemployed. JobSeeker must be permanently increased so people, all people, can lead a dignified life. Money given to people who need it not only is the right thing to do but will get spent in our economy. If this government cared about its people and cared about the state of the economy, this budget would make sure that those whom this government seems content to confine to joblessness have a chance to live with some dignity.
But this government isn't content with just helping out the millionaires and the superrich. This budget also extends $99 billion a year in corporate welfare. It doesn't matter to the government that companies in Australia are already extracting record profits. It doesn't matter that the share market has already recovered most of its losses. It doesn't matter that one in three of the biggest corporations in this country pay absolutely zero tax. It doesn't matter, because apparently the big corporations need yet more corporate welfare and yet more help from the public purse—Liberal mates, Liberal donors.
What of the climate emergency? This government would rather the country burned than upset the most favoured of Liberal donors, the fossil fuel industry. The so-called gas-led recovery is nothing other than an abomination. It's been designed by hand-picked gas company executives who want to turn our country into a petro state. The International Energy Agency has spelt out that there is no room for any new carbon-emitting energy source if the Paris targets are to be met. But this government could not care less. Colleagues, we're not headed for a gas led recovery; we are just being gaslit. That's what's going on in this budget.
Budgets are about choices, and these choices that are made in budgets reflect a government's priorities. The Australian Greens reject this government's choices and its priorities. We reject neoliberalism in whatever form it comes. The Australian Greens want to build an economy that works for people, not the other way around. We want to build an economy that respects nature, that respects our ecosystems and that respects our climate and doesn't see our natural places merely as resources to be dug up and burned and profited from or as dumping grounds for toxic chemicals, carbon and pollutants. If we can remake our society to protect us from a virus, we can remake it to look after everyone, to look after climate and to look after nature. The Greens' plan responds to the magnitude of the challenges we face and the three intersecting crises: the pandemic, rising wealth inequality, and the climate and biodiversity emergency. This is a choice that our parliament can make.
Our plan is built around a government backed jobs and income guarantee that would ensure that everyone has the income they need to live with dignity. It will also get us back to full employment as quickly as possible. No-one should get left behind, and the Greens' plan ensures that no-one will be. This is a choice that our parliament can make.
Our plan is built around massive government investment in health, in education, in public and active transport and in the whole range of public services that people need and want, delivered at a high quality. It's built around massive investment in manufacturing and renewable energy—far beyond that which is included in the government's budget. These will be the building blocks of a fairer and cleaner economy. We can't afford not to do this. This is a choice that our parliament can make.
Our plan is built around our Create Australia strategy—a jobs-rich plan for the creative industries in our country, underpinned by a commitment to get artists into our schools and libraries and a decent kickstart to get more Australian content onto our screens and live performances back to our stages. This is a choice that our parliament can make.
And for young people—who, as with all recessions, are copping the brunt of it—our plan is built around a next-gen guarantee: free education, a living income and a guaranteed decent job, if you want it. Our nation's future depends on trusting in and believing in the next generation. This is a choice that our parliament can make.
With the money that this budget commits to tax cuts we can have a green recovery that creates hundreds of thousands of good, decent and well-paid jobs, ensures everyone has an income they can live on and creates a clean, strong and stable economy. We can set everyone up to live a good and dignified life while we respect nature and our planet's climate. A plan to do this is not just possible; it's necessary. This is a choice that our parliament can make.
I'll sign off with a quote from Sir David Attenborough, made only hours ago: 'Nature will flourish when those that have a great deal perhaps have a little less.' Thanks, David. The Greens couldn't agree more.
I rise tonight to respond to the government's budget, handed down earlier this week. It's a post-COVID budget. It's a budget that takes us from a predicted $11 billion surplus for this year to $213.7 billion of deficit. Gross debt was expected to be 27 per cent of GDP in 2019-20. Gross debt is now expected to be 44 per cent of GDP at 30 June 2021 and to increase to 51.6 per cent of GDP at 30 June 2024. I am just describing the environment.
The government has announced a wide range of revenue measures, reducing tax receipts whilst at the same time spending up big. Spending big might be appropriate as we recover from COVID—as long as money is spent effectively. Spending money is easy. Spending money wisely is a much harder thing to do.
I'm not going to present an alternative plan. That's not the role of an Independent. My job is to give honest commentary as to what I've seen presented by the government. I've decided that I'm not going to talk about what's in the budget, however. I'll have plenty of opportunities to do that as implementing legislation comes before this chamber. Tomorrow, for example, I'll speak on tax related matters in the bill that is currently before the Senate and the subject of government business. Rather, I want to talk about what's missing in the budget. I want to talk about this because COVID brought us the opportunity to sit back and examine how things could be different on the other side of the curve. But that opportunity has been squandered by government—a government without vision or brave thought. They have just delivered same old, same old approaches: tax cuts, instant asset write-offs, tax concessions, spending on this and spending on that. Even having engaged the NCCC, a body of purported visionaries, we still don't have anything visionary that's come out of that particular forum—a forum that has cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Let's go to revenue. Revenue will fall by $55 billion in this financial year and $283 billion over the four years to 2023. That's revenue based on a number of widely optimistic assumptions. The budget makes the assumption that there are not going to be any second or third COVID waves. Basically, it relies on a vaccination being fully in place by late 2021. We've heard the government talking about vaccinations, and their optimism—talking about dates and then having to slip them, and then slipping them again and then slipping them again. At the COVID committee I asked about the logistics of rolling out a vaccination across Australia—who would be first, who the priorities are and how the vaccination would be dispatched across Australia. The government certainly doesn't have that well planned at this point in time. The reality is that vaccinations take time. We can be very optimistic, and I have no problem with being optimistic, but I prefer the approach by the philosopher Seneca, who said, 'Hope for the best but plan for the worst.'
One of the assumptions in the budget is interesting. In fact, I went back to 2019-20 and saw that the Treasury's estimates for the price of iron ore were $55 per tonne, FOB. I then looked at what this budget said and, amazingly, it said that they predicted the iron ore price would be $55 per tonne, FOB, by the end of the June quarter in 2022. I don't know if this is a cut-and-paste error. I acknowledge that $55 a tonne is in fact a conservative number, but it leaves me questioning the modelling assumptions in relation to the economic outlook—modelling assumptions that simply are not spelt out in detail in the budget. Again based on assumption is the number of jobs—there is no detail as to how the government came to the figures that are being used in the budget. We have to accept those on blind faith.
Still talking about revenue: I would have thought that this crisis would have been the opportunity to engage in significant revenue reform, but it's completely absent. Simplifying the tax system with a few broad-ranging taxes would have been good—personal income tax, corporate tax, private consumption or GST and economic rents from natural resources and land. It's the Ken Henry model. That's the sort of thing we could have been doing to simplify things. Of course, we would still retain taxes for special purposes—things like tobacco taxes to encourage people not to smoke and also perhaps taxes around traffic congestion. Instead, we will retain a complex tax system with other state taxes, job-killing taxes such as payroll tax, not being addressed.
In terms of tax cuts, that is in the budget, but what is missing is any analysis as to whether or not they're affordable. I say that having been through a comprehensive process the last time we looked at it and as a crossbencher having the special privileges of access to Treasury and having examined exactly what was going on inside Budget Paper No. 1. The argument at that time presented to me was: 'We are on the verge of a surplus. Now is the right time for tax cuts.' It turns out now we're at a $213 deficit, and it's the right time for tax cuts! So I'll just put on the record that I have reservations about these tax cuts. This entire chamber will vote tomorrow on tax cuts, blind as to any analysis of whether or not they're affordable.
Senator McKim talked about tax minimisation. Has that been addressed? There's nothing to address the 220 companies that had revenues of $850 billion over five tax transparency years and paid no tax—$850 billion of revenue and they paid no tax. Companies like ExxonMobil last paid corporate tax in 2013. Over the five years 2013-14 to 2017-18, they had $42 billion in revenue, with no corporate tax paid. They told the Senate economics committee in 2018 that the company wouldn't pay corporate tax until 2021. They spent $10 million fighting the tax office in relation to tax. The interesting thing is: on the verge of them suggesting they will pay tax, what are they doing? They're leaving the country. They're selling out of the Bass Strait and leaving the country. They've come in here, they've taken all of our oil and gas, they've paid very little in PRRT and they're leaving the country. What mugs we are! I'll contrast that with what Equinor does in Norway. In 2018-19 they paid taxes of $22 billion. They also paid a revenue to the state, because it's state owned, of about $3 billion. These are huge amounts of money, and that's just one example of how to do it right. We do not do it right here in Australia when it comes to rent resources tax.
Lendlease: five years of tax transparency data show that they've had $43 billion in revenue and have paid not a brass razoo in tax. And we're rewarding them. This year we've given them over a billion dollars of defence contracts to build facilities at Osborne, HMAS Watson and HMAS Stirling. They're not alone. Origin Energy: $59 billion and only $108 million tax paid. Ford: $14 billion and no tax paid. Virgin: $23 billion and no tax paid—but they certainly asked for a handout during the COVID crisis! How do you think most Australians feel when they're listening to the budget? Sure, they're going to get a tax cut, but mums and dads, nurses, tradies, bus drivers and all of those sorts of people are paying their fair share of tax, and you've got companies earning tens of billions of dollars paying no tax at all. It's not right, and you're not doing anything about it. There's nothing in the budget that seeks to address that.
There's no digital tax, so we've got Facebook and Google—one might argue essential utilities—creaming money out of this country, taking it, offshoring the money and paying very little tax. And what's the government doing about it? Nothing. There's nothing in this budget.
I'll turn to grandfathered large proprietary companies—that old chestnut. I know you don't like me talking about it. There are 1,119 companies—privileged companies—that don't have to lodge financial reports with ASIC. ASIC has testified to the Senate that that encourages aggressive tax minimisation. When we ask the coalition why it hasn't dealt with this, there's no policy reason as to why this loophole through which these companies don't have to file their financial returns to ASIC is acceptable or useful. Nothing is being done about that.
Going back to the PRRT, it's just not working. We are giving away our finite resources, and there is no fix in the budget for that. And even when those companies do pay tax and they do pay PRRT they can get it back when they shut down their assets here in Australia. They can draw back off the PRRT they've paid to help them shut down their facilities. They come here, they set up, they write off all of their capital investment, they don't pay a brass razoo for the resources and then they charge us on the way out. Seriously? That's Liberal economic management? There is nothing in the budget to fix it.
How do I know about that little PRRT arrangement when companies leave the country? It's because we've got an example of it playing out right now in the Timor Sea. The Northern Endeavour, an FPSO, a floating production, storage and offtake vessel, was sold by Woodside to a company called NOGA. The Commonwealth basically drove that company into liquidation. I say that because it's on the record. Before NOGA went into liquidation I warned NOPSEMA and I warned the minister that this was going to happen. They were driven into liquidation. That means there's an asset out there, Northern Endeavour, that is the responsibility of the taxpayer. We paid $28 million in 2019-20 to operate this vessel in lighthouse mode. The budget tells us there will be another $47 million for this financial year. We have this uncontrolled cost and no explanation as to how we're going to deal with this vessel that was owned by Woodside. The bizarre thing is that we're now actually paying consulting fees to Woodside to try and sort the mess out. At the same time, we've got Exxon departing Australia. They've got JP Morgan trying to sell their ageing assets in Bass Strait. They'll sell them, and we'll end up in the same situation where the taxpayer ends up operating those stranded assets in lighthouse mode.
I'll turn now to spending—education and training. I do welcome the VET spending and the apprenticeships, but we all know about the higher education funding and how damaging that is going to be for Australia, for our students and for our future. And there is no money for TAFE.
Then I look at our procurement policies. What we should be doing post COVID is directing government agencies to clause 4.7 of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. I know that particular clause because I helped negotiate it into the Commonwealth Procurement Rules back when the ABCC negotiations were going on. That clause requires officials to look at the economic benefit that flows from a contract: How many jobs does it create? How much capital investment is there in Australia? What's the supply chain effect here in Australia? The clause is in the Procurement Rules. It hasn't been used. One of the first contracts we saw going out in the COVID crisis, when we suddenly hit the realisation that we don't have much resilience, went to Amazon—AWS—instead of Australian companies. I don't know if you know how angry that makes Australian taxpayers.
We should be learning post-COVID about reliance. What we've seen is supply chain shortages as a result of COVID. The interesting thing is that it's passive disruption to our supply chains. It's not like people are trying to stop goods getting to Australia; they're just not getting here. Imagine if we were in a conflict situation—and there is a possibility that might occur—where there was active disruption. Do we see that being addressed? Not through this budget. We're exposing ourselves. We haven't learned.
Then we look at things like defence spending. I know better than most people in this place that we need a strong Defence Force. I understand how it works. I understand its role and its deterrence role. I understand—as much as we would never like to see them used—the importance of having well-trained, well-equipped forces. But I look at some of the projects that have been commissioned by this government. Take the submarines. I'm a former submariner; I like submarines and I think they offer extremely useful military capabilities. But we've got a submarine project that has gone from $50 billion in 2015 to $89 billion. Our Hunter class frigates have gone from $30 billion to $45 billion. So, whilst we're dealing with a huge deficit and a crisis that we're trying to manage, we've got basically no-one doing anything about a $54 billion blowout. Most people don't understand what $54 billion is. To make it clearer, that is 54,000 million dollars. That's the blowout. Has the government looked to address that? No. They say, 'That's okay; we'll just get a billion dollars off our universities and our students.' They've got no idea on how to fix that problem. They remain silent. It's incompetence.
And of course we've got a total lack of AIC commitment—commitment to use Australian industry in those programs. We've seen the percentages for the future submarine. They are shocking percentages, well below 50 per cent despite the 90 per cent promise by the Liberal government. We chose a submarine designer and we restricted ourselves to one supplier, and that supplier is now exercising its commercial advantage, charging us as much as it likes along the way. These are not my words; this is the Auditor-General criticising that particular decision, that there is no competition there. The French are going to European companies that they're used to working with and they're purchasing through their normal supply chains. What a bizarre situation. We have a battery company in South Australia that's been working on Collins batteries for as long as they've been in service—since the mid-nineties—and what are we doing? We're making them compete against a Greek company for the batteries for the future submarine. Really? I can't believe it.
In the budget, we have $1.5 billion allocated to manufacturing. That is totally inadequate. We know that manufacturing creates jobs, we know that manufacturing generates IP, we know that it builds resilience into our supply chains, we know that it helps with export and we know that it helps with our balance of payments, yet we give the manufacturing sector $1.5 billion; that's it. At least we've seen a reversal of the terrible, terrible concept associated with the R&D tax bill that the government was going to pursue. Let me give you a tip: after COVID, we need R&D. But we also needed it before that. I welcome the change but it shows ineptitude.
I am pleased the government have allocated $15 million to build transmission towers in Whyalla for our interconnector—first the South Australia-New South Wales interconnector and then moving on to other transmission towers. That is a good thing. That $15 million will create 180 jobs and will repatriate work back to Australia, using Australian steel. It is a fantastic program that costs $15 million. I wonder whether we test some of the other measures against that sort of result. I do thank the government for that.
But there is nothing in the budget dealing with value-add. In this country we have to stop just exporting rocks, stop taking our iron ore and sending it overseas and stop taking our lithium and sending it overseas. We don't consider the value in conducting these sorts of activities here in Australia. In 2025 we're expecting the lithium export market around the world to be somewhere around the $25 billion mark. Batteries will be in the trillions of dollars. We should be investing in that sort of capability and that sort of value-add here. This is not a criticism, but the problem is that the Liberal Party looks at things and says to Australian companies, 'We need to have minimum wages, we need to have occupational health and safety, we need to have environmental standards and we need to have Australian standards in our products'. They are good things; I don't suggest that we shouldn't do that. But having imposed all these costs on Australian business, we then look overseas and the products are cheaper for some reason. So we buy the cheaper product from the countries that don't have minimum wages and from the countries that don't have environmental standards and have substandard products.
We have to start changing the way we think. Electric vehicles—I'm glad to see there are some charging stations, but we're not doing enough in that space. I congratulate the government for $5 million allocated to a company that will build electric vehicles out of South Australia; that is a great thing. Again, with $5 million seed funding, we will get an industry that will grow from that with up to 2,400 indirect jobs.
We have an extra $10 billion for infrastructure in the budget. Most people would think that is a good thing; however, what people need to understand is these contracts will go to tier 1 construction companies and, in Australia, there are no longer Australian owned tier 1 companies; they are all foreign owned. What's going to happen is the government will award contracts to the tier 1s, not the tier 2s, and those companies will squeeze the Australian supply chain. Most of those companies come from Spain. They will go back to Spain, and they will take products from Spain, because they know those products, and include them in the infrastructure. They will squeeze so much from the Australian companies to make a profit and then they will send that profit offshore. We need to rethink this. We need to make sure that tier 2 companies, the Australian companies, are priming these infrastructure projects. Things must change in that space.
The Space Agency—failure to launch. There is some additional funding in the budget for the Space Agency. We have a space industry that is charging ahead. I was up in Ceduna watching the launch. Unfortunately, it couldn't go to 100 kilometres because the Space Agency is unable to issue launch permits. It can't keep up with industry. The space industry is bringing the work to Australia, and these international companies are leaving because we can't get a launch permit—unbelievable!
We need to think about a national endeavour, perhaps a constellation of satellites that could monitor bushfires. We need to think about national endeavours. That's what we want to have in the budget.
Social housing is missing from the budget. The government likes to talk about affordable housing through a private investor model, but that hasn't worked. We need to think about social housing to tackle homelessness and to revitalise the construction industry.
On energy, let's start looking at things in an engineering light. We set the goals—clean, reliable and affordable—and let the market do its work. Everyone's talking about trying to bring gas prices down. Well, here's a hint: get the gas from the inexpensive sources. We have so much gas here in Australia; there is not a shortage. But what's happening is that companies are sending it overseas. All the inexpensive gas from the Cooper Basin is being exported and we're being left to pay the high wellhead prices. This is a policy failure not addressed in the budget.
And then we come to women. They are massively overrepresented in COVID job loss figures, but this has not been addressed. There's no long-term reform to child care. Where's the funding for domestic violence and legal services? Minister Ruston's response in relation to this is, 'Women can take advantage of driving on new infrastructure and roads, so to suggest the budget doesn't focus on women is wrong.' Seriously? That's the policy—as a woman, you get to drive a car? The next idea coming from the Prime Minister will be to reinstate the old rule where a man with a flag has to walk in front of a woman when she is driving! That's going to create jobs! That's the next idea—I can just see it! Aged care is missing as well. The 23,000 new home-care packages fall woefully short of the 100,000 that are needed.
As I wrap up, my favourite topic, which is dear to my heart, is oversight and accountability—cutting the Auditor-General's budget as retribution for the good work that they've done in disclosing maladministration. There is a shrinking budget for the ABC. They can't recognise the fire coverage they had. They don't recognise the value of their journalism. ICAC is missing. There is no vision in this budget. It's a bit like the Governor-General's speech—which was not the Governor-General's speech, it was the Prime Minister's speech. There is no vision in it. There is no growing the pie. There is no making the pie tastier. We have lost huge opportunities in this budget.
The value of independence in the parliament isn't to play dress-ups. We don't get elected to be you guys; we get elected to be everything but. No matter how hard you try to keep this place to yourselves, we're here. And we're here with a mission. We get a seat at the table to talk about things you wouldn't otherwise talk about. We can force issues into debate. If we're going to do that, I reckon we should deal with the issues that aren't getting discussed.
There is plenty in the budget that I have no issue with at all. I just want to take a couple of minutes to say a few things about what I'd like to see more of. These times of crisis are a chance to reset. We have an opportunity here to use the emergency response to get the country on a path that is better than the one it was on before. We don't just want to go back to where we were; we want to aim higher. We should be sorting out the problems that we've been letting drift for way too long and thinking about how we want things to work when we get back to normal. We should be looking for ideas for the country that we never could have considered possible before, and deciding to do things that we've been putting off for too long.
The enormous spending measures in this budget are a chance to use the huge amounts of money that we are borrowing on behalf of the country to build a future that looks very different from our past. It is a chance to take a step back and look at what's been working for the country and what's not been going so well—and there is plenty of that. It's time to wipe the slate clean and say, 'Let's build something new that will last beyond this crisis.' You don't get a free pass to spend $100 billion very often. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card on $1 trillion of debt very often. It takes a global pandemic for people to go, 'Yes, that sounds fair enough.' It takes a national shutdown for the rest of us in this place to see the government going for that and let it slide. That kind of money is enough to completely reshape our country and the way our economy works. When you've got that sort of opportunity ahead of you, there is a lot you can do with it. The choices you make reflect what your true priorities are. They show who you put first and who you will put last. They show what you think Australia should look like 10 years from now.
I'd have made different choices about how to spend that money. First of all, I wonder whether the government are actually putting enough into the economy to get us out of this mess in the first place. There are going to be more people out of work because of this crisis for years, and the people who are lucky enough to have a job won't see their wages go up for a very long time. The assumptions that underpin the Treasurer's pictures of where we are going to be in a year from now seem pretty rosy to me. For one thing, he's assumed that we will have a population-wide vaccine by the end of the year. Dear oh dear! I don't know what vaccine he's been taking, but I can tell you now that vaccines take decades to be developed, tested and manufactured. Then they have to be distributed so everyone is covered. Honestly, if the Treasurer thinks he is safe banking on all that happening in 12 months, he is living in la la land. He seriously is. He reckons that once we get a vaccine people will go back to spending money, building houses and coming to Australia like normal. It's a pretty big gamble to take. If it turns out he's wrong, he might wish we'd put in some more economic support to stand us in better stead through the next year at the very least. So while I understand that Australians out there are worried about the debt, I think there's more the Treasurer should have put into this budget to keep the economy rolling.
The first thing I would have put in is more for social housing. The only party that has not agreed with that is the government. It's absolutely bizarre that the rest of us can see it. The government has been looking the other way from people who don't have a safe place to sleep for far too long. With the Treasurer going on a $74 billion spending spree, I would have thought he could find some coins down the back of the couch to do something about that. Building a few thousand new homes would take a dent out of the huge waiting list for people to get into affordable housing, which has been growing across the states and territories for more than a decade. The government wouldn't just be helping people to get a roof over their heads; it would help people get back into work and give them stability. Ask just about any economist in the country about what the Treasurer should spend money on to get the economy moving, and they will tell you that social housing is a sure bet. It's a sure bet. When the government goes in and directly builds houses, they are employing tradies, keeping the construction industry going and getting that money straight into local businesses. It's much better than building a new road or train line, because you can roll it out really fast and you know the finished product will be put to good use.
I know the Treasurer would say that social housing is a problem for the states, not his party, but honestly, that's a real cop out. It is the coalition's favourite thing to say when they are faced with a problem that they can't be bothered to fix but which makes sense to fix. It absolutely makes sense to fix this. I would say to them it's about time they showed some leadership and got this done. They are perfectly capable of it. The federal government has run this show before, and we all know they can do it again. All it takes is the will and the courage to make it happen.
The same goes for our TAFEs and our manufacturing sector. I'm glad that the Prime Minister has finally woken up to the fact that we need to start making things in Australia again. That's a start. But don't talk the talk on this one with me, Prime Minister; I want to see you walk the walk. I can tell you: if ripping off our students is any guide for the future then I don't hold out much hope for our TAFEs. So my question is: where's the commitment? Where's the follow-through? You talk big on supporting trades, but there's nothing in this budget to fix up our crumbling TAFEs. We've got kids trying to get their cert IIIs in rooms with broken windows and no heating. They're working on machines from the Cold War that are older than we are in here. At my local TAFE, toxic paint fumes rise up through the holes in the floorboards where kids are doing nursing courses. Kids all around Tassie are being trained in rooms full of asbestos, because we can't afford to fix them up. Where's your commitment, Prime Minister? You can't manufacture without skills. You need to get those skills from TAFE.
I wanted this manufacturing plan from the PM to lay out how we're going to fix this stuff. I'd hoped it meant we'd get some real reform for vocational education in this country. Surely it's obvious that we aren't going to kickstart our manufacturing industry if the people who want to do a trade can't get the training they need to get onto a work site in the first place. Instead, we got $7 million a year for the organisation that pays Scott Cam a six-figure salary to put up a few flashy videos about trades on social media. Honestly! Our TAFEs are allowed to apply for 'some' funding to offer free short courses for school leavers and jobseekers. That's it? That's as good as it gets?
Our TAFEs need more leadership and they need a hell of a lot more than what you are offering, which is nothing. We're going nowhere. They need the Prime Minister to stand up and figure out how to get our vocational education sector back up to the job of training our kids for the jobs that we will need to rebuild our economy. That's what I'd spend some money on. That's where my priorities would be. I figure you're not doing that, because you actually don't have a plan for the future. If you can't start at the basics and tell our kids who want trades what trades are going to be available, then I tell you what: you have no bloody idea. I don't actually believe you have an idea or a plan for manufacturing or building in this country. I don't think you are actually capable of it, and I'll call you out for it now.
Do something about JobSeeker. We're in October. The extra money for people on JobSeeker ends in December, 2½ months from now. People on the dole are looking at going back to eating noodles, missing bills and not being able to turn on the air con through the middle of summer. We haven't even got to the May budget yet, when they're going to need their heating. I imagine that by then they'll be living with blankets from Vinnies. Instead of giving people on JobSeeker any idea about how much money they'll have to live on next year, we're pouring cash into the pockets of people who have managed to keep their jobs and do quite well through the crisis. That's the answer to it.
I'm not saying those tax cuts won't help; maybe they will. I see the value in letting people keep more of the money that they earn, and I guess some of it will get spent to help the local economy move again. But the people who get the most benefit are the people who are lucky enough to still have a job. They've made it through the previous six months with their careers intact and their pay cheques full. They don't need it as much as the childcare workers and the home carers who got the boot from their jobs when the community went into lockdown back in March. Anyone can see that it would have made a lot more sense to spread that money out the other way. We all know that people on the lower end would spend it more. The money would be going straight into their local communities and their local economies, not their bank accounts.
I would have put more into veteran hubs for our ex-service men and women who need a place to go when times are getting tough. There are already centres in Townsville and Brisbane. The people who rely on them say they're magic. They work by bringing together veteran service organisations and advocates under one roof. They are a one-stop-shop; they save lives. That's what they do. Once again, here's the veterans minister: 'Yes, we want hubs; we're promising, promising.' It's like a horse race, isn't it? It just comes to a halt. It's all over red rover and we never get to the finish line, do we, Minister Chester? Shocker! These hubs are not hard, and there is no excuse for not having every single one of them in a state by now. You've had more than enough time. There are no more excuses, apart from the fact you're incapable of getting the job done. Maybe it is time you went elsewhere. Go to another department; bring someone else in who can actually get the job done, because you are certainly not getting the job done for veterans.
These hubs create a community space for at-risk veterans to put their hands up and ask for help. If you think spending $26 million a year for the next four years—it's certainly not going to be enough for our veterans to get the help that they need, and $64 million won't touch the sides in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The problems there are so big. It's not money that we need, mate, it's management. It's structural reform that we need. If you can't see that, Minister Chester, then, once again, you're in the wrong department, mate—get out! Throwing money at the problem, like we do every year, isn't going to be enough to stop veterans from being let down by a department that fundamentally does not put their interests first. The department is more interested in covering its arse, and that's exactly what it does. It's an institution that has lost its way, but it's not there for veterans.
Now, the ALP might have a crack at the government for debt and deficit. They've got to attack someone for something, so that's fair enough, but if it takes $1 trillion to save 25 million people from losing their jobs, homes, savings and safety nets then spend it. If it costs more, spend more. Spend more! It'll save us in the long run. You can't give me any moral justification for refusing to spend taxpayers money to protect taxpayers from losing all their money. Don't get me wrong, you can spend in good ways and you can spend in bad ways. I'm not saying spend for the sake of it, I'm just saying that it's pretty cynical to attack the government over debt and deficit to try and undermine their reputation for economic responsibility, particularly if sometimes economic responsibility means spending huge amounts of money to keep the economy from falling off the cliff. It's irresponsible to let the economy collapse just so that you can run a surplus. Nobody's receiving a letter of termination from their boss and thinking to themselves, 'At least the government's in surplus.'
If we're going to spend huge amounts of money, if that's what it takes to keep us afloat, we've got to match unprecedented spending with unprecedented transparency. Just like pollen brings bees, cash brings lobbyists. If money is being spent, you can bet anything that there will be donors, mates and lobbyists stepping over each other to get a slice of the pie. The more money we're spending, the more we need to give people confidence that we're spending it right. The good news is that's easily sorted. Don't cut money from the ANAO. The Australian National Audit Office need that money. As a matter of fact, you should be putting more staff in there, you should be smashing them in there so that there's some sort of oversight in this parliament! They're the guys who are out there every week, slapping government ministers across the chops for misusing taxpayers money. They spotted the sports rorts, so this is their punishment. You take cash off them and say: 'Hey! We're going to get less of you guys.' They called out the government for spending $30 million on a plot of land worth 10 times less than that. Who does that? Goodness me! You call yourselves great economists over there. Who got ripped off? No, not you people but the taxpayer. The ANAO are pretty much the only independent check that we have on the way the government spend money and run projects. They asked the government for an extra $6 million this year so that they could keep their heads above water. Instead, guess what the government did? They cut 14 million bucks! Oversight up here is gone. It's finished! It's over. It's very scary, but that's the truth of the matter.
Don't end it there though. Fixed donation laws and real-time disclosures: if you've got nothing to hide then let's do it. But, oh no, don't mention that to the coalition. Jesus Christ, they'd go white and nearly faint! No, nothing about donation laws here. There's nothing to see. Count up how much people donate over a fixed period and make them disclose their donations if they go over a low threshold. It's not that hard. Change the lobbying rules so that everyone who comes into this building looking for something has to play by the same set of rules. Punish them if they break those rules. You need punishment; if you don't punish people the problems will continue. If you don't set an example when people play up and you don't discipline them then the problems will become worse. This one might be a little niche, but if the non-government senators in this place want to inquire into something the government is doing then the government shouldn't get to vote against it. They should go through without debate. It wouldn't cost them anything and it's simple to do. What's wrong with them?
I know we've been talking big numbers since the virus first hit us in March, and the amount of money that we're shovelling out the door in this budget is hard to comprehend. To put it in perspective, last year the government told us that they couldn't afford to pay $5 billion to raise Newstart by 100 bucks a week. They told us that it would be irresponsible for them to start paying people enough to live on because it would risk their 'back in the black' surplus. Well, how is that going now? The stimulus measures in this budget are worth 20 times that. It's enough money to completely change the way this country works, and since we'll be paying it back for decades it's a shame we aren't spending it, once again, on the right things and, once again, on those who are less fortunate.
I think that between now and the May budget we're going to see exactly what the coalition is made of. I'll be honest: I actually don't hold out much hope, because what I've seen since I've been here is a lot of rhetoric and a lot of talking the talk and very little walking the walk. The government cannot continue to spend money—they cannot just throw money out there—and then turn around. When you do something you have to follow it through. They have to make sure that money is actually doing its job. That's what they have to do—that's what good managers do. That's how it works; that's leadership. If we don't see that in this country then all that money they're throwing out there is going to be wasted, and it's the taxpayers' money—it belongs to them. The government has to start following through for the sake of this country. Every dollar counts! Every dollar! I don't want to see my grandchildren having to pay for this, but I can guarantee they will. And their kids are probably going to be paying for it too. It shouldn't be that way.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as set out in the documents available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red.
Autism—Select Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Marielle Smith
Economics Legislation Committee
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Paterson to replace Senator Brockman for the consideration of the 2020-21 Budget estimates from 19 October 2020 to 2 November 2020
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Marielle Smith
Environment and Communications References Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Marielle Smith
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Chisholm
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology—Select Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Kitching
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Select Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Pratt
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Publications
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Farrell
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Tobacco Harm Reduction—Select Committee
Appointed—
Senators Sheldon and Urquhart
Participating members: Senator Ayres, Bilyk, Brown, Carr, Chisholm, Ciccone, Dodson, Farrell, Gallacher, Gallagher, Green, Keneally, Kitching, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh, Watt, Wong.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee
Discharged—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Kitching
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee
Discharge—Senator Marielle Smith
Appointed: Senator Ciccone
Participating members: Senator Marielle Smith.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That committees be authorised to meet in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber:
Question agreed to.
I advise senators that a clerical error was made in the Selection of Bills Committee report tabled today. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 should have been referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and not to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I understand that senators are in agreement in relation to the error. The corrected report will be available online.
Pursuant to the order agreed earlier today, the sitting of the Senate is suspended until 9 am tomorrow.
Proceedings suspended from 21 : 39 to 09 : 00
The Senate transcript was published up to 21:39. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.