I remind senators the question may put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
by leave—I move:
That today the hours of meeting be 9.30 am to adjournment, divisions may take place after 4.30 pm and the routine of business be as follows:
(a) consideration of the following bills:
Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020
Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020
Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 and the Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020
Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020 and the National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
(b) at 11.45 am:
(i) petitions,
(ii) notices of motion,
(iii) tabling and consideration of a report of the Selection of Bills Committee, and
(iv) placing of business;
(c) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a);
(d) if by 1 pm consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) has not been completed, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(e) paragraph (d) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(f) until not later than 2 pm, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020;
(g) at 2 pm, questions, motions to take note of answers, and tabling and consideration of committee reports and government responses;
(h) at 4.00 pm, or at the conclusion of tabling and consideration of committee reports and government responses, whichever is the earlier, consideration of the following bills only:
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020
Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020
Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020
Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 and the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020
Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020
(i) if by 6.30 pm consideration of the bills in paragraph (h) has not been completed, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(j) paragraph Error! Reference source not found. operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and
(k) after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (h) has concluded:
(i) Business of the Senate order of the day no.1 – Industry Research and Development (Forestry Recovery Development Fund Program) Instrument 2020 – Motion for disallowance – Resumption of debate for no more than 30 minutes after which the question will be put,
(ii) formal motions,
(iii) ministerial statements,
(iv) end of 2020 sittings statements,
(v) messages,
(vi) committee membership,
(vii) a motion relating to the next meeting of the Senate and leave of absence for all senators, and
(viii) adjournment without debate.
And I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be now put.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
I move:
That consideration of the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 be postponed until after consideration of the National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020 and a related bill.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a two-minute statement about the order of business today.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I seek to suspend standing orders insofar as it permits me to make a two-minute statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Thank you very much. Here we have, on the last day of sitting, a motion to extend hours to deal with a number of bills which are likely to be subject to a gag at the end of the day. I have no problems with extending hours. I don't mind working the long hours, but there's a process problem here, and that is that we will get to the end of the day, we will have rolling divisions and, I point out, we'll have rolling divisions in circumstances where people don't get the chance to have a say about a bill and, perhaps more importantly, about amendments. The crossbench often play a critical role in amendments. I watch One Nation and Senator Lambie come in here, listen to what is being said and often make up their minds on the basis of speeches that are made in support of or against particular amendments. So what happens with these rolling divisions is that we actually end up getting a perverse outcome where people haven't had the opportunity to properly consider the amendments that are before the chair.
I understand that we had COVID, but this year we've seen parliament rarely sitting. Flippant decisions were made to cancel the sitting of parliament, and that's led us to a situation where there is a backlog of bills. But I also point out that we're seeing bills come on and off in a willy-nilly fashion. It's quite disorganised, and it is symptomatic of a government that hasn't got its act together.
Money laundering and terrorism financing are not just problems for Australia; they are global problems. They threaten Australia's national security and the integrity of Australia's financial system. This is why Labor is supporting the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. It implements a second phase of reforms arising from the recommendations of the Report on the statutory review of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing act 2006 and associated rules and regulation, tabled in parliament on 29 April 2016. The bill will also address some of the deficiencies identified by the Financial Action Task Force in its Mutual evaluation report on Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing regime in 2015.
It is crucial to note, however, that the bill does not address all these deficiencies. Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing framework will remain noncompliant or only partially compliant with many of the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force in its 2015 Mutual evaluation report. Labor has consistently called for this government to ensure Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing framework continues to evolve. Labor is concerned about the slow pace of reform by the Morrison government to improve Australia's ability to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. It seems quite unusual that the Minister for Home Affairs seems to be so uninterested in cutting terrorists off from access to their money, which is what strengthening Australia's financial crime legislation would do. Indeed, we have seen over the past few months, via the New South Wales casino inquiry, just how large the gaps are in Australia's AML/CTF framework. Through the New South Wales inquiry, we have heard allegations of widespread money laundering and terrorism financing taking place in casinos through junket operations. These money-laundering and terrorism offences have been taking place for years.
The government knew all about the risks from casino junkets because Australia financial crime watchdog, AUSTRAC, told them about the risks. In 2017, AUSTRAC warned the government that compliance by casinos appeared to be generally more with the letter than the spirit of the law, and that casinos used these technicalities to absolve themselves of conducting robust due diligence in relation to the source of the funds presented to them. Of greatest concern, however, is that AUSTRAC told the government that the current laws were not fit for purpose. There is a limited extent to which state based regulation could be said to mitigate the gaps in AUSTRAC's regulation of junkets. What has this government done in response? Nothing. This government must do more. Australia cannot become a weak link in the global financial system and a soft touch for organised criminals around the world seeking to launder the proceeds of crime.
I will also say that Labor has considered the Greens amendment. While we support the intent of the additional designated services proposed by the Greens, Labor does not believe this is the right way to achieve considered law reform. We are concerned about the unintended consequences of this amendment and want to make sure our counterterrorism-financing laws make it harder, not easier, for money launderers or terrorist financiers.
I would like to conclude my remarks with these thoughts:
Money is the lifeblood and motivation behind organised crime and the ability to prevent money-laundering and detect the flow of the proceeds of crime and terrorism funding is an essential part of deterring and disrupting serious crime and terrorist activity.
The emergence of new technologies and faster and more efficient ways to move money around the world means that international cooperation between financial intelligence units has never been more important.
These are powerful words. Commanding. Forceful. Sadly, they're only words. They are the rhetorical and empty words from the man who's responsible for anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing in this country, the Minister for Home Affairs.
Since becoming minister, Mr Dutton has barely stepped up to the plate to fight money laundering and terrorism financing. Of course, he's not the first coalition minister to not deliver the reforms Australia needs. Since 2013, the coalition has repeatedly missed its own anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing reform timetable. Australians are becoming more and more accustomed to this kind of governing. This is government Scott Morrison style. He's a Prime Minister who loves making announcements but doesn't deliver. Australians need a government that delivers. It's time for the Prime Minister to deliver on real anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing reform.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 makes sensible and progressive reforms to Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism regime, and the Greens will be supporting this legislation.
However, this bill is quite remarkable. It's remarkable for what is not in it rather than for what is in it. Once again, what is not in this bill is an expansion of the scope of Australia's anti-money-laundering laws to include real estate agents, accountants and lawyers, the gatekeepers, as providers of designated services and to require those professions to report to AUSTRAC. These are the fabled tranche 2 reforms, promised right back in history and lost in the mists of time in 2006 but still, 14 years later, to be brought to this parliament. LNP governments and ALP governments have failed in their duty to bring these fabled tranche 2 reforms into this parliament so we can crack down on terrorism financing and on the international crime syndicates against whom Australians are bidding for homes at auction at the moment and with whom they are competing for properties in an already overheated property market that is pricing young people out of the great Australian dream of owning their own home. Part of the reason that so many people can't afford their own home in this country is that the international crime syndicates are buying them out from under them, using their deep pockets to outbid them at auction and deny them their dream of owning their own home.
This is a gaping hole in the system that is meant to protect Australia and the world against money laundering and terrorism financing. Australia is now one of only six countries in the world not to have included the gatekeepers within the scope of anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing laws. We are alongside such luminaries as the United States, China, Madagascar, Mauritius and Mongolia. The failure by Australia and this handful of other countries to include these gatekeepers is the weak link in the global fight against money laundering and terrorism financing, particularly money laundering through the real estate sector. As former AFP officer John Chevis recently told 60 Minutes, 'Everyone in the world who is involved in anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing knows that lawyers, real estate agents and accountants are well used by people who have illicit wealth to transfer.' AUSTRAC estimates that $1 billion in suspicious transactions flowed through the Australian property market from just one country, China, in just one year, 2016, and you can bet your bottom dollar it's a lot more now. Yet this government—as we've just heard, facilitated by the Labor Party—once again is failing to do what needs to be done to stop dirty money being laundered through the Australian real estate sector.
I can only conclude that the major parties in this place are okay with prospective homeowners having to bid against terrorists and international crime syndicates at auction. I can only conclude that this government's more interested in appeasing those in the property industry who donate so handsomely and who benefit from dirty money going into real estate than it is in protecting Australia's integrity and reputation. We can only conclude that this government is happy to signal to the kleptocrats and dictators of the world that, if they want a safe place to park their ill-gotten gains, Australia is open for business, because it's not as if the major parties don't know about this problem and it is not as if they have not been warned.
The Financial Action Task Force is the world's standard-setting body for anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing, and do you know what? Australia is a member. In the Financial Action Task Force's 2015 mutual evaluation report, they said:
Australia is seen as an attractive destination for foreign proceeds, particularly corruption-related proceeds flowing into real estate, from the Asia-Pacific region.
In other words, if you're from this corner of the world and you're looking for somewhere to launder your money, Australian real estate is top of the list.
Of course, the Financial Action Task Force recommended in 2015 that real estate agents, accountants and lawyers be brought within the scope of the act. What have we had from this government? Deafening silence. Now, it's interesting, isn't it? You hear a lot about terrorism from this government. You hear a lot about the need to crack down on terrorists from this government. Every time they need a 'look over here' distraction, they roll out Minister Dutton and frighten Australians about terrorists so they can take away our country's freedoms and our country's liberties. But what do you get when you propose cracking down on terrorism financing, when you propose trying to take a bit of the heat out of the massively overheated property market in this country so more Australians have an opportunity to buy a home? What do you get from the government? Crickets—absolutely nothing. In 2018, the Financial Action Task Force follow-up report noted Australia was still not compliant with international standards. Again, crickets from the government. Interestingly, the Financial Action Force was due to arrive in Australia last summer to begin a new round of evaluations. They never came. Why didn't they come? There still hasn't been an explanation from government.
It's not just the Financial Action Task Force; there's been a plethora of other people calling on the government to plug this dirty hole in this country where the dirty money flows. In 2017, the OECD recommended that Australia address the risk that the real estate sector could be used to launder the proceeds of foreign bribery. In 2019, the IMF called for real estate agents, accountants and lawyers to be listed as providers of designated services. And earlier this year the Tax Justice Network said that Australia is undoubtedly a host of significant quantities of illicit drug funds from outside the country. Even the banks want this fixed. Here's the Australian Banking Association in 2017:
The ABA recommends progressing the Tranche 2 reforms as a priority. It is vital that Australia closes the current gaps in the money laundering/terrorism financing regime.
I tell you what: when the government's lagging behind the Australian banks on money laundering, my word you know something rotten is going on in this country. This is a government of its mates, by its mates, for its mates, and this Prime Minister is the Property Council's Prime Minister.
The failure to include lawyers, accountants and real estate agents within the scope of anti-money laundering laws has turned Australian property into the washing machine of the Asia-Pacific, and that is why the Greens will be moving an amendment to this legislation which would require the government to introduce into this parliament by 1 July next year an amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to expand the scope of the act such that lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents and trust and company service providers are providers of designated services and are subsequently reporting entities.
The Australian Labor Party have just got up and, with a small caveat, have made effectively the same speech I made, wringing their hands about how long it's taken to bring in these fabled tranche 2 reforms. Yet Senator Kitching then got up and said that, even though they agreed that these reforms should be brought in, they weren't going to support the Greens amendment which would actually require these reforms to be brought in within six months.
Let's make no mistake about it, the Australian Labor Party gets plenty of donations from the property sector as well. Here we go again—dirty money buying outcomes in this parliament from the major parties and, ironically, on legislation that's supposed to be cracking down on dirty money, cracking down on money laundering. Who can forget Mr Bowen before the last election grandstanding in the Australian media, promising that Labor would introduce these reforms and saying how terrible it was that the Liberal-National party haven't done it. The first chance the Labor Party get to put their money where their mouth is they squib. What actually is the point of the Labor Party in this place? What is the point of them? The refugee-torturing, neoliberal, coal-hugging, strip-mining-our-forests party—
Mr President, I have a point of order. I'm loath to interact with Senator McKim on this, but I do think that that is a breach of standing order 193(3).
I didn't hear anything personal in nature, Senator Kitching. Despite insults being objectionable, when they're directed collectively they are not necessarily a personal reflection—as long as the language is not unparliamentary.
I stand by that description of the Labor Party. I repeat: just what is the point? Seriously, there is no argument for the Labor Party not to support the Greens amendment. I'll make a prediction here. This amendment will fail for only one reason today, and that is because the Labor Party are not going to support it. If the Labor Party had supported our—
Senator Cash interjecting—
I look forward to the government supporting our amendment, Senator Cash. I will congratulate you if you get up and say that you are going to support it. At the moment I am not talking about you, but you can place your position on the record and I'll respond to that in due course. I stand to be corrected, but I think it's unlikely that the government will support our amendment. If that is the case then it will fail for one reason and one reason only, and that is because the Labor Party have squibbed. Why have they squibbed? Because they will look after their donors in the property industry as well.
I say to the Labor Party: by failing to support the Greens amendment this morning you will be placing the interests of international crime syndicates and the financiers of terrorism around the world ahead of the interests of ordinary Australians who want to buy an affordable home for themselves and their families. That is what you are doing today by indicating that you will not support it.
On your weaselly, pathetic excuse, Senator Kitching, I say: you talk about process and about needing to make sure that things are done carefully, but it has been 14 years. How much longer do you need? It has been 14 years since these fabled reforms were promised. As I said, they have been lost in the mists of time. Yet, even though we have done the responsible thing in our amendment and offered a window of over six months to the government to do the work and the consultations necessary and bring it into this place, that's still not good enough for the Labor Party. What even is the point of them?
We're obviously very disappointed that Labor is not going to support our amendment. I hope that the government will. We'll wait to see what Senator Cash says about this. As I said at the start of my speech, this is an unobjectionable bill that the Greens will support, but this is a massive missed opportunity to crack down on money laundering in this country, to crack down on terrorism financing in this country and to do something—just something—to take the heat out of the housing market to allow more Australians, particularly young Australians, an opportunity to buy their own homes.
In the interests of time, I'll just give a short contribution today on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. We obviously have a very full agenda ahead of us. However, before getting started on this bill—in his speech, Senator McKim just spoke a lot about the interactions with donations to political parties, but I will remind those listening that the largest single donation ever made in Australian political history was to the Greens party. It is greatly ironic that Senator McKim gets up in here, speaks about an anti-money-laundering bill and turns it into an attack on the Labor Party. Whilst I would never stop the Greens and Labor from fighting with each other over on the other side of the chamber, I think it is very important to remember that anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing is actually an extraordinarily important issue to the future of this country.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Who knows! This is an area where, as a nation, we are in a constant arms race. The techniques used by criminal organisations, by terrorist organisations, are constantly changing and constantly evolving, and so the law in this space must constantly change and evolve with those who wish to involve themselves in illegal activities or the financing of terrorism.
Obviously, this government is absolutely committed to strengthening our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime. In this bill, we are reducing compliance costs by around $3.1 billion over 10 years by allowing industries to work more closely together to discharge customer identification and verification obligations. We're improving and streamlining obligations relating to correspondent banking relationships, customer identification and verification procedures, the sharing of financial intelligence and cross-border reporting of monetary instruments. We're also addressing the barriers to the successful prosecution of money-laundering offences. The bill also makes it an offence for a person to dishonestly represent that a police award has been conferred on them. Obviously, we had a situation in Western Australia quite recently that involved a member of parliament with particular claims of a particular history of police service that turned out to be untrue. Again, I do not want to make this a long contribution. We do have a lot of material to get through today. But this is an extraordinarily important area of law reform and something that this government is strongly committed to. I commend the bill to the house.
It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The Morrison government's focus on keeping Australians safe is one of our most important priorities, and this bill represents further measures to keep Australians safe. The passing of this bill is a critical element of our commitment to dismantle the criminal business model, and I am pleased to hear that this bill is receiving the support of all parties in the chamber today. I do note Senator McKim's comments and his reservations, and I respect the fact that he has some reservations, but, in referring to Senator McKim's contribution, I do want to just take note of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which conducted an inquiry into the bill and made a recommendation, shared by all members of the committee, that the bill be passed. Senator Whish-Wilson, in his opening paragraph in the Greens' additional comments on that inquiry, said:
On the whole, this Bill makes sensible and progressive reforms to Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime.
That was the opening position of the Greens. I understand the Greens are seeking an amendment in relation to including real estate agents, accountants and lawyers as 'designated services' under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. I appreciate that, but it is important to reiterate the Greens strong support for this bill, even though the Greens are seeking an amendment.
It is always interesting to hear the Greens and Labor at each other's throats in this place. I certainly won't take issue with Senator McKim's statement: 'What is the point of the Labor Party?' It's a very strong point. I hope when the Greens are thinking about their preferences at the next election they might reflect on that. We have seen a very sorry history there. No matter how much the Greens are at odds with the Labor Party and how disgusted they are in the Labor Party, we do see a situation at elections where the Greens roll over. They don't tend to look at the substance of what other parties are offering, including our party, and they will roll over and do a cosy deal with Labor in exchanging preferences. Sadly, that certainly happened in Corangamite when I was running in the last federal election. So I hope that all Australians can reflect on that very profound statement of Senator McKim: 'What is the point of the Labor Party?'
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Watt, many Australians did ask that question at the last federal election when Mr Shorten was your leader and, of course, they made a very significant decision not to put the Labor Party into government.
This is very important law reform. I'm just going to make a brief contribution. The bill implements a range of measures to strengthen Australia's capabilities to address money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks and to generate greater regulatory efficiencies. It includes amendments to expand the circumstances in which reporting entities may rely on customer identification and verification procedures undertaken by a third party, and to explicitly prohibit reporting entities from providing a designated service if customer identification procedures cannot be performed. It strengthens protections on correspondent banking by prohibiting financial institutions from entering into a correspondent banking relationship with another financial institution which permits its accounts to be used by a shell bank, and it requires banks to conduct due diligence assessments before entering and during all correspondent banking relationships. The bill expands exceptions to the prohibition on tipping off to permit reporting entities to share suspicious matter reports and related information with external auditors and foreign members of corporate and designated business groups. It provides a simplified and flexible framework for the use and disclosure of financial intelligence to better support combatting money laundering, terrorism financing and other serious crimes.
I also want to make the point in relation to Senator McKim's contribution—in which he tended to focus mainly on the real estate market—that the bottom line is in this country anti-money-laundering is not acceptable in any form, for any purpose, no matter what it is. That's what this bill is all about. It also addresses barriers to the successful prosecution of money-laundering offences by clarifying the existence of one Commonwealth constitution or connector is sufficient to establish an instrument of crime offence, and by deeming that money or property provided by undercover law enforcement as part of a controlled operation to be the proceeds of crime for the purposes of prosecution. The bill also expands the rule-making powers of the Chief Executive Officer of AUSTRAC across a number of areas. Another important amendment is that the bill amends the AFP Act to make it an offence for a person to dishonestly represent that a police award has been conferred on them.
This is very important law reform. The Morrison government is committed to doing everything possible to stop criminals from exploiting hardworking Australians and their families. We are committed to combatting transnational, serious and organised crime, and that's why this bill is so important. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I think Senator McKim might have been watching a bit too much Netflix over the last year. Obviously he's watched a lot of episodes of Breaking Bad, and Better Call Saul, which, I must say, is one of my favourite spin-offs of a TV series. He seems to have this view that the Australian legal profession is infested with people who are prepared to engage in money-laundering practices. The truth of the situation is far, far removed from that.
With respect to my profession, the legal profession, I note that Senator Watt, on the other side of the chamber, is an extremely honourable member of that most noble profession. He practised with great distinction in my home state of Queensland. Who knows where that may lead Senator Watt in the future? I should say that the legal profession has many legitimate concerns with respect to the extension of anti-money-laundering laws to the profession. I note that Senator McKim often refers to submissions from the Australian Law Council, and I myself do the same thing. I want to quote from a submission from the Australian Law Council in the context of anti-money-laundering legislation:
If a client is not able to rely on the security of client legal privilege from the very outset of their relationship with their solicitor or barrister, it risks diminishing the effective and proper administration of justice …
When the Australian Law Council raises legitimate concerns with respect to the extension of anti-money-laundering legislation into the domain of their profession, I think that all of us in this place should pay great heed. This isn't some sort of rhetorical flourish or some sort of hypothetical. The reality is that, in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court has actually struck out parts of Canadian anti-money-laundering law on that very basis—that it inappropriately infringed upon that all-important lawyer-client professional privilege relationship. This isn't fanciful stuff; this isn't Senator Scarr getting up and seeking to put forward obscure hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is: the Canadian Supreme Court actually struck down some of the Canadian anti-money-laundering legislation on the basis that it improperly infringed upon the lawyer-client professional relationship—an extremely important relationship—which is one of the things that goes to the heart of the rule of law in our country.
Senator McKim interjecting—
I'll take that interjection from Senator McKim. These are very complicated issues. If you don't have appropriate regard to institutions such as lawyer-client professional privilege, then you'll get the result that they got in Canada, where the Canadian Supreme Court actually struck down anti-money-laundering legislation because it inappropriately infringed on that all-important lawyer-client professional privilege.
In relation to real estate agents, which Senator McKim referred to, I must say that the characterisation of Australians going to their local auction and competing and bidding against money launderers and terrorist organisations et cetera—and as they're bidding against each other, the price of houses goes up and up and up—did tend to go into the realms of absolute fantasy. I, like many Australians, go to my local auctions in my local area. I can't resist. I tell my beautiful wife, Louise, that I'm happy where we live, that we don't need to move. But we can't resist the urge to go to local auctions in our local neighbourhood. I must say, when I attend my local auctions, I don't see them particularly well populated with money launderers and terrorists and others bidding up auction prices so that good, hardworking Australians are kept out of the property market—quite the contrary, actually.
I must say Senator McKim does speak with great rhetorical flourish. I've been in this place for nearly 18 months, and I do admire watching Senator McKim talk. Sometimes the phrases he uses are somewhat repetitive—'government for the mates, by the mates' et cetera. There are a few stock standard phrases that get repeated from time to time. Senator McKim is extremely effective in what he says, but I think he lets himself down when his rhetorical flourishes enter into the world of fantasy. I think it actually erodes his arguments. The practical concern that has been raised by real estate agents across this country is that the vast majority of real estate agents do not come into contact with money-laundering activities—the vast majority. The figure I've seen in the literature that I've read is that 80 to 90 per cent of real estate agents are not at all exposed to the activities of those who launder dirty money.
In this debate, as with everything that comes before this chamber, I think we have to strike the right balance. We have to strike the right balance between regulation that promotes the rule of law and regulation that promotes identifying the rotten fruit that grows from the evil tree of organised crime and terrorist activities et cetera. We need to balance that legitimate public concern with the cost of regulation that would be imposed upon a whole range of professions if Senator McKim were to have his way. The bill before the chamber, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, strikes the right balance. Australians should be heartened that both the coalition and the Labor Party in this place see the bill as striking the right balance. I think that's a very good touchstone.
Lastly, I commend the provisions of the bill which deal with identification procedures. In my prior life, I had cause, as a company secretary and general counsel, to deal with what are typically called KYC—know your client, know your customer—identification procedures. I remember on one occasion, in dealing with a finance transaction where there were 10 banks involved, having to produce folders and folders of personal identification data. Having all the parties in the transaction going through that repetitive administrative process was, in my view, an example of where there were opportunities for regulatory savings to be made if businesses could meet their obligations in a more cost-effective manner and streamline the customer experience with respect to those 'know your customer' identification procedures. The streamlining of these procedures is not undermining the intent of the legislation to tackle money laundering. It is considered that the reforms contained in this bill will potentially result in an 80 per cent reduction in the costs of customer verification. That has to be a good thing. These arrangements are expected to generate a regulatory saving of approximately $3.1 billion over 10 years. That's one of the reasons why I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the chamber.
I rise to speak to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, and I would like to associate myself with many of the remarks of Senator Scarr who, like me, has spent some time in regulatory and corporate positions.
An honourable senator: Do you associate yourself with the remarks of Senator McKim?
I will get to Senator McKim in a moment. Whilst I don't have a great deal of knowledge of the property market, unlike my honourable friend Senator McKim, having listened to his contribution to the debate, I would have thought that these provisions would act upstream to regulate or observe the flow of money before it went into a real estate agent's bank accounts. So I'd have to say in response to Senator McKim that I wasn't entirely convinced by his arguments and I will reflect on those after the debate.
I do notice with some interest, as a legislator, that we are also, in part 7, putting in the provision 'Dishonestly representing conferral of police awards'. It is an interesting amendment in what is a very complex and considered bill addressing money laundering and counterterrorism. I've always found it of interest that some people feel they need in life to confer on themselves awards for personal advancement. Certainly I would endorse this amendment, since police officers work very hard and contribute much to our security in society and our sense of safety, and their awards are justly deserved and should not be undermined by the actions of those seeking to improve their own standing, social or otherwise.
I go back to the substantive matters of the bill. I too have had to grapple with the compliance obligations associated with anti-money-laundering measures and I fully endorse the thrust of this legislation and the acts that came before it and will come after it. It is certainly an area of law that has to be constantly revisited and addressed. We are fighting an ongoing battle with innovative crime syndicates who are constantly trying to undermine our regulatory arrangements. As a consequence, we must be increasingly flexible as legislators, as a parliament, to be able to address these things. At the same time, every time we try to shut the gate, as it were, to a particular innovative measure we increase compliance costs on industry, and those compliance costs are then inevitably passed to the client, including the ordinary Australian who deals with financial institutions. So we also need to be very careful in balancing our response so that we don't increase costs for ordinary Australians—the same Australians that Senator McKim pointed out are, in his view, suffering from higher house prices, although I don't necessarily accept that point. So we have a trade-off, and it is pleasing to see that this legislation, if passed, will reduce compliance costs. As I said, I know from a previous life that complying with Commonwealth legislation can be an industry in itself, and you often reflect: are we really protecting the state, at the end of the day? I commend the government for this initiative on the basis that it's achieving its regulatory intent but, at the same time, with an eye on those who are using the system.
The previous speakers in this second reading debate have not addressed the issue of privacy. Again, this is another difficult trade-off. The more you impose a regulatory burden and require the exchange of information, which you always need to ensure compliance and to restrain and, hopefully, stop terrorism organisations from using their moneys, the more a client's individual details have to be shared. In my understanding of this bill, and in my reading of its provisions and the submission from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, it does strike the right balance between privacy impacts and law enforcement and national security objectives. Of course, again, that is, for any government, a watching brief and a careful balance to maintain.
The bill targets shell banks and prohibits financial institutions from entering into relationships with those shell banks. It also prohibits the tipping off of individuals, and that would certainly apply to private client advisers or banks that may feel, incorrectly and wrongly, an obligation to their client over and above their obligation to their fellow Australians and to law and order. There is also strengthening of cross-border movement of monetary instruments and physical currency. Again, these provisions reflect the efforts of the government to match the innovation of the crime syndicates.
Terrorism has to be financed. It is financed often with criminal activity, more generally in the world of drugs, from my understanding and my reading, so we have two effects to address: the first is the actual criminal activity of drug dealing. The second is the money that comes from drug dealing has to be brought back into the legitimate financial system, and that is what we're trying to prevent. And then there is also the flow, if it does manage to find its way into the legitimate financial system, to organisations which have ill intents and seek to take on our way of life and challenge it with violence. In my experience, this bill is to the credit of the government, and I commend it to the chamber.
I rise to sum up the debate on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I do thank all senators for their contributions to the debate and I also thank them for indicating that they are supporting the legislation that the government has brought before the Senate. This bill amends the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004.
This bill implements a second phase of reforms arising from the recommendations of the report of the statutory review of the into the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing regime, and ensure Australia's financial system is resilient to criminal exploitation. It will also deliver significant regulatory savings to businesses providing services regulated under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act.
I also thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which inquired into the bill, and I have its recommendations before me. One recommendation is that the Senate pass the bill and that the bill be passed, I note, without the amendments. Some committee members have made comments relating to the Financial Action Task Force 2015 mutual evaluation report. The government, I advise, is taking a phased approach to reforming the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing regime, which was signalled in 2016 when responding to that evaluation, and a domestic review of that regime. A phased approach will enable the government to more effectively consult with stakeholders and stagger the regulatory impact of the measures on regulated businesses. By phasing these reforms, the government is giving businesses time to understand their obligations, and this will have the effect, obviously, of thereby improving those businesses' compliance with the changes to the legislation. The government will continue to consider how Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing regime can be further strengthened. We will be doing that to counter money laundering and terrorism financing, and we will work with businesses to co-design future phases of reform.
One committee member recommended the government introduce legislation to regulate lawyers, accountants and real estate agents under the act.
Senator McKim interjecting—
Yes, as Senator McKim said, that was him. I understand the Australian Greens, as they have indicated, will be moving an amendment to this effect. This Australian government is committed to continually improving Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing regime and to working with businesses to ensure that Australia's financial system is hardened against criminals and terrorists, but without placing an undue regulatory burden on industry.
Expanding the existing regime to lawyers, accountants and real estate agents would capture as many as 100,000 additional businesses, the majority of which are small businesses or sole traders and practitioners. It would also have a significant resourcing impact on the regulator, AUSTRAC, which would need to oversee compliance of these businesses. Any future phases of anti-money-laundering counterterrorism financing reform will be tailored and will be appropriate to the Australian context, and industry will be fully consulted with at that time.
In conclusion, the bill will introduce the next phase of reforms to ensure that Australia's anti-money-laundering counterterrorism financing regime will continue to effectively combat the evolving and significant threats posed by transnational, serious and organised crime. Transnational, serious and organised crime costs the Australian community up to $47.4 billion each year, threatening not just our safety and wellbeing but also our national security. The bill will give law enforcement agencies vital tools to address this threat, whilst reducing regulatory costs on industry by around $3.1 billion over the next 10 years. These reforms will ensure that Australia's law enforcement, intelligence and revenue protection agencies have appropriate and timely access to valuable financial intelligence to protect the Australian community in the global fight against organised crime and terrorism. The bill will also implement key recommendations of the 2016 statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Additionally, the bill will criminalise the act of dishonestly taking credit for receiving police awards, ensuring that the bravery and heroism of our police forces is respected. On that note, I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1085 revised:
(1) Schedule 1, page 58 (after line 22), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 8—Designated services
Anti -Money Laundering and Counter -Terrorism Financing Act 2006
128 After section 249
Insert:
249A Legislation to expand designated services
(1) The Minister must, by 1 July 2021, cause to be introduced into the Parliament a Bill for an Act to include the provision of designated services by the following professions in order to address the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing:
(a) lawyers;
(b) conveyancers;
(c) accountants;
(d) high-value dealers;
(e) real estate agents;
(f) trust and company service providers.
This is the amendment that I flagged in my second reading contribution. If it were successful—which it doesn't look like it will be, thanks to the Labor Party squibbing it—it would require the minister, by 1 July next year, to introduce into this parliament a bill for an act to include the following professions as designated services: lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents, and trust and company service providers. These are the fabled tranche 2 reforms of Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework.
I am sure senators can tell I'm very disappointed that the Labor Party is not going to support this amendment. The thing is: you would have thought I would have learned over a fairly lengthy career in politics never to pin my hopes on the Australian Labor Party, but, I confess, I am guilty of that once again. Senators may be asking themselves why I had some hope that the Labor Party would support our amendment. Well, I was relying—stupidly, as it turns out—on former shadow Treasurer Mr Bowen, who got into The Australian Financial Review on 24 February 2019, grandstanding away about how important Labor thought these reforms were. I will quote a little bit from that article:
Labor will target lawyers, accountants and real estate agents under tough new anti-money laundering laws, amid growing concerns over illegal "hot money" from China artificially inflating the property market.
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen is promising to make cross-border financial crime a pillar of Labor's election campaign in wake of the Hayne royal commission …
Well, it didn't take long, did it? It didn't take long for Labor to collapse into an absolute blancmange of a political party. They were out there before the election saying, 'We're going to crack down on the lawyers, the accountants and the real estate agents, because we're very concerned about illegal hot money artificially inflating the property market'—in fact, exactly the argument I made in my second reading contribution. Yet here we are today: the Australian Greens have brought in an amendment that would allow the Labor Party to put its money where its mouth is and stand up for something in this place, but, as is so often the case, the Labor Party have collapsed into a spineless mob of shellbacks.
In the little bit of time I have, I want to very quickly respond to a couple of matters that were raised during second reading contributions. We heard from coalition senators that there are issues around this tranche 2, and we've had quotes from the Law Council read into the debate today. What those senators are actually saying is that the Law Council has got it right and the Financial Action Task Force, of which Australia is a member, has got it wrong, and the OECD and the IMF have got it wrong too, and every other country in the world, bar the six including Australia who are yet to legislate these reforms, has got it wrong too. It's not just those groups. I'll even quote from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Remember, whenever Australia's security agencies ask this government to jump, the government has only got one response: 'How high? How many more powers do you want us to grant you? How much more of the freedoms and liberties that Australians have fought, died, bled and suffered to protect and enhance over the years do you want us to rub out of our legislated framework?' Yet suddenly it is all deaf ears from this government when the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission says:
… our stable financial markets and valuable real estate market make Australia an attractive destination for criminal groups and individuals looking to invest or launder the proceeds of crime.
They can't seem to hear that. Why is that? Because they've got to look after their mates and donors in the property market. The same goes for the Labor Party, I might add, who support every grab for power from the intelligence agencies and the spooks in this place—every single time. They vote with the government to remove fundamental rights and freedoms from ordinary Australian people in this place. They're pretty quick to jump when the spooks ask for more powers, and yet, when the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission warns about our real estate market being an attractive destination for criminal groups looking to invest or launder the proceeds of crime, suddenly it's, 'Nothing to see here; we're not going to take that advice.'
We heard from Senator Cash that she supports a phased approach. A phased approach? You are certainly taking a phased approach, Senator Cash. The passing of epochs is a phased approach! I'm going to have a beard down to my ankles by the time we get some affective anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing legislation through in this place.
I also want to draw senators' attention to comments made in The Sydney Morning Herald recently by Ms Angela Jackson, who is an economist. She explained very succinctly the problem of money laundering through real estate:
There is also an economic cost to Australia from money laundering … Markets become distorted …
I can hardly believe I'm up here trying to explain markets to the neoliberals in the Liberal and National parties and the Australian Labor Party, but here we go. It's been that kind of year. Ms Jackson said:
Markets become distorted because money launderers are spending illegal cash, which isn't worth as much to them as legal cash is to you and me. To clean their money, they are happy to lose a bit of it along the way.
Exactly: this is not a level playing field. Dirty money, per dollar, is worth less to the international crime syndicates and the terrorism financers than clean money is to ordinary Australians. That makes it a not-level playing field when people are seeking to purchase property. Ms Jackson went on to explain:
The money launderers are willing to pay more for an asset than it is worth, or charge less for a service than is profitable. This is the price of cleaning money they can reinvest in their illegal activities. It creates an uneven playing field, where the money launderers win and legitimate businesses lose.
Precisely, Ms Jackson: the criminals win and the legitimate businesses lose. Here we find ourselves today: the major parties in his place are going to make sure that criminals can keep winning and that legitimate businesses keep losing. The major parties in this place today are going to ensure that ordinary Australians keep losing and that financers of terrorism and international crime syndicates keep winning. That is where we find ourselves today.
Crown casino.
I'll take the interjection from Senator Hanson-Young, who mentioned Crown casino. They're not alone in this country in any regard, but, again, the major donors are buying outcomes, the criminals win and ordinary Australians lose.
As was stated in the second reading debate on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, the opposition supports the intent of this Greens amendment but does not believe this is the right way to achieve considered law reform. Given this and our concerns about its unintended consequences, the opposition will be opposing this amendment.
As I indicated in my summing-up speech, the government will also not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Kim on behalf of the Australian Greens. The Australian government, as I've stated, is committed to continually improving Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime and working with industry to ensure that Australia's financial system is hardened against criminals and terrorists without placing an undue regulatory burden on industry. Expanding the existing regime, as Senator McKim proposes, to lawyers, accountants and real estate agents would capture as many as an additional 100,000 businesses, and the majority of these businesses are identified as small businesses, sole traders or sole practitioners. If an extension were to occur, it would need to be done in a careful and considered way and with those affected industries fully consulted. But it would also have a significant resourcing impact on the regulator, AUSTRAC.
As I stated in my summing-up speech, the government has stated there will be further phases of anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reforms. These will be tailored, and they will also be appropriate in the Australian context. Again, I just want to confirm for the benefit of the Hansard record that this was obviously looked at by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in detail, and I am pleased yet again to advise the Senate that the committee did unanimously make one recommendation: the committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill without amendment.
The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1085 revised be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I advise the Senate that the opposition withdraws amendments on sheet 1155 to the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020, and on sheet 1180 to the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020.
I move:
That consideration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 be postponed until after consideration of government business order of the day No. 6, which is the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 and a related bill.
Question agreed to.
Labor will be supporting this bill. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the purpose of this bill is to enable a new procedure to classify recipients of residential aged care and some kinds of flexible care from 1 March 2021. The amendments will allow for the introduction of a new classification system that focuses on independently determining the care needs of older Australians, assessing residential aged care and some types of flexible care. Labor does have one particular concern about this bill: the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will not regulate the estimated 254 full-time assessors; the regulation of these assessors will be the responsibility of the Department of Health.
Australians know only too well that the aged-care system under the Liberals is broken. We know that the Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, cut $1.7 billion from the aged-care budget. This has had an impact across residential aged care. How do we know this? Because families and aged-care workers tell us that these cuts have had a significant impact. Any recent funding commitments have been announced only when the government has been under political pressure. That includes funding for home-care packages and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The question is: why didn't the Morrison government put funding into the aged-care system before COVID-19? Why did it wait until residents were dying to start putting back some of the money it had cut from aged care, the billions of dollars?
Over the past two years, more than 100,000 older Australians have consistently waited on the Morrison government's never-ending waiting list for their approved home-care package. More than 30,000 older Australians died, over three years, waiting for their approved home-care package. More than 32,000 older Australians, over two years, entered residential aged care prematurely because they couldn't get the care they needed. Waiting times for aged care grew by almost 300 per cent under the Liberals, with older Australians across the country forced into lengthy queues for care. As an example, of the 23,000 home-care packages the government announced in the budget, only 2,000 of these packages are level 4, the highest level of care. Compare that to the number of people currently waiting for their approved level 4 package; that figure is 15,873.
There's been inaction on hundreds of recommendations from more than a dozen reviews, reports and inquiries. Complaints about aged care doubled, to almost 8,000, in just one year, but the Prime Minister has failed to properly resource the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to handle these complaints. The Morrison government has failed to fully implement even one aged-care recommendation from a landmark report to stop elder abuse in aged care released in 2017. More than 110,000 calls for help went unanswered by the My Aged Care call centre over the last three years—110,000! The Morrison government delivered just—ready for this?—38 emergency food packages to older Australians isolated because of COVID-19, after announcing it would deliver 36,000 with funding of $9.3 million. Thirty-eight is all they delivered.
On top of all this, there is a failed Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians who is not up to the job. He has lost the confidence of the Australian people, and of the parliament after being censured. The list of overpromising and underdelivering goes on and on. We now know the Morrison government did not have a plan for COVID-19. In black and white this was stated in the royal commission's special report into COVID-19. We know the Morrison government was not prepared for COVID-19 in aged care. Despite the early warnings, it didn't do enough early enough. Aged-care workers had difficulty in accessing PPE. I heard from some of them yesterday. I couldn't believe workers were telling me they couldn't get access to PPE. There was no infection control training for aged-care workers, no surge workforce strategy document and no idea of how many aged-care workers were working across multiple sites. Reports not made public have been hidden by the government.
It is clear the Morrison government has no plan to fix the aged-care system. The Leader of the Australian Labor Party made a speech at the National Press Club back in August outlining eight steps that the Morrison government could take now to address the issues in aged care. These are: (1) ensure minimum staffing levels in residential aged care; (2) reduce the home-care package waiting list so more people can stay in their homes for longer; (3) ensure transparency and accountability of funding to support high-quality care; (4) mandate independent measurement and public reporting—as recommended by the royal commission this week; (5) ensure every residential aged-care facility has adequate personal protective equipment; (6) provide better training for staff, including on infection control; (7) ensure a better surge workforce strategy; and (8) provide additional resources so the aged-care royal commission can inquire specifically into COVID-19 across the sector while not impacting or delaying the handing down of the final report.
We know that Australians are angry. They are upset and they want aged care fixed. We also know that they don't trust the Morrison government or the current minister for aged care, Senator Colbeck, to fix the problems that have occurred on their watch. They also don't trust the Morrison government to act on the royal commission's final report. Be assured that Labor will continue to hold the Morrison government to account, both in the parliament and publicly, on the issues that thousands of Australians are concerned about. Older Australians, their families and carers deserve far better.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020. From the outset I'd like to say that I concur with Senator Sterle's contribution to this debate. The amendments before us will allow for the introduction of a new classification system that focuses on independently determining the care needs of older Australians accessing residential aged care and some types of flexible care. Labor will be supporting this bill as it enables a new classification procedure to do a shadow classification of recipients of residential aged care and some kinds of residential care plans in Australia.
Reform is necessary because we know that the current funding model has been broken for some time. Currently the fiscal contribution that the Australian government makes to aged-care providers is administered through the Aged Care Funding Instrument, ACFI. ACFI is a tool that assesses the care needs of residents and is the largest source of revenue for residential aged-care providers. ACFI is based on dependency, so there are limited incentives for aged-care providers to actively encourage reablement and rehabilitation methods.
This mechanism is broken, as I said, and we have known this for many years. There needs to be a complete overhaul if we are going to overcome our self-imposed aged-care crisis. In 2017 there was a review of the ACFI. It found that this outdated instrument needed to be replaced. That was in 2017, and we are now at the end of 2020. The government have been sitting on this report for three long years, but it is in line with their very slow, let's-not-have-any-reform approach to the aged-care sector.
Concurrently, many aged-care providers are not commercially viable. These corporations usually employ complicated business structures, which, while being legal, cast a veil on their financial performance and transactions. Transparency must accompany this sector. Increasing reporting requirements will allow for more informed policy and investment decisions. Labor also believes we need better transparency around funding. We also need to know how that funding is being used in aged care and what improvements have been carried out to provide quality care for older Australians.
Labor has been saying for a very long time that there needs to be more transparency for older Australians and their loved ones so that they know what's happening. There are a lot of questions about transparency as to the taxpayer funds that go into aged care. Over $20 billion a year goes into the aged-care system to support older Australians to either stay in their home or be cared for in residential homes. We need more accountability about where that money is actually going and more oversight of how that money is being spent.
Under the amendments to this bill, there will be a move to a new instrument as a possible replacement for ACFI. This has been designed by the Australian Health Services Research Institute at the University of Wollongong. The group undertook the Resource Utilisation and Classification Study in 2017, and on 10 February 2019 the government announced a trial of an alternate residential aged-care funding assessment tool called the Australian National Aged Care Classification assessment tool. While we support this bill, we do have concerns that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will not regulate the estimated 250 full-time assessors of this new instrument. The regulation of these assessors will be the responsibility of the Department of Health.
We on this side are frustrated with the lack of commitment to reforming the aged-care system and returning quality of care to all residents. I have lost count of the amount of times I have stood in this place and said the same thing over and over. This government has been slow to act, to bring about any reform, and it keeps hiding behind the guise of the royal commission that it called into its own failings. In the meantime, older Australians are dying of neglect. They are waiting for home-care packages, and this government is taking so long to roll out those aged-care packages that, we know, older Australians are dying after they have been assessed as needing a level 3 or a level 4 package. If that's not bad enough, older Australians who have passed away are receiving letters regarding their approved aged-care package. The indignity, the disrespect and the incompetence of this government is having a terrible effect on Australian families whose loved ones have passed away waiting for aged-care services that never arrived.
Let's look at the performance of this government when it comes to aged care. The performance is fundamental to a minister of the Crown worthy of a portfolio of those opposite who never perform their duties. They take the Australian people for granted every minute of every day. We know that the first failing of every consecutive Liberal government that has been in power in the last seven years—there have been a number of leaders, as we know—is that there has never been appointed a minister for aged care who sits in the cabinet room, to take the concerns of this sector to that cabinet table. It's a failing.
Richard Colbeck, as the minister for aged care, is perhaps the worst minister this country has seen to have responsibility for aged care. This may be about him being incompetent, but it could just be that he doesn't care about this sector. For the majority of this year, his lacklustre performance in this portfolio has seemingly been accepted by those opposite—particularly by the Prime Minister, who, at the last election, promised that he would make older Australians a priority of his government. Well, he has failed. I have asked, and my colleagues have asked, countless questions of the minister during question time and in estimates, and been unable to get answers. Very few questions, if any, have been able to be answered by the minister. What I get is um's and ah's, the shuffling of paper, disinterest and incompetent answers—and that's an affirmative.
Minister, I would like you to give all Australians an early Christmas present and resign before the reshuffle and you're moved out. That would be a sign that you have acknowledged that you have failed in your responsibility as the minister for older Australians. It would be respectful to older Australians to have a minister, and to have a Prime Minister, who lives up to his election commitments and makes older Australians a priority. It's all very well to make the announcements and have the photo opportunities where this government is pretending it's doing something in aged care, but we in fact know that you are not. You have failed. You make announcements about the rollout of new aged-care packages, but the reality is that we know 30,000 older Australians—it is probably more now—have died over the last couple of years waiting for their home-care package that they were accredited and were advised that they were entitled to. I'm sorry, but it's just part of human nature. If you're in your 80s or 90s and you've been classified as needing a level 4 package to enable you to stay you at home, the likelihood is that will not live, with that level of care denied to you, for those 18 months to two years before you may—may!—get the level of care that you need. That is a disgrace, and it is unacceptable.
In this place last night we worked until midnight, which is fine. We're happy to do that, because it's our job to be here and to pass legislation. In fact, I will just remind some people who normally sit in this chamber that you get elected as a senator to represent your state and territory and to actually vote. Last night, Senator Griff baled out on that responsibility and squibbed out, just as we saw Bridget Archer, the federal Liberal member for Bass, squib out in the other place. She failed to vote on the cashless debit card legislation that she spoke so passionately about and raised her concerns about. She didn't have the commitment to follow through and vote that legislation down. Ms Archer will have the opportunity again today to vote down this legislation when it goes back to the House of Representatives. I would put my house on it that she will not vote that legislation down. I can guarantee that she will squib out again, and she will support the government's attack on First Nations people and the majority of people who receive welfare. By abstaining from voting, she ensures that their human rights and their dignity are taken away and attacked again by this government.
Let's get back to the failings of this government on aged care. Let's face it, I could be here all day with all that they have failed to deliver for older Australians. This is a callous, heartless government. They make commitments at election time. The Prime Minister loves a photo opportunity, but he fails to deliver, on so many levels of responsibility, the commitments that he gives when the cameras are focused on him. This government and this minister for aged care had ample warning to ensure that the aged-care sector was prepared for COVID-19 when it happened. But what did they do? They wanted to blame everyone else—the Victorian government and everyone else except for themselves—for failing to ensure that there was PPE and that there was adequate training for the aged-care workforce. And let's not forget that it was this government that called the royal commission into their own failings. They can try and rewrite history and go back and blame the previous Labor government, but they've been in government for more than seven years. The responsibility for the failings in aged care rests firmly with them. The interim report from their aged-care royal commission was entitled Neglect. That's the word that every Australian associates now with aged care in this country. It's their failing.
I would like to acknowledge and take this opportunity to thank those who have worked in the front line of aged care in this country, particularly through the COVID-19 pandemic. More importantly, there is what they do for older Australians, whether it's in their home or whether it's in residential care, every day and every night. That's the carers, the kitchen staff, the nurses, the cleaners, the maintenance crew, the admin, and the boards—particularly for the not-for-profit aged-care providers. They do a wonderful job for their communities. So I give a big shout-out and acknowledgement to them, and I wish them and their families a lovely Christmas, a Christmas that I am sure is going to mean so much to all of us as we leave this place.
Well, I have a Christmas greeting for the minister for aged care. It's fantastic that he's in the chamber here today to listen to our contributions. Merry Christmas, Richard Colbeck. You are on the naughty list this year, so don't be surprised if Santa Claus doesn't come down your chimney. I can guarantee you won't have to worry about its next Christmas, because you won't be the minister for aged care.
I rise to make a contribution in the second reading debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020, which allows for the introduction of a new classification system of older Australians accessing residential aged care and some types of flexible care.
It marks an important step towards a new funding model for residential aged care by allowing the Australian government to undertake shadow assessments using the Australian National Aged Care Classification or AN-ACC tool, to enable that to occur. We all know that this is desperately needed, because our system is desperately broken. We know that the current tool, the Aged Care Funding Instrument, commonly known as ACFI, is no longer fit for purpose and it hasn't in fact been fit for purpose for a long time.
This bill allows for 12 months of shadow assessments to be undertaken to collect information about how the AN-ACC tool operates. We know that ACFI in fact enables perverse outcomes and incentives within its model. Older Australians who experience greater pain, disability and fragility gain additional funding. Of course, we know that they need additional supports. But the perversity is that you get more funding for that, but, once you get somebody well, the funding falls away. In other words, our aged-care providers are not enabled and supported around ensuring the continual wellbeing and enablement of a person in residential aged care. That is a ridiculous situation. The incentive there is perverse: you want to keep people unwell or claim that they are unwell so you can get more funding to look after them. It's absolutely ridiculous, and that's been the case for a long time.
We do need to have a tool and a funding process that supports aged-care providers who focus on reablement and wellbeing of older Australians. There is so much evidence and research around now around the importance of that and what can be done. But that also costs money. It costs money to support somebody who, for example, has chronic pain or disability or who is frail. It does cost money to provide the level of support and care to improve their wellbeing and, importantly, to maintain that wellbeing.
The Australian Greens are broadly supportive of the measures in this bill but we have a number of issues, which I am about to raise. I also want to let the minister know that we will be asking a series of questions in committee to ensure that we have on record in this place the responses to some of the issues I'm going to be raising.
As part of this measure, the government will need to recruit and train a new workforce to undertake the shadow assessments. I understand that the assessment workforce will be independent from providers and assessors, and assessors will need to meet strict qualification criteria. Of course, that's important and we welcome that. However, I urge the government to ensure that assessors are well trained and are offered permanent positions to have the capacity and capability to undertake the shadow assessments. That's just so important in getting this right. I also echo the concerns raised by the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, who have recommended that assessments of older people from CALD backgrounds are guided by a diversity advisory. This would help enable training of assessors—including cultural competency, cultural safety and trauma informed approaches.
During the short inquiry into this bill several submitters raised issues around the use of section 29C of the bill, which enables the secretary to arrange computer programs to make decisions on the classification of care recipients. Several stakeholders raised warning bells about the use of computer programs to classify care recipients in light of the failures of the robodebt program. I won't take long to remind the chamber of the very significant problems that eventuated from relying on computer programs and taking out the human beings in this process.
The Australian Greens have strong concerns about how computer programs will be used to make concessions in classified care recipients under the ANACC tool. We don't want to see older Australians fall prey to a repeat of the errors that were made under the illegal robodebt program. We want to make sure that safeguards are put in place. We are not necessarily tech phobic; we just want to make sure there is a human element built into the system so that the computer programs are not making decisions that have long-term consequences for human beings. I have raised that I want to clarify some of the issues around that with the government.
There are also concerns about what information the government needs to gather to make future decisions about the new classification system after 12 months of shadow assessments. At the end of 12 months, the ACSA has suggested we need to understand: whether the alternate resident classification delivers the required support for an individual resident; the financial impacts at both the aggregate and provider level from a change from the current funding instrument, ACFI, to the alternative funding instrument—in this case, it is the ANACC; whether the proposed five per cent stop loss is adequate in all circumstances; and the potential values assigned to the national weighted activity unit of the ANACC.
I am hoping the government will do its due diligence and properly collate and evaluate information received during the shadow assessment period. We need to have all the information possible to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the ACFI model. Counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended that ongoing evidence based reviews should be conducted thereafter to refine the models for the purpose of ensuring that they model accurate classification and funding to meet assessed needs. We will be monitoring the further refinement of this process to ensure that the new classification model meets the needs of older Australians. It is very important that this process is undertaken, but we want to make sure that we get it right.
This bill marks an important step towards a new funding model for residential aged care that is so desperately needed. It is part of the overall reform that is needed in residential aged care that we have spoken about at length in this place. The royal commission is going to be, in the very near future, handing down its recommendations. We think it is important that this process does get underway. We know very well that the funding process needs to change. We know it is part of the reform process. We want to make sure that older Australians get the best care that they can, which comes from an approach of enablement and of ensuring their wellbeing.
I am not saying all providers, but we know very well that some providers are not up to scratch; they are not providing quality care. They can say it is about funding, and, yes, funding is part of that. But my argument is that there are some providers who are not doing their job. They are not doing a proper job. We heard about them during the royal commission. I'm sure everybody in this chamber has had emails from people around the poor quality of care of their loved ones. I am sure my colleagues have also had emails around the complexity of the process of accessing care. We need to fix that process. We need to make sure that providers are also held to account, that there is transparency and accountability. Looking at this process very carefully is one of the things that I and, I am sure, others are going to be doing, to make sure that the transparency and accountability of providers who provide the level of care that they are funded for are there so that the community knows what the providers are spending their money on. We know from the royal commission, and, in fact, how some providers responded to the pandemic, that some did a really good job and some did a very poor job. My argument is that, in some instances, the coronavirus took hold because there were not good infection control processes there from the beginning, which enabled the virus to spread more rapidly in these facilities.
This is a good step. We need to start this, we need to do the shadow assessment, but we need to watch it very carefully to make sure that we do get this new process right. The Greens will be supporting this legislation, but I want to seek some reassurances and clarifications from the minister, as I indicated in those questions.
It is a pleasure to rise today in the Senate to speak in support of the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020. This bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to enable a new procedure, from 1 March next year, to classify recipients of residential aged care and some types of flexible care. The bill introduces the option to independently assess the relative care needs of individuals in residential aged care by empowering the Secretary of the Department of Health to assess care recipients using a new assessment tool and to process assessment results to assign new classification levels.
During the information-gathering period the bill allows, providers will continue to use the existing Aged Care Funding Instrument to assess their residents in parallel with the new procedure established by the bill. The bill responds to sustained criticism from care providers, statutory authorities and academic researchers of how care recipients are currently classified, with residential aged-care providers being required to regularly assess residents using the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument.
To that end, I must thank the work of my Tasmanian colleague and aged-care minister Senator Richard Colbeck for all that he is doing in this space. We've spoken many, many times in this place, and I know that I've made contributions before in this chamber about the state of aged care in this country. We know that aged care is one of these things that, in some way shape or form, will touch the lives of most Australians, whether they are in aged care themselves or they have a relative or close friend in an aged-care facility. We know just how important it is that we get this right. That is one of the reasons that we are running a royal commission into the aged-care sector—so that we know what the issues are and we can appropriately respond. I thank Senator Colbeck for all of the work that he is doing in this area.
On that note of the aged-care royal commission, I was having a glance through the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report on this legislation before I rose to speak today. This legislation was referred to that committee on 12 November this year, and their report was tabled on 2 December, and authored by another of my great Tasmanian colleagues and chair of that committee Senator Wendy Askew. That report recommended that the bill be passed, and I certainly hope that the Senate echoes the sentiments of that report in its deliberations here today. Reading through that report on the bill we're debating here today, I want to home in on a couple of quotes which really stood out to me. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee report said:
… the bill's provisions to be an important mechanism to allow the aged care sector and the government to quickly and adequately respond to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety—
which, as Senate Siewert echoed in her contribution, will be reporting very early in the new year. On the last sitting day of 2020, I think it's very appropriate that we come to this place to debate this legislation and ensure that it is passed, so that everything that needs to be in place for us to respond to the royal commission in early 2021 is, indeed, in place. As I said before, we know that aged care is something that touches the lives of so many Australians. We've had the royal commission so that we know what the issues are, what we need to get right. If the bill that we're debating here today will help us adapt to the royal commission as 'quickly and adequately' as possible, to quote the legislation committee's report, then that is only a good thing. On that basis I do hope that the bill passes the Senate today.
The Community Affairs Legislation Committee report also said that the bill 'paves the way for a more modern, efficient and stable approach to funding in the residential aged-care sector'. I think that's a really important point for us all to reflect upon here today. Since the 2016 budget, the government has committed to developing and testing a lasting alternative to the Aged Care Funding Instrument. A potential replacement of the Aged Care Funding Instrument now exists. It is called the Australian National Aged Care Classification, or the AN-ACC. The bill that we're debating here today builds on the successful AN-ACC trial conducted in 2019 and early 2020 and will allow a new classification using the AN-ACC tool to be determined for the entire residential aged-care population without affecting how the subsidy for providers is calculated. This is an essential step in preparing to respond to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, as was detailed in the Senate committee report.
Funding for the new AN-ACC assessors was announced in the 2020 budget. All assessors will have to meet strict professional qualifications and additional training criteria, which will be detailed in subordinate legislation. The classification data obtained from these assessments will ensure that individuals, care workers, providers and the government all have the information they need to fully understand the new funding model. The AN-ACC assessment and classification procedures will create an important dataset to aid understanding of frailty issues in the residential aged-care population. They will, for example, allow a comparison of how quickly or slowly the health status of people with like care needs declines. The government recognises that the benefit of this data for monitoring and research purposes does not require care recipients to be identified and is introducing amendments to ensure that personal information cannot be published, in writing or otherwise, to protect the privacy of residents. I think that's a very important safeguard to have in place.
This bill enables the next phase of residential aged-care funding reform. It sets the stage for a quick and seamless transition to a more contemporary, efficient, effective and stable funding approach that will promote investment in residential aged-care refurbishment and expansion and will support providers to better deliver the individualised care that each resident needs.
I said at the start of my remarks that aged care is something that impacts on the lives of all Australians. We as a government are firmly committed to ensuring that our aged-care sector delivers for those Australians that it impacts and for its cohort. That's why the 2021 budget includes the delivery of 23,000 additional home-care packages, at a cost of $1.6 billion, in addition to the 6,000-odd packages announced in July, at a cost of more than $325 million.
We've invested more than $746 million in aged-care COVID-19 response measures as part of the $1.6 billion aged-care specific COVID support package and we've invested slightly over $408 million for aged-care reform initiatives to improve the quality of care, further respond to the urgent issues raised by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and lay the foundations for future reform. As I say, this is such an important area to get right and that's why we're having a royal commission, so that we understand what the issues are and so that we can ensure that our aged-care sector provides for all Australians. The bill that we're debating here today is just part of that, and the budget measures that I ran through are likewise part of that. I do commend the work of Senator Colbeck in this space, to ensure that our aged-care sector is appropriate and does provide quality care for those Australians who seek to or may have the need to use it.
In summary, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020. As I said, the passage of this bill will ensure that this government can respond quickly and adequately to the findings of the aged-care royal commission when they are tabled in the very near future. We know that this is important, we know that this is something we have to get right and, on that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.
It is my great pleasure to join with my good friend Senator Chandler in commending the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020 to the Senate. As we've just heard in the fine contribution from Senator Chandler, looking after senior Australians is one of our government's most important responsibilities. We announced the royal commission because we understood that not everything is right in aged care. But we took the action required to give Australians faith that this government takes its responsibility to senior Australians incredibly seriously. Where there are cracks in the system, we are not going to tolerate them. We are not going to stand by and see the care of any Australian, particularly any Australian in an aged-care residential facility, compromised in any way.
We do have a very strong regulatory framework, and that's incredibly important. Aged-care residential providers have very strong obligations under the law. There is no doubt that some aged-care providers have not complied with the law in all respects, and that is simply not good enough. But where the regulatory framework is not where it needs to be—and we will, of course, learn more about this when the royal commission hands down its final report in February next year—our government stands ready to act and to do whatever is necessary to improve our aged-care system. The Prime Minister has already indicated that more funding will be forthcoming to address the recommendations made by the royal commission, so we already have seen a very, very strong commitment from our Prime Minister in this respect.
I say that, of course, given the Morrison government's history, and the coalition government's history since we were elected in 2013, of how we have invested in and looked after senior Australians, because the fact of the matter is the Morrison government is delivering record investment across the aged-care system over the forward estimates, growing from $13.3 billion in 2012-13, under Labor, to $21.3 billion in 2019-20. It's estimated that funding for aged care will grow to more than $27 billion in 2023-24, which is on average $1.1 billion of extra support for older Australians each year over the forward estimates. This government spent over $13.4 billion in 2019-20 on residential care, up from $9.2 billion in 2012-13, and that will grow by 2023-24 to some $17.1 billion. So we can see, based on our level of investment, the commitment of this government.
Thank you, Senator Henderson. The time for this debate has expired, and you will be in continuation.
Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of three legislative instruments, as set out in the list circulated in the chamber.
I give notice that in a very short space of time I will be delivering a motion to the Table Office on the JobSeeker payment.
I present the 12th report of 2020 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated into the Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 12 OF 2020
9 December 2020
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip)
Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)
Senator Raff Ciccone
Senator Katy Gallagher
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Senator the Hon James McGrath
Senator Rex Patrick
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston
Secretary: Tim Bryant
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 7.20 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first Monday in July 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020, and the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020, and the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020, and the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020, and the Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 March 2021 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the National Collecting Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 January 2021 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(e) the provisions of the Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 February 2021 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).
(f) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020 be referred but was unable to reach agreement on a committee and a reporting date (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:
(Dean Smith)
Chair
9 December 2020
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Whether the Federal Government should tie education funding to parental rights
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Groups for and against gender fluidity theory being taught in schools. Educationalists generally.
Committee to which bill Is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Education and Environment
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined
Possible reporting date:
July 2021
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bills:
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020 Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To examine the timeline of the delivery of the bills, the nature and extent of the consultation process, the suitability of the framework and its interactions with other legislation, and other relevant considerations.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Accord
Australian Paint Manufacturers Federation
Chemistry Australia
Department of Health, Western Australia
Fire Protection Association Australia
Gowans, Andrew
International Fragrance Association (IFRA)
Minerals Council of Australia
Rae, Professor Ian D.
South Australian Water Corporation
Willson Consulting
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
11 March 2021
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
National Collecting Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This bill affects six of the national institutions, and in complex and different ways. We want to make sure they all have been consulted, and are given the opportunity to raise concerns about how the proposals would impact them.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The six national institutions affected, and the CPSU.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Only one day is likely to be needed. To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
29 January 2021
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Securing Economic Recovery) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Potential consumer harms arising from decision to amend responsible lending laws
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Consumer groups, finance industry, finance professionals, affected individuals, academics, business groups, economists,
Treasury, regulatory bodies
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
29 April 2021
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To understand the effect of the Bill on the national economy and financial stability.
To understand the effect of the Bill on household wellbeing.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Financial regulators
Consumer groups
Academics and think tanks Financial service providers
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
January and February 2021
Possible reporting date:
March 2021
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The Parliament should ensure it is properly drafted and there are no unintended consequences
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Law Council and other legal bodies
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
12 March 2021
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Code) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To ensure that the proposed news media code will support public interest journalism in Australia
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Media organisations
Digital platforms
ACCC
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
15th February 2021
Appendix 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Makes very significant changes to industrial relations policy that will impact all Australian workers.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Unions, employer groups, FWC, FWO
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
13 May 2021
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The Bill is large and complex with major changes to industrial relations legislation that will have a significant impact on workers.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Workers' representatives/Union movement, academia, community groups, employer groups
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:
12 March 2021
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move an amendment to the motion for adoption of the report:
At the end of the motion, add:
"but, in respect of the provisions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 12 March 2021."
There is one area where we would like an amendment. It's in relation to the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020: that it go to the Economics Legislation Committee for report by 12 March. The reason we would like this is that this bill reverses the first recommendations of the banking royal commission: that the government should not touch the responsible lending laws. If the government is serious about scrapping the responsible lending laws, we need a chance to find out what the harm to consumers will be. Eliza Wu, associate professor of finance at the University of Sydney, has said these laws may sow the seeds for the next financial crisis. So I think it is reasonable that the Senate be given the time for a relatively short inquiry, once you take out the Christmas break, to report back to this chamber by 12 March. I hope other senators can support that amendment.
I indicate our support for that amendment.
If it assists the chamber, I will be supporting this amendment.
The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and:
(a) in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 February 2021; and
(b) in respect of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 March 2021."
Question agreed to.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
"but, in respect of the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020, the bill be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2021."
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I move:
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill, and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I move that this Bill now be read a second time.
Keeping Australian communities safe from those who seek to do us harm is, and will continue to be, the Government's number one priority.
An important way the Government achieves this is by ensuring that our national security agencies have the powers they need to work in an increasingly volatile security environment.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 will modernise ASIO's powers and improve ASIO's capacity to respond to a range of steadily worsening threats particularly in relation to politically motivated violence, espionage and foreign interference.
The Bill repeals ASIO's existing questioning and detention warrant framework contained in Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act), and introduces a reformed compulsory questioning framework.
These powers will enable ASIO, upon obtaining a warrant, to question a person under compulsion to obtain intelligence in relation to politically motivated violence (including terrorism), espionage and foreign interference.
The Bill will also align the approval process for ASIO to use non-intrusive tracking devices with that of law enforcement agencies under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, and modernise the definition of tracking device to ensure ASIO is able to use the latest and safest technology to perform its functions.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has comprehensively reviewed the powers in this Bill and supported the retention of a compulsory questioning power for ASIO. The PJCIS made eight recommendations in relation to the proposed compulsory questioning powers.
The Government has amended the Bill to implement all of these recommendations, and I table a revised explanatory memorandum incorporating these amendments.
These amendments further strengthen the significant safeguards that will accompany the compulsory questioning framework in this Bill, including rights to legal representation, and extensive real-time oversight throughout the course of questioning by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Closing remarks
In conclusion, this Bill will ensure that ASIO has the powers it needs to deal with current and emerging threats to our nation's security.
The Morrison Government is committed to ensuring our security agencies have the powers they need to operate effectively in an increasingly challenging and complex national security environment. I am sure that this sentiment is shared by all members in this Chamber.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 and say at the outset that Labor supports the fundamental aims and objectives of this bill. We welcome the repeal of the questioning and detention warrant. It is a repeal that Labor has long advocated. It is a repeal that has been supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It is a repeal that has been supported by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. This is a reform that is long overdue. Labor supports and welcomes it and we appreciate that the government, in a long overdue response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, has brought this repeal forward.
I note that the questioning and detention warrant, which was a power that was brought in in the wake of the September 11 attacks by this parliament and supported at the time by the Australian Labor Party, is a power that has never been used. It is an extraordinary and intrusive power designed to assist our national security agencies to prevent a terrorist attack and it has never been used. Therefore it is appropriate that we repeal this power and Labor supports that objective. Labor also supports the objective of expanding the questioning warrant to cover acts of politically motivated violence, including terrorism, foreign interference and espionage.
Senator Keneally, resume your seat. Senators, we have a debate in progress. There are lots of little meetings going on around the chamber. If you're not participating in the debate, I would ask that you be respectful and leave so that Senator Keneally can make her contribution in silence. Thank you.
The questioning warrant power has been expanded, as I said, to cover acts of politically motivated violence, including terrorism, foreign interference and espionage. Labor supports this expansion. It is appropriate that our national security agencies have the tools available to them to meet the current threat environment. As former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: there is no set-and-forget when it comes to national security. The tools that our national security agencies have available to them must evolve to meet the current threats. We acknowledge that foreign interference and espionage are at heights not previously seen in Australia, including at the height of the Cold War. It is appropriate that ASIO has the questioning warrant power to be used in circumstances of foreign interference and espionage.
Labor also supports expanding the questioning warrant power to persons as young as 14, but only in cases of politically motivated violence, as the legislation stipulates, and where the person being questioned is in fact the subject of the investigation. It's important for those who are watching this debate to note and understand that the questioning warrant power is not a law enforcement power; it is an intelligence power. It has been given to our intelligence agencies in order to prevent a terrorist attack. We must recognise the reality that extremist groups, whether they are far-right extremists or from Islamic jihadism, are targeting younger and younger individuals, usually males, to radicalise and to provoke to acts of violence.
We should recall that the person who fired the gun that murdered Curtis Cheng, a New South Wales Police force civilian employee, was only 15 years old. That was an act of politically motivated violence. It was a terrorist attack. It is appropriate that our national security agencies are able to use this questioning warrant power in order to prevent a terrorist attack, including when one is being planned by a person as young as 14, because the evidence is extremist groups are seeking to radicalise and target younger and younger people to carry out these attacks.
I acknowledge that there has been significant concern in the community about the safeguards that would apply to the questioning of minors. I would note for those watching this debate that in this legislation a number of safeguards do apply to the questioning of minors. Many of these are in addition to the safeguards that apply to adults. There is a high threshold for obtaining a questioning warrant; the requirements for children include the following. The Attorney-General must consider the best interests of the child when issuing a warrant. Questioning may only occur in the presence of a lawyer and a parent, guardian or another person acceptable to the child. There is a right to legal advice for all persons, adults and children, including representation during questioning sessions. For minors there is a limit of two hours on continuous questioning periods. Minors also have the right to disclose to particular persons their questioning after the questioning has occurred. And there is the ability to seek judicial remedy in relation to the warrant and the ability to contact the IGIS—the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—or the Ombudsman to make complaints about the process. So there are several safeguards built into this legislation.
There are safeguards as well in relation to prescribed authorities. Prescribed authorities play an important role, and always have done so, in relation to the questioning warrant power and, had it been used, the questioning and detention warrant power. A prescribed authority will oversee the execution of a questioning warrant and provide directions in accordance with the legislation. A prescribed authority can be a former superior court judge, an AAT member or another experienced legal practitioner. They cannot be an ASIO employee, a member of an intelligence, security or law enforcement agency, other than the AFP, or an AGS lawyer or IGIS official.
The bill originally proposed to change the qualifications for a prescribed authority. The bill as it was originally presented to the parliament would have allowed for a person with 10 years experience in a legal capacity to be appointed as a prescribed authority. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security considered this matter, and it came to a conclusion and made a recommendation in its report that a prescribed authority should have 10 years experience but must additionally be a Queen's Counsel or Senior Counsel. That was in order to assure ourselves and the community that the people acting as prescribed authorities had the relevant senior experience. We acknowledge that the government has accepted that recommendation and moved it as an amendment in the other place to this legislation.
The legislation also previously included a sunset in 2030 and did not include a requirement for a legislative review. Again the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security considered that matter, and the committee came to a view that this extraordinary and intrusive power, whilst it is appropriate, must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and parliamentary oversight. Therefore, the intelligence committee made a recommendation to the government that the sunset be shortened to 2025 and that a review occur in 2023. I acknowledge that the government has accepted that recommendation and incorporated it as an amendment in the House of Representatives.
This bill also makes some changes to ASIO's surveillance device warrant framework, allowing the internal authorisation of the use of tracking devices in certain circumstances. Labor members on the intelligence and security committee participated in questioning of our national security agencies in relation to the necessity for that change. We are satisfied that that is an appropriate authorisation change and we support that aspect of the bill. As I said, Labor supports overall the fundamental aims and objectives of this legislation, welcomes the repeal of the questioning and detention warrant, welcomes and supports the expansion of the questioning warrant to acts of foreign interference and espionage, and welcomes, with appropriate safeguards in place, the ability for ASIO to question minors as young as 14 where they are the subject of the investigation and only in relation to acts of politically motivated violence.
I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security also asked the government—not in the form of a formal recommendation—to consider whether an additional safeguard in relation to minors should be implemented, and that is a child advocate. The committee considered that this is an extraordinary and intrusive power—it is the most extraordinary and intrusive power that ASIO has—and considered that, while the expansion to minors as young as 14 was appropriate in the narrow and defined circumstances with the safeguards the bill contains, there should be consideration, as the warrant power is being given to ASIO, as to whether or not a child advocate should also be part of the process. The intelligence committee has invited the government to come back to it on answering that question. I also flag that I expect that that and the other matters that are highlighted in Labor members' additional comments to the intelligence committee report should be considered as top-order issues for the review in 2023.
In the time remaining I want to turn to an issue where Labor does have a point of difference with the government. The bill removes a safeguard put in place for the issuing of questioning warrants. That safeguard was put in place by John Howard. His Liberal Attorney-General Daryl Williams put in place a safeguard that the questioning warrant power had to be not only issued by the Attorney-General but signed off by an independent issuing authority—a judge acting in a personal capacity. This is a double-lock mechanism to ensure that an intrusive and extraordinary power is used appropriately and lawfully and that the public can have confidence that there is independent oversight and authorisation of such an extraordinary power.
Labor has long supported that the extraordinary powers where they are necessary, as they are in this case, to keep the community safe should also be accompanied by safeguards that ensure democratic rights and freedoms are protected. This was the approach taken by Labor senator John Faulkner when these warrant powers were first introduced in the wake of September 11 and it is the approach Labor takes today.
I note that in the House of Representatives the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, moved an amendment to restore the Howard safeguard. Labor members support the retention of John Howard's safeguard to ensure that independent issuing authorities sign off on the use of these extraordinary powers. I note that in the other place the government voted against the retention of the Howard safeguard. I invite government senators here today to reconsider that position. I anticipate that, given the vote in the House of Representatives, I may be unsuccessful in that request. Nonetheless, I state for the record that, when Labor do come to government, we will—and we make a commitment here today—move to restore John Howard's safeguard to ensure that this extraordinary questioning warrant power is appropriately authorised by not just the Attorney-General but an independent issuing authority.
In the time I have remaining I acknowledge the work done by ASIO in keeping Australians safe. There is no doubt that ASIO has used these powers sparingly. These powers have been used only 16 times since they were provided in 2004. They have not been used since 2010. That's notable because the threat level for terrorism was raised in 2014 and yet ASIO has judiciously and sparingly used these powers. Labor members expect that ASIO will continue to judiciously and sparingly use these powers, particularly in the context of them having been expanded. I acknowledge ASIO's work and state again that Labor supports this legislation. I flag in the seconds remaining that I will seek leave to move amendments to this legislation to restore John Howard's safeguard—the independent issuing authority.
That will be during the committee stage, I assume, Senator Keneally. Before I come to Senator Thorpe, I'll acknowledge former Senator Ludlam assisting Senator Siewert in the back of the chamber: welcome back.
I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020. It's funny, this place. Out there in the community, in the real world, we teach our kids that if they see the wrong thing they should speak up, that if someone does the wrong thing, they should say something, and that, if they do say something, they will be protected, because telling the truth and exposing corruption and bad behaviour are better than staying silent. In the real world, where most of us live, we teach our kids honesty and integrity; however, when you come into this place, that is completely reversed. In here, the government threaten people who speak up. They threaten people who see something wrong. They threaten whistleblowers, journalists and activists, because the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, is scared and feels threatened—the fragility. The 'never ever could be Prime Minister', the Minister for Home Affairs, is running scared. So what does he do? He sends his big spy agency to harass, intimidate and threaten anyone he doesn't like or he doesn't agree with—weak. What a joke.
These ASIO laws could punish journalists breaking politically significant stories, stories like the conduct of the type of person the Attorney-General is and has been; stories exposing the hypocrisy of the member for Aston, Alan Tudge, who talks big on family values but has none where it matters; and big—
Order! Senator Scarr, on a point of order.
I would ask that the Senator perhaps withdraw that personal reflection on Mr Tudge from the lower house, please.
Senator Thorpe, standing order 193 talks about personal reflections. That last phrase, that was a distinct reflection on a member of the other place, is out of order, so I ask you to withdraw that, please.
I withdraw.
Thank you, Senator Thorpe; it is much appreciated.
These include big, nationally significant stories like the absolutely and totally barbaric conduct of the Australian elite SAS and the horrific war crimes they committed in our name. These laws will also have a chilling effect on activists and grassroots communities—activists like the thousands upon thousands of people who stand up in cities all around this country to say that Black Lives Matter, the grassroots mob who rally and shut down cities every Invasion Day, reminding you all that we are still here and, until you do the right thing by us, we will keep on demanding our rights. How fragile the Minister for Home Affairs is, that he would rather stop brave whistleblowers from speaking out and protecting the public's right to know. This is while the minister talks big on the freedom of speech.
For this government, freedom of speech means freedom to say only the things that this government agree with, or else they will send ASIO to spy on you, intimidate you and question you. These laws could also see journalists jailed for five years if they refuse to reveal their sources. Think about that: this government is happy to threaten journalists for refusing to reveal sources. Does that not look a bit like dictatorship?
The Minister for Home Affairs and his little Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs are happy to drive us to a police state and are hoping no-one will notice. These two fragile men with big egos are now using these laws to threaten anyone they're scared of.
Order, Senator Thorpe.
I would ask that the senator consider withdrawing that personal reflection upon Mr Dutton.
Senator Thorpe, if you did make a personal reflection, I'd ask you to withdraw it. I didn't hear the phrase used. I can check the Hansard, but, if you do think you made a personal reflection upon a member of another place, it would help the chamber if you would withdraw it. As I remind senators, it is very easy to use language criticising an action, an event or a policy. The standing orders require very careful language around people. So, Senator Thorpe, I didn't hear what you said. If you'd like to withdraw, you're free to. If not, I'll check the Hansard.
I'm happy to withdraw.
Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the convenience of the chamber. Please continue.
If you are scared of journalists, then what are you hiding? If you are so scared of civil society—the very people that elected you to this place—and anyone who is holding you to account, then what are you doing behind closed doors? We teach our children to be accountable, to conduct themselves with dignity and to say something if they see something dodgy going on. The Minister for Home Affairs never got that lesson. He doesn't care about you, he doesn't care about our democracy, and he most definitely does not care for being exposed—I don't want to get caught out on a point of order, so I won't say that line.
The Minister for Home Affairs wants to send Big Brother to spy on our children. These laws will lower the age of questioning by ASIO from 16 to 14. Think about that. ASIO can spy on children, breaching Australia's international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is sick. Why am I surprised? This is from a government that is happy to lock brown and black people up in offshore detention, a government headed by a Prime Minister who, when the country was going through one of the worst crises in its history, went to Hawaii. He went to Hawaii. Why didn't he holiday here, on our own shores? That's right—because our country was on fire. It was literally on fire. I know the other side hate hearing this because they hate being exposed for the outliers that they are. This government will dodge accountability. It's revolting.
These laws will give ASIO powers that are so far-reaching that they could be used to clamp down on civil society organisations and political advocacy groups, including environment, human rights and refugee groups. These changes would make Australia a world leader in state sanctioned tracking of citizens and coercive questioning powers, because the Minister for Home Affairs is scared—scared of children, scared of the truth, scared of brown and black people. He's running scared. But that's okay—the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, is on his side. It's shameful. The PJCIS has just rubberstamped these laws. It is one of the parliament's most secret and powerful committees, and it's determining the fate of Minister Dutton's spy laws. This government-controlled committee operates like a fortress. Independent and crossbench MPs are shut out of any form of participation on scrutiny, because the PJCIS doesn't like to be scrutinised. Let's be honest, that's what these laws are about. They're about limiting the public's right to know. They're about intimidating anyone who sees government wrongdoing.
There has been an ongoing erosion of rights in Australia for the past 20 years. Unfortunately, the two major parties are in complete lock step with each other and they are leading us down the road to a surveillance state. I say to those opposite: you know that the George Orwell novel 1984 was a novel, right? It wasn't a manual. The Minister for Home Affairs and the secretary of his department, 'Big Brother' and 'Little Brother', are so threatened by truth. These laws are always pitched to us on the basis of the most serious crimes available, but we know—I know as a black woman—that these laws are always used to intimidate black people, people of colour, activists, grassroots organisations and journalists. If this government are so scared of the truth, then what are they hiding?
We are proud to be the only opposition in this place. We will never support this intrusion on the human rights of people. I say to those watching: the Greens are the real opposition in this place. We're the ones with the guts to call out this shameful overreach. I also want to remind you that not only is ASIO watching; so is the Minister for Home Affairs. Shame.
I rise to speak briefly in this debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020. The bill implements the government's response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into ASIO's questioning and detention powers by amending the ASIO Act 1979 in relation to compulsory questioning powers and tracking devices. I won't go into the detail of the bill. It has been eloquently spelt out by Senator Keneally. I indicate I will, at the committee stage, talk to my amendment. I did listen to Senator Keneally's contribution and I'm not sure whether her amendments have been circulated at this point, but they were certainly circulated in the House—and the Clerk's giving me a nod saying they have been circulated, so I'll talk to those. I do actually support the idea in Labor's amendments that basically brings a judge back into the process of issuing warrants. I think that's a really important thing that ought to take place.
Those of you who were in the chamber yesterday would have heard me talking about a decision handed down by the AAT yesterday. I want to come back to the contribution I made yesterday and talk about how it relates to this particular bill. Back in 2018, the Attorney-General censored an Auditor-General's report into the Hawkei combat vehicle, using a power under section 37 of the Auditor-General's Act to ensure that information that he considered to be sensitive from a national security perspective and sensitive from a commercial perspective was basically redacted in the Auditor-General's final report. The interesting thing about that is that, when that power is used by the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General is not required to answer questions from the Senate. It's one really unusual provision in the statutes which basically curbs the parliament's own powers—obviously, parliament's done that itself—so we never get to see whether or not that power was exercised responsibly. I was concerned about that and I looked for a way to, in some sense, review the decision of the Attorney. It did go to an inquiry—the JCPAA looked at it. But in fact, when the Attorney-General censored the Auditor-General, the act required that a report be provided to the Prime Minister. That report was provided and I sought that report under FOI.
A range of claims were advanced to try to prevent me having access to that particular document, but eventually, after some of the quite complex claims were abandoned by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, represented by the AGS, we finally got to the nub of some exemptions that were claimed by the Prime Minister on national security and commercial sensitivity grounds. Yesterday a decision was handed down that basically stated that the information in this Auditor-General's report was not sensitive: it was not sensitive from a national security perspective and it was not sensitive from a commercial perspective. The significance of that to this bill and to the proposal flagged by Senator Keneally is that we now have a ruling from the AAT that shows the Attorney-General's judgement was actually grossly incompetent—it was incompetent from a legal and parliamentary perspective. I'm referring to the exercise of his powers as a minister, and that has relevance here.
Here we have a bill presented to the parliament that grants the Attorney the power to issue warrants without the supervision of a judicial officer or consultation or connection with a judicial officer. We now know without doubt, from a decision made by a prominent deputy president of the AAT, that the Attorney does not have the capacity to exercise good judgement in these sorts of matters. I could mention Witness K, Bernard Collaery, Richard Boyle and David McBride—all whistleblowers who have been prosecuted under the current Attorney's watch, even though section 71 of the Judiciary Act allows him, in his responsibility to this parliament, to end prosecutions that are not in the national interest, not in the interests of justice.
If indeed Senator Keneally moves those amendments I will certainly be giving them support. They are a good safety measure. Quite frankly, I can't understand why such amendments would not be supported by the government, because they're quite sensible, quite reasonable and serve the right balance between the exercise of powers and the checks necessary when such powers are exercised.
I rise to sum up the debate in the Senate on the bill before us, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020. Keeping Australian communities safe from those who seek to do us harm is and will continue to be the government's No.1 priority. An important way the government achieves this is by ensuring that our national security agencies have the powers they need to work in an increasingly volatile security environment. The bill before us, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020, will modernise ASIO's powers and improve ASIO's capacity to respond to a range of steadily worsening threats, particularly in relation to politically motivated violence, espionage and foreign interference.
The bill before the Senate repeals ASIO's existing questioning and detention warrant framework, contained in division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, and introduces a reformed compulsory questioning framework. These powers will enable ASIO, upon obtaining a warrant, to question a person under compulsion to obtain intelligence in relation to politically motivated violence—and this violence includes terrorism—espionage and foreign interference. The bill will also align the approval process for ASIO to use non-intrusive tracking devices with that of law enforcement agencies under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and modernise the definition of 'tracking device' to ensure ASIO is able to use the latest and safest technology to perform its functions.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, otherwise known as the PJCIS, has comprehensively reviewed the powers in this bill and supported the retention of a compulsory questioning power for ASIO. The PJCIS made eight recommendations in relation to the proposed compulsory questioning powers. The government has amended the bill to implement all of these recommendations, and I know, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, you are aware of those recommendations. I understand that I will be tabling a revised explanatory memorandum incorporating those amendments, and I have that here for the officials. These amendments further strengthen the significant safeguards that will accompany the compulsory questioning framework in this bill, including rights to legal representation and extensive real-time oversight, throughout the course of questioning, by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
The amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 that I have referred to in my speech were prepared, as I've stated, in response to recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and advice of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Certainly I would thank both those committees for their work in comprehensively reviewing this bill. The government amendments that I have referred to provide that a legal practitioner who is appointed as a prescribed authority must have engaged in legal practice for at least 10 years and must be a Queen's Counsel or Senior Counsel. This is an important amendment that will ensure that the prescribed authority is well qualified and experienced to carry out their role overseeing questioning. The bill as drafted requires the Attorney-General to consider the minor's best interests, and this includes their mental health and cultural needs amongst other matters. The committee recommended that the bill clarify that the Attorney-General must consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, and an amendment has been included to implement this recommendation. I also advise that the government has accepted the committee's recommendations that the PJCIS commence a further review of ASIO's questioning powers by 7 September 2023 and that the powers sunset on 7 September 2025. I also advise that the government has made amendments in line with the committee's recommendations to clarify that the making of a public interest disclosure to an authorised internal recipient under the Public Interest Disclosure Act will not contravene secrecy offences in the bill. The amendments also clarify that ASIO must not use a tracking device without authorisation, where doing so is prohibited by a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory.
Recommendation 3 of the committee is:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to allow the Committee to request a written or oral briefing on any matter in relation to any questioning warrant …
The government notes this recommendation. The committee will have an opportunity to request briefings on questioning warrants as part of a further review, commencing before 7 September 2023.
In addition to the amendments which respond to the committee's recommendations, the government proposed amendments to further strengthen the bill's safeguards. These additional safeguards will: ensure IGIS or IGIS officials cannot be denied entry to a place of questioning and may possess communications devices; ensure that a permitted disclosure under the bill's secrecy offences includes disclosure by a minor to a parent or guardian; and clarify the operation of certain provisions related to the oversight and complaints functions performed by an IGIS official. The government is of the opinion that, collectively, what these amendments will do, or have done, is strengthen the bill and improve the operation of the bill.
Australian security and intelligence agencies face a complex and evolving threat environment. The Director-General of ASIO has, indeed, described the current threat from espionage and foreign interference as greater now 'than at the height of the Cold War'. These sophisticated activities threaten our universities, our government officials, our media institutions and our parliament—key institutions of Australia's democracy—in an attempt to undermine our authority. ASIO's inability to use its existing compulsory questioning powers against suspected spies is a serious gap in Australia's national security legislative framework. Again, in terms of what the bill before the Senate is seeking to do, it introduces important reforms to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to ensure ASIO's powers are appropriately tailored to the current security environment, bearing in mind that the Director-General of ASIO has described the current threat from espionage and foreign interference—I will remind senators—as greater now than 'at the height of the Cold War'.
In conclusion, this bill will ensure ASIO has the powers it needs to deal with current and emerging threats to our nation's security. The Morrison government is committed to ensuring our security agencies have the powers they need to operate effectively in an increasingly challenging and complex national security environment. I note from speeches given by other senators in this chamber that this sentiment is shared by those senators. On that basis, I will commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
by leave—I move Independent amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1044 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 116 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Amendments relating to oversight of intelligence agencies
Intelligence Services Act 2001
1 Paragraph 29(1 ) ( a)
After "to review the", insert "activities,".
2 Subsections 29(3) and (4)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
(3) The functions of the Committee do not include:
(a) reviewing information provided by, or by an agency of, a foreign government where that government does not consent to the disclosure of the information; or
(b) conducting inquiries into individual complaints about the activities of ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD, ONI, AFP or the Immigration and Border Protection Department.
3 After section 29
Insert:
29A Ceasing or suspending review of agency activities
(1) If:
(a) the Committee undertakes a review under section 29 of an activity by ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD or ONI; and
(b) the relevant responsible Minister is of the opinion that:
(i) the activity is an ongoing operation; and
(ii) the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations;
the Minister may give to the Committee a certificate in relation to the matter stating the Minister's opinion and the reasons for it.
(2) A decision of the Minister under subsection (1) must not be questioned in any court or tribunal.
(3) Where the Minister gives a certificate under subsection (1) in relation to a review, the Committee must cease or suspend the review.
(4) If the Minister:
(a) becomes aware that the activity is no longer ongoing; or
(b) is no longer of the opinion that the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations;
the Minister must, within 28 days after becoming aware of the fact or forming the view:
(c) revoke the certificate; and
(d) inform the Committee in writing.
(5) If the Minister revokes a certificate in accordance with subsection (4), the Committee may proceed with the review, or commence a new review into the activity.
With this bill we are dealing with yet another instalment of counterterrorism legislation, part of the steady drumbeat of national security measures presented to this parliament over the last couple of decades. In due course we will be dealing with more national security legislation that will flow from the government's response to the review undertaken by former ASIO director-general Mr Dennis Richardson. This process of constant review and consequent expansion of intelligence and security powers appears to have no end. Over two decades, our intelligence community has grown greatly in size, employing many thousands of staff and spending billions of dollars annually on highly secret operations. The parliament has repeatedly extended the responsibilities and powers of those agencies. They have a vastly expanded mandate to protect the Australian people and to gather information and make decisions that may profoundly affect individual citizens.
In the case of this legislation, which deals with detention powers, the advice of our intelligence agencies may indeed result in persons being deprived of their liberty and fundamental rights. These are very significant powers that must always be exercised with caution, restraint and only on the basis of highly accurate and verified information. I must say, our intelligence agencies are highly professional. But they are not infallible. They do make mistakes. The case of Dr Mohamed Haneef is just one case in which our intelligence agencies got things horribly wrong.
Intelligence is often an opaque and ambiguous business. Consequently, as I have observed previously, I have long been of the view that the parliament's preparedness to increase the powers and authorities of our intelligence agencies and the powers and authorities of the ministers who exercise control over those agencies must be matched with an equal preparedness to improve scrutiny of the intelligence community by the parliament. In this regard, there is a major deficiency unique to Australia among the so-called Five Eyes countries that our Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is explicitly excluded from being able to review the operational activities of the intelligence communities.
Just so everyone is clear about this, our Constitution grants this parliament the ability to pretty much have a scrutiny role over every action, every operation and every bit of expenditure by the federal government, and those powers, as we know, extend beyond that. There is a restriction on the PJCIS asking questions on operational matters, but that's because the parliament decided to do that. That may have been an appropriate decision back when the Intelligence Services Act was given royal assent and when the PJCIS was established. However, as it currently stands, we have a major deficiency in democratic accountability, and I have on several occasions introduced amendments to the Intelligence Services Act to extend the mandate of the PJCIS to cover operational matters. There should be nothing controversial about such a measure. My amendments are closely modelled on the provisions governing the role of the Canadian parliament's intelligence oversight committee.
So far, both the coalition government and the Labor opposition have declined to support these measures. Although Labor have expressed in-principle support, they haven't been able to bring themselves to vote for them, and I'm hoping that they may do that today. The government will stand up and say that Mr Richardson's review has recommended against an expansion of the PJCIS's oversight to cover intelligence agency operations. But that's to be entirely expected. After all, Mr Richardson, a very long-serving national security bureaucrat, had no interest in enhancing parliamentary scrutiny. That's one of the reasons the government chose him, and not some eminent legal figure, to carry out the review. The fix was in from the very beginning. The Richardson review could have provided an opportunity to bring Australian parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence into line with our allies and up to an appropriate standard of democratic accountability. But that was an opportunity the government was determined to miss. So today I once again am moving amendments to legislation to propose that the parliament expand the mandate of the PJCIS to include review of intelligence agency operations and not be limited to scrutiny of just administrative and financial matters.
The argument for this measure is very clear. Intelligence operations can have highly significant diplomatic, military and human rights aspects. Within the bounds of appropriate security and secrecy, the parliament should be able to scrutinise intelligence operations, the success or failure of which may be of vital importance to our nation. Proper parliamentary scrutiny should not stop at the edge of the intelligence community. On the contrary, the special and highly secretive nature of those agencies demands proper democratic accountability, and that accountability cannot be achieved without non-executive members of this parliament being fully admitted into that secret world. The measure I propose is not radical. Again, it is very closely modelled on the mandate of Canada's National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. However, I do not expect the government to support this change.
I understand there are only a few seconds left for this debate, unfortunately, until we hit the hard marker at 1 pm today. Senator Patrick, you are correct in your summation of the government's decision on these particular amendments. The government will not be supporting these amendments. Our longstanding position is that operational oversight of Australia's intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies is appropriately conducted by independent statutory bodies.
The time allotted for debate on the bill has expired. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question on the remaining stages of the bill and then put the question on the remaining stages of the other bills listed in that resolution. The question is that the amendments on sheet 1044, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.
As the opposition amendments were circulated after 11 am, leave will be required for them to be considered. Is leave granted?
No.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Leave is not granted. Pursuant to order, I shall report the bill.
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to and these bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bills.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I have a note here saying that there's a second reading amendment.
Opposition circulated amendment
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the Prime Minister's failure to prepare adequately for the last bushfire season,
(ii) the Prime Minister's catastrophic failure of leadership during the last bushfire season, which Australians have come to know as the Black Summer, and
(iii) the bill largely re-states existing emergency powers of the Commonwealth Government; and
(b) calls on the Prime Minister and the Government to:
(i) learn from their catastrophic failure to prepare for, or respond to, the Black Summer,
(ii) urgently prepare for this disaster season, including by releasing funding for mitigation works from their $4 billion Emergency Response Fund, and
(iii) accept, and implement, the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements' recommendation to develop a sovereign aerial firefighting fleet".
The question is that the second reading amendment circulated by Senator Watt be agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and these bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
From the outset, I want to indicate that Labor will be moving a number of very detailed and important amendments to this bill in the committee stages. We will have a truncated debate, so I call on the chamber to listen to these issues: stopping government from cutting payments to around two million people at Christmas time, including people on unemployment support, students, apprentices, and single parents; requiring the minister, urgently, to consider a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment—the only way unemployment support can be increased is if the government decides to do it, so it can't be done in this chamber, because it involves expenditure; reversing the government's unfair reinstatement of the liquid assets waiting period; requiring the minister to urgently consider extending the beneficial changes that have been made to partner income tests; how much a person can earn before losing their payment; and eligibility rules for sole traders—among other things.
I also move my second reading amendment, as circulated in my name:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes the Government's plans to cut coronavirus support for businesses and individuals; and
(b) calls on the Government to permanently increase the base rate of the JobSeeker Payment".
In this bill, this is not an extension of coronavirus support. It is, in fact a cut. Yes, it extends the time line, but the government is seeking to put a cut in the hands of the Senate and the chamber, when the government has the opportunity to increase that payment of their own volition. The effect of this bill is, in fact, to return unemployment support to the old base rate of only $40 a day from 31 March, by ending the minister's power to make regulations extending that supplement. We vehemently objected to this part of the bill, and we will be moving to amend it. The government could choose not to use that power and cut payments at any time, as they have done twice already. But, in this bill, the government wants to remove this power, and that gives us a clear indication of the government's plan to take unemployment all the way back to the old rate of Newstart in March.
Today, we can see more than a million unemployed here in Australia, and 1.8 million Australians are projected to be on unemployment support by the end of the year. Two million Australians will be impacted by the government's scheduled cut to the coronavirus supplement next March, and, as we know, this includes people who have lost their jobs as well as single parents and students. We also know that the JobKeeper payments end. When businesses can't sustain the ongoing employment of their staff, we will see those people join the unemployment queue on that miserly rate of $40 a day. The base rate for unemployment is simply too low. The government knows that. Every jobseeker in this country knows that. Unfortunately, unless we can act today in the chamber, or unless the government chooses to do the right thing and lift that base, then hundreds of thousands more Australians will also know that—when the JobKeeper payments stop as well.
Unemployment support is what we need in this nation to provide a barrier to people descending into poverty. It sustains local communities and local economies, and those payments also create jobs. Returning the rate to just $40 a day risks placing millions of Australians in deep hardship and jeopardises local jobs. The government, as we know, temporarily boosted JobSeeker at the outset of the pandemic, when the number of Australians requiring support doubled overnight. I find it utterly galling that, while the number of Australians requiring that support might drop as economic activity picks up again, that number is expected to increase by the end of the year and will continue to increase with JobKeeper payments being withdrawn. It is galling that the government, in this legislation, wants to overtly cut that support.
The difficult thing for Labor is that there are many beneficial elements to this bill which must be passed by this parliament. This means things like including the coronavirus supplement for youth allowance—that is, student and apprentice recipients—after December as well as the increased income-free areas, taper rates and partner income tests that have been introduced as part of the response to the pandemic. It means we can't simply oppose this legislation to forewarn the government that we don't want to be complicit in their cuts to JobSeeker payments. The simple fact is: even if the parliament didn't pass those cuts, they'd have the power to make those cuts anyway. We want to give them the power to extend those payments and keep them at a higher level. The bill does schedule a cut to JobSeeker in March, for a return to the old base rate of Newstart. We very much welcomed the introduction of the coronavirus supplement. We consistently called for an increase to unemployment support long before the pandemic. It is simply too low and too inadequate. It does not protect Australians from hardship. It does not enable them to live with dignity.
The coronavirus supplement has been paid to most people through regulation-making powers that the minister has under the Social Security Act 1991. Under those powers the government can extend the coronavirus supplement and set the rate in three-monthly intervals so long as the impact of COVID-19 persists. The government can also choose not to use this power and cut the level of support. But this government has cut the level of support twice—once in September, and it has announced another cut at Christmas. The government has taken the coronavirus supplement from $550 per fortnight to $250 per fortnight, and will make it just $150 per fortnight from Christmas. This bill also repeals the minister's power to indefinitely extend the supplement on 1 April next year. Labor's amendment in this chamber is designed to address this. If there are crossbench senators listening in their offices: I'm asking you to please come into the chamber and vote for this amendment.
Earlier this year Labor requested that the government include a power to the minister within the economic response package—the omnibus act this chamber passed—that would enable the social security minister to make other changes to the social security system to help people impacted by the pandemic. We're very pleased we did that, because there have been new and important ways that the minister has been able to address things like income test thresholds and a range of other things. If it weren't for Labor's instigation of that, people would have been left in hardship. This bill, importantly, proposes to extend this power. It's a power we want to see extended, and we support it. We think the power needs to persist for longer. We want this flexibility to continue because of the ongoing economic challenges that may arise in the course of the pandemic.
Because of this power, which Labor asked for, the government's been able to introduce a more generous partner income test for JobSeeker payments, which we negotiated, and it tapers now at 27c in the dollar and cuts out at a partner income of $80,000 a year. This power has also enabled the government to make changes to the JobSeeker and youth allowance personal income tests. It provided an income-free area of $300 per fortnight, up from $106 prior to the pandemic. It's enabled the government to expand other eligibility criteria for the JobSeeker and youth allowance payments. These now also include sole traders, the self-employed, permanent employees who've been stood down, and people who are self-isolating because they or someone they are caring for has been affected by the pandemic. You can see how important these powers are and how it might be necessary for them to be ongoing. The powers have enabled the government to waive the ordinary waiting period of one week, the seasonal work preclusion period and the newly arrived residents waiting period. They've enabled the government to extend the time people can maintain eligibility for payment and keep concession cards. They've made other beneficial charges relating to pension portability, mobility allowance and self-declaration for couple assessments, all things that have been critically important to the lives of Australians.
In its current form, though, this bill removes the minister's ability to make regulations that waive the liquid assets waiting period and the assets period. Labor does not support this, and this chamber should not support this. The government should not have reinstated the liquid assets waiting period in September. They should drop their cruel plan to make people wait 26 weeks to get unemployment support if they have modest savings—notably, perhaps even if they've taken their superannuation out previously because of the pandemic. People are forced to run down their last dollar, meaning they're more likely to face hardship in things like struggling to pay the mortgage, keeping their car on the road or, importantly, finding new work.
The government's plan to return JobSeeker to its old base rate of $40 a day will only make things harder for the 1.8 million Australians expected to be on unemployment support by the end of this year. Unemployment levels are expected to be elevated above pre-pandemic levels for at least the next four years, and the simple fact is that the government should be helping people back to work, not penalising them because they've lost their jobs. The number of jobseekers far outweighs the number of jobs in the labour market, a problem that is much greater in our regions, and the government have failed to deliver them a jobs plan—no plan for those 1.8 million jobseekers. The government will continue tripping people up with their targeted compliance framework, administered by for-profit companies that in no way serve people getting back into the workforce at a time of high unemployment like this, and the government continue to cynically insinuate that Australians who've lost their jobs have chosen to do so. There is also their ideological obsession with the cashless debit card, which has failed to demonstrate that it actually works.
This bill is a missed opportunity for the government to deliver a permanent increase for unemployed Australians. The government's plan for unemployment and other payments to go back to their pre-pandemic rate on 31 March is laid bare by this legislation. That's why we're moving amendments. We are calling on the government to announce a permanent increase to unemployment support rather than choosing to plunge people into hardship and a risk of poverty this Christmas.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020. Well, here we go again: another day, another group of people being hit and disadvantaged by this government, because, no matter how the government tries to explain this away by saying, 'Actually, what it's about is we're giving people more money; it's not a cut,' it is a cut. So let's start on the basis of the fact that we all knew the JobSeeker payment was too low at $40 a day. The government, very rightly—and we supported it—introduced the coronavirus supplement. They knew that was essential because they knew people couldn't live on the JobSeeker payment of $40 a day; that's been very clear for years and years. Then they cut it by $300 at the end of September, dropping people into poverty because the combined JobSeeker payment plus the coronavirus supplement bring that payment below the poverty line.
Now, despite all the rhetoric, they are cutting people's payments again, when the recession isn't over, despite the claims of the Treasurer, and we are still dealing with issues around the pandemic. They're being cut again, by another hundred dollars, dropping families and people further below the poverty line. I can hear those on the opposite side of the chamber coming out and saying, 'Oh, yes, but they get other payments.' The majority of them get an extra $4 a day for the energy supplement, which takes the JobSeeker payment plus that to $44 a day. This is another hit to the most disadvantaged in our community, who are trying to survive on payments that now don't enable them to meet their rent, meet their essential bills and meet any medical bills they may have. This is another go by this government at those who can't find work. We should bear in mind that last night they passed legislation that continued the cashless debit card for another two years, and that last night a number of us articulated the impact that that card has had on people's daily lives. This is yet another impact that those people are going to have to deal with.
The major change introduced by this bill is the extension of the coronavirus supplement and its reduction to $150 a fortnight from 1 January—that is, just after Christmas—to 31 March 2021. The Greens think it is appalling that the government thinks that people are going to be able to survive following these cuts. I'm foreshadowing a second reading amendment that notes that the measures in this bill will cut the coronavirus supplement from $250 a fortnight to $150 a fortnight and throw an additional 330,000 people into poverty, which means that the government will now have forced a total of 1.16 million Australians below the poverty line since September this year. Our amendment calls on the government to immediately announce a permanent and ongoing increase to the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance so that unemployed and underemployed Australians can live above the poverty line. It is essential that the government increases the rate of JobSeeker, end the uncertainty and end the fact that people can't make plans when they don't know what the payment is going to be. This bill also extends several changes that were made to our social security system through to 31 March next year, including changes to the personal income test for recipients of JobSeeker payment and youth allowance, changes to the partner income test for the JobSeeker payment, and waiving the ordinary waiting period, seasonal work preclusion period and newly arrived residents waiting period.
When the coronavirus supplement was initially introduced at the rate of $550 a fortnight, hundreds of thousands of Australians were lifted out of poverty. This bill will cut income support payments by $50 a week, a few days after Christmas. In doing so, it will reverse the gains made in tackling poverty and plunge record numbers of people into hardship. We started addressing the issues around poverty, and now this government is rushing to take those supports away, dropping people back into hardship. In fact, as I said, this latest cut to the coronavirus supplement will throw an additional 330,000 people into poverty. That means that, when this happens, the government will force an additional 1.16 million people below the poverty line.
Researchers from ANU say that we are now seeing elevated levels of poverty that are well above the levels of poverty we had pre-COVID. Quite frankly, it makes me sick that this government is putting in measures that it knows very, very well will increase poverty in Australia. The timing of these cuts to the coronavirus supplement is simply incomprehensible. The Minister for Families and Social Services should know that emergency relief and financial counselling services traditionally experience a peak in demand around January. What do you think these people are going to need to do when they haven't got enough money? They're going to be reaching out for emergency support, just when there will already be a peak in demand. Why, then, has the government chosen 1 January to make these cuts? They are cuts—that's how they're seen by people on the ground. People on the ground see them as cuts. The government wants to frame this bill as an extension of support, but make no mistake: these are cuts. That is what it means to people's pockets. It's a cut to people receiving the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance and parenting payment.
The effects of this pandemic are far from over. Despite the government trying to talk up the fact that we're moving away from recession, people are still feeling it on the ground. Cutting the coronavirus supplement will only serve to further entrench poverty and stall economic recovery. People want to work, but even before the pandemic there simply weren't enough jobs to go around. Anglicare Australia's Jobs availability snapshot shows that there were 106 jobseekers for every entry-level vacancy. This week, Anglicare Australia released another report, a survey of Australians on Centrelink payments. This report paints a bleak picture of life before the coronavirus supplement was introduced in March and before the JobSeeker payment was, in effect, increased with the coronavirus supplement. It found that 59 per cent of respondents had less than $100 in weekly income left after paying their housing costs—$100 left to pay all their other bills. That was after just housing costs coming out. It showed 72 per cent of all surveyed respondents regularly skipped meals and 14 per cent of young survey respondents had to couch-surf. After the $550 coronavirus supplement was introduced, the percentage of Australians living on $7 a day was halved.
I'm extremely concerned about how unemployed and underemployed Australians will survive when the income support payments are cut to $50 a day, which is what this cut basically does, come 1 January. The government is condemning people to a life of skipping meals every day, couch-surfing and not being able to pay their rent. There are 1.1 million children whose parents are receiving the coronavirus supplement. This bill will condemn hundreds of thousands of children to living in poverty, which we all know has lifelong implications. Children living in poverty are more likely to face food insecurity, lack good relationships and miss out on learning at home. We also know that children from poor households are 3.3 times as likely to suffer adult poverty as those who grew up in never-poor households.
This government talks about wanting to reduce what it calls long-term welfare dependency, yet it fails to recognise how cutting the coronavirus supplement is in direct opposition to this goal. One of the best ways we can lift children out of poverty is by ensuring that the income support payments their parents receive are above the poverty line. I am deeply concerned about the impacts that cuts to the coronavirus supplement will have on older Australians. We know that many older Australians have lost work and suffered the greatest reduction in hours as a result of the pandemic. In reality, if you are aged over 55 and have lost your job, it's highly unlikely that you will be able to enter the workforce again. Anglicare Australia found that income support recipients aged over 45 were significantly more likely to be pessimistic about their future work prospects. By ignoring calls for a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment, the government is condemning older Australians to live in poverty until they reach pension age.
I also worry about the impact this bill will have on people being pushed into debt and needing to seek out predatory payday lenders, because that's where people have to go when they're living in poverty and have urgent bills to pay. When income support payments fall below the poverty line, people are at significantly increased risk of using high-interest short-term lenders and unaffordable debt out of sheer desperation.
As rent and mortgage moratoriums are lifted, we are going to see large numbers of people experiencing financial hardship and debt issues. While the government talks about payroll jobs returning, this holds little hope for the 700,000 people who were on the JobSeeker payment before COVID hit. This bill is going to entrench long-term unemployment by pushing those people on the JobSeeker payment further below the poverty line. We know that searching for work takes time and costs money. By keeping the payment below the poverty line, the government is putting barriers in people's way. People will have less capacity to pay for the costs associated with job searches, such as for clothing, transport and the many other things they need to find work.
I'm also concerned about the impact this cut will have on women experiencing domestic and family violence. We cannot ignore the intersection between poverty and family violence. We have all heard the powerful accounts of how the additional $550 a fortnight has supported women to leave family violence situations and re-establish their lives. I am extremely concerned about what the ramifications of cutting this payment will be for those women.
These cuts will also impact on the mental health and wellbeing of unemployed Australians. I really struggle to listen to the government doing shiny press conferences on mental health when they are turning around and cutting income support in the next one. Living below the poverty line for an extended period of time impacts people's mental health. It exacerbates existing health problems and creates new ones. People are understandably fearful about what happens next and how they will keep a roof over their heads.
This bill contributes to poverty by permanently ending the pause to the liquid assets waiting period and the assets test from 1 January 2021. It is absolutely premature to reintroduce these tests when millions of Australians are experiencing unemployment and underemployment. Older Australians who are being forced to wear down their savings before they can access support are going to be particularly worse off. I've also had people tell me how they've accessed their super and how that now means they cannot apply for JobSeeker because they don't meet the liquid assets test. It's appalling that, because of the liquid assets test, people are being forced to use their super, when we know that super is supposed to be there for their retirement.
We cannot not support this bill, because, if we don't support it, people won't get the reduced payment. But we absolutely resent and call out the government for cutting these payments way too early, because it is going to drop so many people into poverty. The government needs to announce a permanent, ongoing increase to JobSeeker to ensure that people won't be living in poverty and won't be living with uncertainty about their futures because they don't know how much money they're going to have in order to live.
I rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020. Through this bill, we are extending temporary increased financial support for Australians for an additional three months, from 1 January 2021, which is when the supplementary payments were originally slated to finish, to 31 March 2021. The Morrison government is committed to supporting individuals and families and the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic by providing additional financial assistance to people who have lost their jobs or whose income has been reduced. Quite simply, this bill will provide more money for people, ensuring that no Australian is left behind as our economy is recovering and while that recovery is still in its infancy. The government is still closely monitoring economic conditions. It would be irresponsible not to. It is committed to maintaining—and remaining flexible about—the support measures that we have.
To date, our temporary measures have successfully supported Australian businesses and individuals through the global economic shock and uncertainty. But we understand that challenging conditions continue. The government has committed economic support at levels never previously seen, totalling $507 billion, or around 26 per cent of GDP. This is in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Importantly, this support is largely temporary, which means that the government is not locked into the superexpensive ongoing payments. This is a responsible way we can provide the economic support that Australians need. This is why we are legislating this amendment here today. The government is providing a safety net to those that need it most, while, importantly, maintaining those incentives that are important to get people into work.
This bill responds to improving economic conditions in Australia, which is great news for Australia. As health measures in place to respond to the coronavirus pandemic have further relaxed, we are recognising that the global economic growth across the world is tepid at best and it's coming off a very low base. But it must be noted at this point that Australia's economic growth over the last quarter has been world leading. We came out of a recession and had 3.3 per cent economic growth, with Al Jazeera describing our economic recovery as an 'unprecedented kangaroo hop'. Our economy's recovery has been world leading not only because of its scale but also because of its flexibility and the government's commitment to broad consultation. Rigid and prescriptive measures simply would not have worked. It is worth at this point commending the opposition for their mostly bipartisan support for stimulus and support measures.
This legislative framework allows government to extend temporary measures in the income support system to provide additional support to Australians impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. The instrument-making power will be used to enact the following settings to 31 March 2021. We'll see the most visible of the changes in the extension of the coronavirus supplement for an additional three months at the rate of $150 per fortnight, meaning no change to JobSeeker or other payment rates until at least the end of March. We are going to be extending the personal income test for JobSeeker and youth allowance recipients. This is very important, because it is providing an additional $300 that's permitted in income and a 60c taper rate, as well as adjusting the taper for partners of those on JobSeeker payments to 27c per dollar.
We are standing side-by-side with Australians, particularly with Australians who have been hard hit by the economic impact of this pandemic. This bill continues to support and provide the minister with the authority to support Australians as required during this holiday period and all the way through to March. I commend this bill to the Senate.
It being 2 pm, we'll go to questions without notice.
I advise the Senate that Senator Reynolds, the Minister for Defence, will be absent from question time today, Thursday 10 December 2020, due to ministerial business. In Senator Reynolds's absence, I will represent the Minister for Education and the Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education in respect of regional education. Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel, the Assistant Defence Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry. Senator Cash will represent the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts.
My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Why did Mr Morrison and his ministers have to be asked six times in the House in question time over this week before finally telling the truth and admitting that their own legislation will enable cuts to the take-home pay of workers?
I thank Senator Wong for her question. I can't say that I have been in the House of Representatives question time this week, nor have I reviewed the sequence of questions that were asked there—
Six times! Why can't you tell the truth?
Senator Wong, your question relates, obviously, to the types of reforms to industrial relations that our government has outlined—reforms that build upon the pillars of our economic recovery plan in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic and the shock waves that it sent across the global economy and our own. Although our economy has withstood those shock waves far better than most of the rest of the world, seeing businesses survive that elsewhere would not have survived and seeing jobs survive that elsewhere would not have survived, we still face challenges in terms of that economic recovery. And so that we do get the continued growth in jobs that we have enjoyed, that has brought us to this stage of the comeback from COVID-19, we are making sure that through the budget we deliver in relation to growth and investment to make sure that Australians, through our tax reforms, have got more money to spend, to make sure that businesses have got more incentive to invest and to make sure that there is confidence to employ as well.
Our approach right through this pandemic has been one of engagement and consultation, be it with the states and territories or be it with business or the trade union movement—and we welcome, and thank them for, the cooperation that has been shown through the different stages of the pandemic. We equally welcome the fact that in relation to reform of the IR system, looking forward, there was a very lengthy consultation process, bringing together the different groups for over 180 hours of industrial relations discussions, all of them designed to try to get collaboration and consultation around— (Time expired)
Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
My supplementary is to give the minister a second chance to be honest with working families and admit that the government's new laws enable cuts to take-home pay, at the end of one of the hardest years in the lives of so many Australians.
The reforms we're putting in place are, first and foremost, about getting more Australians into jobs. Australians have the best chance of having the best pay packet when they are in a job, when there are more Australians in jobs and when we see growth in the jobs market. In terms of Australians being better off, employees in casual work wanting to transition to part-time or full-time work will be better off under the reforms that we are proposing.
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
I asked both in the primary and in the first supplementary about cuts to take-home pay. I ask the minister to be directly relevant to that question.
Both of your questions, Senator Wong, did have some politically loaded phrases in them. The minister, in my view, can't be instructed to answer a part of the question. He is talking about the specific policy and package of bills, and I do consider that to be directly relevant because he is talking about the government's policy and not anything else. Senator Birmingham.
Thanks, Mr President. In relation to Australians in jobs being better off, as I was saying, those in casual work wanting to transition to greater levels of permanency will be better off under our reforms. Those part-time employees wanting more hours of work in key industries will be better off. Employees worried about being underpaid will be better off under the reforms that we have outlined. Employees working in significant greenfields projects—
Order! Senator Wong on a point of order?
Cuts to take-home pay; that's the question—direct relevance. Why won't you tell the truth, Simon?
The minister is being directly relevant.
Why won't you tell the truth?
Mr President, we are making sure—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong—
that Australians will be better off, because there will be more incentive for more jobs. With more jobs, you've got more opportunities for Australians to succeed and get ahead.
Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Despite repeatedly denying its legislation permits the take-home pay of working families to be cut—before finally conceding it will!—earlier this afternoon Mr Porter said of his legislation, 'There's plenty to keep everyone interested and alert.' What else in this government's reforms under Mr Morrison should workers be alert to?
I would be interested to have time to go and look at the transcript of Mr Porter's remarks. I'm sure Mr Porter was probably being asked about something like the Senate inquiry that may well occur, of which I have no doubt those opposite will run a scare campaign, as they already are every step of the way in relation to the consideration of this legislation. I know that they can't help themselves in terms of wanting to run a scare campaign. They can't help themselves. They will opt for negativity; they will opt for the scare; they will opt, of course, for mistruths and misleading at every step of the way.
We are quite happy, having gone through an exhaustive consultation process in this legislation, to now submit it to the scrutiny of the parliament, to have the extensive Senate inquiry and to give the opportunity for those who want to find points of interest in the bills to debate them through that Senate inquiry and for the facts to shine through, because the facts will show that these reforms will be good for Australian businesses and employment and will create more jobs for more Australians.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister inform the Senate how the Morrison government has stood alongside Australians through the challenges our nation has faced this year?
Senator Ayres interjecting—
Senator Ayres, count to 10.
Australia and the world have faced a year like no other. I thank Senator Paterson for his question, because indeed we are indebted and grateful to all Australians for all that they have done this year as the nation has stood together in response to the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression in the face of a once-in-a-century global pandemic. Australians have demonstrated their resilience and they should be congratulated and thanked for the efforts that they have made, the sort of resolve and spirit our country has been built upon.
Indeed, all levels of Australia have been challenged, including governments, and we have worked to stand alongside Australians in terms of the actions we've taken to save lives and livelihoods across our country. We quickly closed our international borders when the threats were evident that the transmission of COVID would most likely spread through the international transactions of individuals. We put health measures in place to suppress the spread of the virus. Our first aim was, and still is, to keep Australians safe.
We then, of course, in recognising the impacts of those measures to keep Australians safe, worked hard to cushion the inevitable economic blow that would follow. We put in place, most notably, the JobKeeper program, the single largest support measure ever introduced by an Australian government. We created JobKeeper and we have extended it and transitioned it in ways to keep Australians safe and secure in their livelihoods. The Reserve Bank has indicated and assessed that JobKeeper helped to save 700,000 Australian jobs. Our measures have, throughout the course of this year, provided the best opportunity for Australians to have their lives and livelihoods protected and they have put us in the strongest possible position for the future.
Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?
Minister, can you outline how our economic comeback from the COVID-19 pandemic is building in momentum?
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order, Senator Wong! I know it's the last question time.
We do have strong data coming through to show that, although there is a tough road still ahead, the economic comeback in Australia is well and truly underway. We know that the recovery has some way to go and that we face many global headwinds, but indeed consumer confidence has once again surged to its highest level in a decade. When Westpac's monthly index jumped 4.1 per cent their chief economist, Bill Evans, said, 'After only eight months, the evidence seems clear that sentiment has fully recovered from the COVID recession.' That's only sentiment. We acknowledge that the work is in continuing the strong jobs growth that we have seen to date and to make sure that we get Australians back into more jobs. That's what our budget is built around and what our policies are built around—maintaining that whilst also seeing Australia's AAA credit rating reaffirmed and the support to make sure that we have growth across the economy.
Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?
Minister, how is the Morrison government's focus on creating jobs paying off for Australian workers and the Australian economy?
The growth in jobs and employment is encouraging. There is, as I've stressed, a way to go, but over the last five months almost 650,000 jobs have been created, including 334,000 jobs of Australian women and 226,000 jobs of young Australians. The effective unemployment rate has come down from the peak of 14.9 per cent to 7.4 per cent, whilst the workforce participation rate is at 65.8 per cent and approaching its precrisis level.
Australia's strength as we entered this pandemic was indeed the fact that we had record levels of employment alongside record levels of workforce participation. We had managed to create resilience in the Australian economy and, pleasingly, we have seen that resilience see us through these tough times. By global comparisons, Australians can hold their heads high at the way in which we have managed together to keep Australians safe and secure this year.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In this morning's Australian Financial Review,in an article entitled 'Porter retreats in union brawl', it is reported that the Morrison government may amend or even dump provisions of its industrial relations bill. Is the government persisting with its attempt to cut the take-home pay of Australian working families?
That is absolutely not the intent or the purpose—nor will it be the result—of the government's reforms. As I have said time and time again in this place, the government is implementing these reforms to create the best environment for jobs and employment growth to continue strongly in this country. We've seen some 80 per cent of jobs that were lost or had reduced hours due to the pandemic regained to date. That shows there's still work to do in other ways. We also know from the cooperation that occurred during the pandemic that there are opportunities for efficiencies and improvements to occur in our industrial relations environment and workplace relations space. That's what these changes seek to do. They seek to ensure that we get practical improvements to the way in which the workplace relations system works.
In terms of those practical improvements we expect to see real gains for businesses and employees. Without business success there is no employment success. That is a key point that is fundamental to everything about job creation in this country—without business success there is no job success. So we have to make sure our businesses are successful. Our investments, be they in infrastructure, skills or tax reforms and incentives, are all about creating the environment for jobs growth. These reforms are about creating the environment for jobs growth as well. These reforms will create more jobs so that any worker ultimately wanting a job will be better off as a result of them.
Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question?
Senator Stoker said in her first speech:
Industrial relations reform is something our nation desperately needs and which the conservative side of politics should promote.
Does Senator Stoker support the retreat floated in this morning's papers?
Of course, Senator Stoker gave a fine first speech, as I recall. I again congratulate her on it, and on many fine contributions since. In terms of those arguing for these types of reforms, why don't those opposite listen to small business? The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia have said very clearly that the types of reforms we are proposing are about managing your business and everything else in the agreement so that you can survive. If you're a worker you'd rather have a job, and small business are of course committed to trying to create those jobs, and we are committed to delivering those jobs. It says it all that those opposite, in their scare campaign, have already resorted to anonymous newspaper stories and not even bothered to look at the legislation, the details and the fact that they are sensible, measured reforms. (Time expired)
Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question?
Mr Jason Falinski, Mr Tim Wilson and Senator Bragg have advocated for greater industrial relations flexibility, jointly authoring an op-ed and lobbying within the coalition. Do coalition backbenchers support the retreat by the Morrison government flagged in this morning's papers?
It's hard sometimes to follow the strategy of those opposite. Indeed, the Australian people have found it hard in recent elections to follow the strategy of those opposite. The first series of questions from those opposite I was asked today seemed to suggest that the reforms are too harsh, and now Senator Gallacher has based all his questions on whether we've backed down and the reforms aren't harsh enough or something. These reforms are sensible, thoughtful reforms based on extensive, lengthy consultation.
Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
On direct relevance. The question is whether or not there has been a backdown. We invite him to tell his coalition colleagues if there has been a retreat or not.
That is not a point of order, Senator Wong.
I don't know whether there is a split over there, whether Senator Gallacher is actually arguing there are further reforms that ought to be in this package or not. But I can assure him and every other senator and every Australian that these reforms are the result of hours upon hours of work and consultation between the government, the union movement and businesses in seeking to find sensible approaches to create a more secure employment environment. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. On 8 December the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, appealed to British authorities to immediately release Julian Assange from prison or place him under guarded house arrest during US extradition proceedings. Minister, today is international Human Rights Day. Will the minister join this call from the UN special rapporteur on torture in calling for Mr Assange's human rights to be protected?
I thank Senator Rice for her question. I haven't specifically heard about Professor Melzer's call today, but I have previously said that the government rejects any suggestion by the UN special rapporteur that the government is complicit in alleged psychological torture or has shown a lack of consular support for Mr Assange. As far as I understand and am advised, the special rapporteur has not been in contact with the Australian government to raise these concerns directly. I have specifically raised the situation of Mr Assange and his conditions previously with senior British officials, and I am assured that his circumstances are appropriate and humane.
Senator Rice, a supplementary question?
Minister, I acknowledge your diplomatic and political work to secure the release of Kylie Moore-Gilbert and note that these efforts went well beyond consular assistance. Will the minister recognise that Mr Assange's situation is not simply a consular case and offer the same diplomatic and political support to secure his release?
I don't believe it is possible to directly equate cases such as these in the consular context or, in fact, in the legal context. Currently, Mr Assange's extradition case is adjourned until 4 January next year, when Her Honour will hand down her decision. I'm not going to provide a running commentary on those legal proceedings, but the Australian government continues to monitor Mr Assange's case closely, as we do for Australians in detention overseas. As I've previously advised the senator, in the context of estimates, consular officers have attended his extradition and other court—
A point of order with regard to relevance. My question was very simple: will the minister recognise that Mr Assange's situation is not simply a consular case?
Again I say to senators: you can't simply get up and repeat part of a question without making a point as to how the answer is not relevant to all of the question. Senator Payne was being directly relevant to the question at that point, talking about the assistance being provided, Senator Rice.
I was going to add to my answer that consular staff have had discussions with Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh authorities. They are assured that Mr Assange has access to the care that he needs. Due to privacy considerations that we extend to all consular clients, I am not able to able to disclose any further information relating to Mr Assange.
Senator Rice, a final supplementary question?
Minister, 65 of approximately 160 inmates in Belmarsh prison have tested positive for COVID, putting Mr Assange at serious risk. Will you make representations—you personally—for his transfer to house arrest for the duration of the extradition proceedings to protect his health and his human rights? Today is international Human Rights Day.
Unfortunately, Mr Assange has withdrawn consent for the Australian government to consult about his personal circumstances, his health and his welfare in prison. Mr Assange withdrew that consent on 13 June last year. We have raised on a number of occasions, with the United Kingdom government and with prison officials, our expectations of how he would be treated. The high commissioner in the United Kingdom has received direct assurances that Mr Assange is held in appropriate conditions with access to a full prison regime of medical support and access to legal advice, noting prison COVID-19 social distancing—
Senator Rice, on a point of order?
Yes. Thanks, Mr President. Again, my question was whether the minister would make personal representations—
Senator Rice, resume your seat. You can't stand up and simply repeat a question. What is the point of order?
It's relevance. My question was: would the minister make personal representations?
Sit down, Senator Rice. Senator Payne was being directly relevant to the answer—directly relevant.
Let me conclude by saying that the high commission has written to Mr Assange 18 times offering consular support since his agreement was withdrawn on 13 June last year. The most recent time was on 8 December. We have not received a response from Mr Assange or his legal team to any one of those 18— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It concerns the recent signing of a memorandum of understanding between the government of Papua New Guinea, the Fly River provincial government and China's Fujian Zhonghong Fishery company for the construction of a $200 million multifunction fishery industrial park on the island of Daru, in close proximity to the Torres Strait. Did the PNG government consult with the Australian government prior to entering into this agreement, which was announced by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and strongly backed by the Chinese ambassador in Port Moresby? What views has the Australian government expressed to PNG about this project? What are the national security implications for Australia of a permanent Chinese fishing presence next to the Torres Strait? Is it not the case that such a presence will complicate our security and provide China with a new foothold for interference in PNG?
I thank Senator Patrick for his question and for some brief advance notice of the nature of his question. I am aware of a memorandum of understanding being signed on 13 November this year between Papua New Guinea's Western Province provincial government, the Chinese fishing company, Fujian Zhonghong Fishery Limited and the Papua New Guinea National Fisheries Authority. While bilateral arrangements are a matter for the respective countries, we are in contact with the Papua New Guinea government on the reported memorandum of understanding, in particular to ensure that the full range of Australian interests, including fisheries protection, are fully safeguarded. We are highly trusted partners, Australia and PNG, as demonstrated in the signing of our comprehensive strategic and economic partnership on 5 August. Even in the context of COVID-19, we were able to implement the CSEP. We have the closest of relationships at both the political and operational levels.
I would advise the chamber it is our view there is some way to go before any material activity commences in relation to this MOU. Normal monitoring and enforcement actions by Australian authorities continue to operate to particularly protect our fisheries. We expect all fishers in the Torres Strait region to follow respective Australian and Papua New Guinea laws and international obligations. Our engagement in the Pacific is driven by our commitment to the shared Blue Pacific vision of a secure, stable, inclusive and prosperous region. It is Australia's view that all external partners must respect our region's collective security interests. We make that clear in our engagement and we expect others to do the same.
Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?
What are the implications for the operation of the Torres Strait treaty, especially the treaty's provisions relating to fishing activities likely to arise from a large Chinese maritime facility particularly at Daru, including the potential operation of Chinese-controlled fishing vessels under the PNG flag in the Torres Strait? Given that the Chinese fishing fleets have a well-known tendency for the overexploitation of marine resources, how will Australia protect the marine ecosystems of the Torres Strait from their degradation?
I think that is a good question, and there will be more work to do on this matter, clearly, as we seek to understand more in relation to the details of the memorandum of understanding between those organisations and the Papua New Guinea government. But I would advise the chamber that the Australian Border Force has an ongoing presence in the Torres Strait. It has a very close working relationship with law enforcement agencies and with our Papua New Guinea counterparts.
Commercial scale fisheries would not be considered a traditional activity under the Torres Strait treaty and would not be permitted. Only residents of the protected zone are able to undertake such activities, which is intended to protect the air, the sea, the land of the Torres Strait, including the native plant and animal life included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, the CITES, such as dugongs and turtles.
Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question?
Given Australia's status as PNG's top aid donor, with $596 million in assistance in 2020-21, and our close bilateral ties including our support for PNG's response to the COVID-19 crisis, will the Australian government press PNG to be mindful of our national security concerns in relation to China? Will the government propose to PNG any specific alternatives to replace the proposed fishing vessel projects at Daru?
There are a number of issues in Senator Patrick's question, but the first thing I would reiterate is the closeness of the Australia-Papua New Guinea partnership, manifested literally in August of this year by the signing of a comprehensive strategic and economic partnership. That says we have the closest of relationships at the political and operational levels. As I said, there are a number of aspects to Senator Patrick's question, but one thing I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to is the work we are doing in Western Province, for example, to address their health and development challenges, including through our investment in the Mabudawan Health Centre, and in food and water security. We will continue to support Papua New Guinea's recovery in both health and economic terms from COVID-19. We have a number of programs in relation to water, food security and sanitation, which are very important to the recovery and strong continuation of the region, and we will work closely with our partners on that. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Could the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government has kept Australians in jobs and supported Australian businesses through the unprecedented labour market challenges of 2020?
I thank Senator Van for his question. As 2020 draws to a close, I would like to thank all the small and family businesses out there—the almost 3.5 million of them that employ almost six million Australians each and every day—for everything that they have done in what has been an incredible challenging year for them, a year like no other and, more than that, a year that they could never have predicted.
This year, as we all know, Australia and Australians have been tested like never before. Lives and livelihoods have been lost, and many Australians, including those in small and family businesses, through no fault of their own are doing it tough. COVID-19 has without a doubt had a devastating impact on the Australian economy. But we've actually ended COVID-19, particularly when you look at the labour market, from a position of economic strength. Again, that is because of the hard work and dedication of our family businesses and small businesses out there.
In February 2020, Australia had a record number of people in employment—13 million Australians were in employment. This included a record number of women in employment, it included a record number of Australians in full-time work and it included more than 1.9 million youth in employment. When we came to office in 2013, we said that we would be a job-creating government, that we would put in place the economic framework that would allow businesses to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. Since we were elected to office, we have now overseen the creation of 1.5 million jobs, and full-time employment has accounted for around 57 per cent of total jobs growth over that period. We acknowledge that governments don't create jobs; we put in place a policy framework. To all of those businesses out there, small and family in particular, we say thank you.
Order, Senator Cash. Senator Van, a supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. Minister, how has the Morrison government delivered record economic support to help Australians through this unprecedented crisis, and to stay connected to jobs?
Well, Mr President, as you know: to protect the health of Australians, tough decisions had to be made by the government. Part of those decisions were to close down parts of our economy. What did that mean? It meant that businesses, through no fault of their own, had to close their doors. As a result, many jobs across Australia were lost. But what we did as a government was move quickly and decisively to put in place record economic support to support the economy and households to get through COVID-19. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate has already stated today, this included JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the cash-flow boost, the SME guarantee scheme and the early withdrawal of superannuation. We put in place a suite of policies that businesses and Australians were able to look at to see what suited them. As a result of these measures, we have now seen 648,500 jobs return in the last five months. Again, we thank those businesses doing the right thing by Australians and giving them a job.
Order, Senator Cash. Senator Van, a final supplementary question.
Thank you. As the world looks forward to 2021, is the minister aware of signs of recovery from the setbacks of the coronavirus, and what is the government doing to support this comeback?
The policies that we put in place have ensured that businesses have been able to reopen their doors and, in many cases, keep them open and also get Australians back into jobs. When we look at the national effective unemployment rate, it has fallen to 7.4 per cent from 14.9 per cent. Almost 75 per cent of those who had lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19 are back at work. Certainly there are, encouragingly, signs of recovery. The OECD has upgraded Australia's economic outlook by 0.3 per cent, confirming our economic recovery is underway. The OECD has also emphasised the Morrison government's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic and specifically pointed to JobKeeper, personal income tax and the JobMaker hiring credit as all assisting in getting us to where we are today. Again, it is those small and family businesses that are the backbone of the Australian community, and we say— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. How many Australians are stranded overseas and registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as wanting to return home?
I thank Senator Keneally for her question. Around 39,000 people overseas are registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and wish to return to Australia. Over 430,000 Australians have returned from overseas since the government recommended that Australians reconsider the need to travel overseas. Since March, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported over 32,700 Australians to return, on over 500 flights. That includes over 11,200 people on 77 government-facilitated flights since March. A further 118 passengers landed in Hobart on Sunday from Delhi on a DFAT-facilitated flight with Qantas. Since 23 October, DFAT has facilitated 13 flights, with 1,847 passengers. Those numbers are, of course, constrained by the capacity of quarantine availability in Australia, through the caps supplied by the states and territories and agreed by the National Cabinet. Further facilitated flights with Qantas are planned for Frankfurt, Chennai, Paris, London and Delhi. Since 18 September, when the Prime Minister spoke about these matters after National Cabinet, over 45,400 Australians have returned to Australia. That includes more than 17,500 Australians registered at that time with DFAT, and, of these, over 3,800 were vulnerable. We continue to help those who are vulnerable through our hardship provisions, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has distributed significant funds to a number of those Australians. The consular division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our consular offices around the world are literally working, with no exaggeration, no hyperbole, 24 hours a day and seven days a week to assist as many Australians as possible to return.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
How many of the 39,000 who are currently stranded were registered with DFAT on 18 September, when Mr Morrison promised to have them home by Christmas?
I don't have the numbers broken down, in that construct that Senator Keneally has asked about. As I said, since 18 September, over 45,400 Australians have returned to Australia. That includes more than 17,500 Australians registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The process of supporting Australians and organising flights means that, in the last four weeks alone, we've made more than 30,000 offers of places on flights to Australians registered overseas. That's resulted in around 3,000 people taking up nearly all the seats available to us on relevant flights. There are Australians who are not able to accept flights that are being offered to them. There are Australians who indicate that they have multiple ties to the country they are in, who are not able to depart immediately. Some airlines are being allocated additional capacity, specifically for vulnerable Australians— (Time expired)
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
The minister has previously advised the Senate that 26,000 Australians were registered with DFAT on 18 September. If 17,000 have come home, that would suggest some 9,000 are still stranded—on the day the Prime Minister made that promise. Given today is 10 December—the last day for stranded Australians to land in Australia, quarantine for two weeks and spend Christmas at home—what does the minister have to say to those 9,000 stranded Australians who will be stranded overseas for Christmas as a result of Mr Morrison's broken promise?
I absolutely reject Senator Keneally's characterisation in her question. Since 18 September, over 45,400 Australians have returned to Australia, including more than 17,500 Australians registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Today, tomorrow and every day between now and the end of this year—and, frankly, into next year—we will continue to support Australians to take flights, particularly vulnerable Australians, who we have supported on facilitated flights. I indicated there are further flights planned for Frankfurt, Chennai, Paris, London and Delhi. There is no denying that this is a very, very difficult situation, not just for Australians here but internationally and the government absolutely recognises that. The government recognises it is difficult for families, it is difficult for individuals, but we are working—(Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. The increasing trade tensions with China are escalating the concern of Australian farmers and export focused businesses and highlighting the need for Australia to secure our sovereignty and diversify of our trading markets. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal and Nationals government have been growing our export opportunities for Australian businesses to drive the comeback from COVID-19?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! We're nearly there!
on indulgence—Can I again acknowledge, with the late Susan Ryan's family in the gallery, the enormous contribution that she made, in a groundbreaking way, to this nation.
I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. There is no stronger advocate for so many of Australia's exporting industries than Senator McKenzie, and indeed I know full well how strongly she and all members on our side have championed the interests of our export industries in recent years. In recent years our government has succeeded in bringing into force more trade agreements that provide more opportunities for new markets than any other government in Australian history.
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership included new free trade agreements with markets in Canada and Mexico, and in doing so eliminated more than 98 per cent of tariffs across them. The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement sees this year over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported by value entering duty free or under significantly improved preferential access. It is a long-sought-after agreement with Indonesia that we have secured and delivered. The Hong Kong agreement guarantees all Australian goods enter duty free. The Peru agreement eliminates more than 99 per cent of tariffs by 2024. PACER Plus, I am pleased to say, will enter into force this Sunday and will support our Pacific neighbours, particularly in their economic recovery from COVID-19. These come on top of the trade agreements negotiated earlier in the life of our government with the three large north Asian countries of China, Korea and Japan.
On Tuesday this week we brought into force our world-leading digital economy agreement with Singapore, which improves regional digital trading conditions and makes it easier for exporters to do business. Meanwhile, we have implemented some 26 of the actions under the 15-year India economic strategy of our government, delivering opportunities in that market and in so many others for Australian businesses to grow.
Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question?
Can the minister please outline what action Australia has either considered or is pursuing through the World Trade Organization to stand up for Australian primary producers following the imposition by China of prohibitive tariff increases on Australian wine and barley?
Indeed, I have expressed, as has our government, our deep dissatisfaction and concern with the actions of China in a number of areas disrupting trade by Australian exporters into that market. We have, as a government, used and stood by the rules based international trading system, based around the World Trade Organization. We have done so by initiating a dispute with our friends in India on concerns about sugar subsidies. We, indeed, initiated a dispute with our friends in Canada in relation to wine subsidies. In that matter, we settled the arrangements with Canada on those wine issues following dialogue and discussion. I emphasise that just because you get to the point of initiating a WTO dispute it doesn't take dialogue off the table. The opportunity will always remain to do so, and whilst we consult and consider initiating such action against China in relation to barley, we also wish the Chinese government would come to the table and be willing, as Australia is, to have that dialogue to resolve these disagreements. (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister outline what the Liberal and Nationals government is doing to create further export opportunities for Australian farmers and businesses?
Whilst having achieved many new market opportunities for Australian farmers and businesses, we have been relentless in seeking to create even more. During our time, we have grown the amount of Australian trade covered by preferential terms from 26 per cent up to 70 per cent. Recently we signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, providing more common rules of origin across the nations of our region, which will make it easier for goods exporters and provide new opportunities for services exports across the region. We are actively continuing to negotiate with the United Kingdom and the European Union to secure trade agreements with those entities and economies as well as with the Pacific Alliance countries of Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Chile. We are also reengaging with India as part of our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership arrangements with India on a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement. We are also building on a new economic cooperation program with Vietnam and on our strategies to pursue opportunities with the market of Indonesia.
Order, Senator Birmingham.
My question is to the What is the lowest hourly rate a young frontline supermarket worker could be paid under the Morrison government's industrial relations changes, and can the minister guarantee no young worker will be worse off as a result of the Morrison government's industrial relations changes?
I don't have access with me to every award available to workers in Australia. I will have to take on notice the award rates for young people working in supermarkets. But the reforms that we are seeking to bring in as a part of our industrial relations reform are about making everybody better off—about businesses being better off and employees better off, and, of course, about creating jobs so the economy is better off. That is the focus of the legislation that we are bringing forward. That is why we work every day to ensure that the economy can recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. We have some, I think, quite sensible suggestions to put forward as a part of this package. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate said today, there have been over 170 hours of consultation between the government and the unions with respect to developing a package of reforms—sensible industrial relations reforms—that can be presented to this country in the interests of all Australians, whether that be younger Australians and older Australians or whether that be business and the economy more broadly. We need to have the flexibility in the economy and in the system to be able to create new jobs and for industry to create new jobs and to employ young Australians and older Australians alike. That is the focus of the reforms that we are bringing forward. We want everybody to be better off. We want young Australians at work to be better off, we want older Australians at work to be better off, we want business to be better off and, clearly, we would like to see the economy better off.
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
I note the minister won't guarantee that young workers will not be worse off. Can the minister guarantee that a 61-year-old frontline aged-care worker will not be worse off under the Morrison government's proposed industrial relations changes, and can the minister guarantee that no older worker will be worse off as a result of the Morrison government's industrial relations changes?
Can I say the claims that are being made by the opposition with respect to aged-care workers in the last couple of days—the suggestion that they will have a wage cut by Christmas—are an absolute disgrace, given the hard work that aged-care workers in particular have undertaken over the last 12 months. The suggestion that aged-care workers are going to get a cut in their salaries by Christmas is an absolute disgrace.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong is on her feet. Senator Wong?
The word 'disgrace' coming out of this minister's mouth is interesting.
Order! To the point of order—
My point of order is direct relevance. He was asked a question about whether or not older workers would be worse off as a result of the government's changes. I ask him to return to that point.
While the people who asked the question may not like the terms in which it is answered, he is addressing the point raised in it, and there's an opportunity, I think today after question time, to debate it. I call the minister to continue. He was being directly relevant. Senator Colbeck.
The suggestion that aged-care workers are going to get a wage cut for Christmas is wrong. It will not happen. It's a disgrace that the Labor Party is suggesting it.
On a point of order: it is the Morrison government's industrial changes about which we are asking. I'm asking him to return to that point, Mr President.
That was part of the question. I think, with respect, Senator Wong, I've allowed you to emphasise it. He is talking about what I would consider to be the policy currently before the other place that is the subject of the question. There are 16 seconds remaining. Senator Colbeck.
Coming from this party, who at the last election specifically ruled out an increase in wages for aged-care workers—
Order! What I will say is that a phrase in response to a point in question can still—I will hear your submission, Senator Wong.
Mr President, how can what this party may or may not have done prior to the last election possibly be directly relevant, under the standing orders, to a question which goes to the effect of this government's proposed industrial relations changes? If you say it's not going to happen, guarantee it.
Mr President, on the point of order: I've almost lost count of the number of points of order that Senator Wong has chosen to take in interrupting Senator Colbeck. On the point of order, Senator Colbeck, in responding to this question, has spoken very clearly about aged-care workers, the wages of aged-care workers and the wage arrangements for aged-care workers. And the repetitive points of order from those opposite, now seeking to take one sentence out of a two-minute answer that has overwhelmingly being directly relevant, is simply an abuse of procedures and the standing orders.
On the point of order, I have ruled previously that a glancing phrase in an answer is not going to make someone not directly relevant. An answer that consisted of attacking the opposition or outlining their policy would not be directly relevant. That said, I do grant some latitude to the Leader of the Opposition in making points of order, and I think I do need to allow the minister, when points of order are made and parts of the questions are restated, to use a glancing phrase in response to that. He did at the end of that, in my view, turn back to the answer, because he was then talking about the wages of these particular workers. Senator Colbeck.
The intention of the reforms that are being proposed, as I said before, is to make people better off— (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Gallagher is on her feet. Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
Given the minister has demonstrated a failure to answer simple questions across his portfolio areas, will this be his last question time as a minister in this place?
I look forward to continuing to do my work within this portfolio. I know that all of us on the front bench serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and I respect that enormously. I look forward to continuing to do my work. One thing I do know, and one thing that gives me great satisfaction, is that, whatever happens in the reshuffle when it comes, that lot will still be on the other side.
I—
Government senators interjecting—
Senator Davey's on her feet. Order on my right, on this occasion.
That was a good response, though. My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Minister, could you please outline how the Liberals and Nationals in government are supporting our agricultural sector through the recent natural disasters: bushfire, drought and now COVID and the COVID recession?
I thank Senator Davey for her question and also her longstanding interest in all things agricultural. The Australian agricultural industry has a proud history of overcoming adversity. If you want to look at strength in the face of adversity, you don't have to look much further than the subject of Senator McKenzie's book which was launched today, 'Black Jack' McEwen. Like previous conservative governments, the Morrison government will continue to back our agricultural sector. We'll back them through droughts, we'll back them through floods, we'll back them through bushfires, and this year we have backed them through the coronavirus pandemic. By committing to them drought support—$10 billion—
Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order?
My point of order is about the prop on Senator McKenzie's desk.
Actually, I didn't see that.
If senators want to read a good book, I'd recommend former Senator Ludlam's book A Secret Australia.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Sit down, everyone. We've nearly made it. Everyone just bite their tongue for four more minutes. Senator McKenzie, reading material of that nature would not be in order in the chamber anyway, I understand, so I think it probably needs to be placed in your drawer or a folder.
As I was saying, conservative governments over the years have had a very proud relationship with our agricultural sector, and this government is no exception. We will stand side by side with our farming sector through tough times to make sure that we continue to roll out programs that will support the huge contribution that the Australian agricultural sector makes to our economy. As an example, through the coronavirus pandemic, the government announced a $328 million Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package to grow our food and fibre exports. From day one of the pandemic, the government recognised the pivotal role that agriculture would play and particularly the pivotal role that agriculture will play in the economic recovery. We've made sure not just that we look after the agricultural sector itself but that our supply chains remain open and safe, making sure that our access to the rest of the world remains in place by, for instance, addressing the airfreight shortages and the disrupted supply chains overseas through the International Freight Assistance Mechanism put in place by Senator Birmingham. We stand side by side with our farmers.
Senator Davey, a supplementary question?
Thank you, Minister. As you've described, the past 12 months have been incredibly challenging. Can you please tell the chamber how our agricultural industry have performed in the last 12 months despite the challenges they've faced?
Once again, thank you, Senator Davey, for the opportunity to say what a great industry Australian agriculture is and to acknowledge the fact that, despite the headwinds that this industry has been experiencing over recent times, it remains an industry with a great ability to thrive under adversity. In fact, on Monday, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences revised its outlook for agricultural output in 2021. The gross value of agricultural production is forecast to rise by seven per cent to $65 billion this year. Given we've had droughts, fires and the coronavirus pandemic, this is an outstanding result, and it is an absolute testament to the resilience of our Australian agricultural sector. This government, the Morrison government, will stand side by side with our farmers to make sure we work with them to achieve $100 billion worth of agriculture.
Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?
Finally, Minister, as we head to the busy Christmas holiday season—and I wish all of my farmers harvesting at the moment a happy harvest—how can we Australians continue to support our farmers and our regional communities?
As we all know, and there will be no argument from anybody in this place, Australia produces the best food and fibre in the world, and that's why our food and fibre commands the premium prices that it does. It's not only clean and green; it's sustainably grown, and it's produced ethically. This festive season, I'd urge everybody in this place and everybody watching—because I'm sure the whole of Australia's watching question time today—to buy local. If you can, have a look and make sure that that little green and gold icon that says Made in Australia is at the forefront of your mind when you're purchasing Christmas presents or food to share with loved ones over Christmas. It could be apricots from my home town in the Riverland. It could be mangoes from the Northern Territory that you want to put on top of the pav or, in the case of our colleague from the Northern Territory, you could make a mango daiquiri out of it. There are prawns from Coffs Harbour and Moreton Bay Bugs. There are so many amazing Australian products that you could be putting on the table this Christmas. I urge you to buy Australian.
Order! Senator Polley.
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. This year, 2,000 aged-care residents contracted COVID-19 and tragedy struck 685 people, who died under this minister's watch in residential care. Why has the minister not resigned?
Actually, Senator Polley's not correct with the number of people who've died as a result of COVID in aged care. The number is 693. Eight people who had been receiving home-care packages have also tragically passed away. To each one of those 693 families and their communities, I extend my sincerest condolences and the condolences of the government. It's a tragedy that we've had to suffer the pandemic that we have this year. I think, as we come to Christmas, it is the pertinent thing for us to do to reflect on the year that we've had, to reflect on the tragedy that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought upon us all and to again extend our sincere condolences to all of those families who have suffered a death because of the effects of the pandemic.
As I said earlier, when I was asked about my position, I will continue to work at the pleasure of the Prime Minister with respect to my portfolio responsibilities. I take my role in this place and in my portfolio extremely seriously. We are in the middle of a very significant reform process. I look forward to the final report of the royal commission, which is due on 26 February. I continue to work with my department and my colleagues on the reforms that we will bring to this place off the back of the royal commission report. I continue to apply myself to the role, which is the responsibility that the Prime Minister's given me, and I will continue to do that, hopefully, through the process that we'll go through with the reshuffle.
Senator Polley, a supplementary question?
In the Morrison government's broken aged-care system, we heard shocking stories of ants crawling from wounds and older Australians not dying of COVID-19 but of neglect. Is the minister confident he will remain in portfolio at the end of this month?
I take my position in this extremely seriously. Quite frankly, none of this that we're dealing with is about me. The thing that is in my focus is that 1.2 million Australians are receiving care, whether that be CHSP home care, veterans care or residential aged care, as part of the service delivery provided by aged-care providers around the country. They are my focus. This is not about me. I will continue to have and place my focus on all of those Australians who are receiving care—that is my responsibility—and I will continue to do that assiduously while ever I hold this role.
Senator Polley, a final supplementary question?
Under this minister's watch there was no dedicated plan for COVID-19 in aged care. Tens of thousands were attacked and assaulted in his broken aged-care system; ants crawled from wounds; 693 older Australians in residential aged care died. As a result, the Senate censured this minister. Will this be your last appearance in question time as Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians? Because it should be.
This government has never pretended that everything was all well with the aged-care system. It was this government that called the royal commission into aged care. The interim report of the aged-care royal commission reflected on over 20 years, across a number of governments of both political persuasions, about the impact and the progression of the aged-care sector. It was this government that took the responsibility to call the royal commission. It is this government that will respond to it. This opposition has at every opportunity failed to act, including in the budget reply speech, where not a single cent or home care package was allocated. As I said before, whatever happens in the reshuffle, this lot will still be on the other side.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
As so many books were waved around during question time today, I'm very excited to be able to table for the Senate the ACCC's report of the inquiry into perishable agricultural goods, which I'm sure will be a thrilling read for all.
I table a determination made by the Speaker and myself made under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 relating to the appointment of the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Rice today relating to Mr Julian Assange.
Sadly, the answers she gave me were tragic. Minister Payne and this government refuse to recognise the desperate situation of Julian Assange and refuse to recognise that it's much more than a consular case; it requires diplomatic and political engagement. I was also struck and shocked by her callous disregard to the threats to Mr Assange's health due to the risks from COVID—and this on international Human Rights Day. It is tragic on international Human Rights Day to see the minister refusing to recognise or to defend the human rights of Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, and to provide him with the support that he deserves.
As I was reflecting in preparing my question today, in responding to the minister I want particularly to acknowledge an important book that has been published on Julian Assange. It is A Secret Australia: Revealed by the WikiLeaks Exposes, in which 18 different Australians reflect on what Australia has learnt about itself from the work of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. It's very relevant to the minister's response to my question today. It includes contributions from many people, including from Julian Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. She notes in her contribution that the only reason Assange remains in prison is the US's extradition request and their indictment, which the Freedom of the Press Foundation has described as a terrifying threat to press freedom. His indictment has been unanimously denounced by journalists, unions, and free speech and human rights organisations, and still Australia takes no action. She says the Australian government claims it is offering consular assistance, but this unprecedented case requires more; it requires diplomatic and political action. That was exactly the point of the question that I put to Minister Payne today.
Something I also think is very relevant is the contribution in this book from my former colleague former senator Scott Ludlam. In his chapter, entitled 'Free Julian Assange', Scott writes:
… the WikiLeaks publications have taught us two things about how power works in the increasingly uncomfortable West. There is the raw material itself: a meticulously indexed and utterly damning archive of great power, malevolence and manipulation. And then there is the reaction: how our own government has dealt with an inconvenient publisher. It looks different to how they do it in Israel, North Korea and Russia, but the outcome is the same. They have sought to destroy the messenger; not just as punishment, but as a warning to all other messengers.
Every authoritarian since the beginning of time has known that repression has a habit of provoking anger and defiance instead. The choice is entirely on us. Fear is a natural reaction when we realise our governments will destroy us without hesitation if it serves their interests. Feeling that, understanding it in the same way that incarcerated refugees understand it, that First Nations people understand it, is what can bring us to that moment of defiance and anger. Know then that none of us are alone in this, that the anger is shared, and widespread, and growing.
This is a rallying cry that rings true to me. On reflecting on Human Rights Day today and Minister Payne's appalling response to the question of the human rights of Julian Assange, we recognise that there is so much more to be done for human rights here in Australia and internationally. Domestically, on top of our inaction on truth and justice for and treaties with our First Nations peoples is, of course, our incarceration of refugees and asylum seekers, both onshore and offshore. So we must fight to ensure that all Australians have fundamental human rights and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. We must passionately, consistently and ceaselessly highlight attacks on human rights wherever they occur and affirm our solidarity with people who are working to uphold human rights in the face of authoritarianism and dictatorships.
I conclude by mentioning the case of Idris Khattak, who is a prominent human rights defender in Pakistan. It's been more than a year since he was abducted and it took six months for the Pakistani Ministry of Defence even to acknowledge they had him in custody. I call on the government of Pakistan to ensure that his rights are protected, his safety is guaranteed and he'll be returned to his family as soon as possible.
International Human Rights Day is a time to look at the human rights of everyone, from people like Julian Assange to people being oppressed right across the world. It's something we need to continue ceaselessly. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
by leave—I table a non-conforming petition relating to extradition between Australia and Samoa.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the report of the committee on all aspects of the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
We are blessed that we live in one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the world.
Our good fortune has not come through chance. Our democracy works because over a century a lot of people, paid and unpaid, have worked to make it so through blood, sweat and tears.
Our democracy works because countless Australians have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms inherent in democracy.
As society has changed, so should our electoral system be fine-tuned. Now is the time for immediate action by parliament on certain changes and for a longer conversation about other reforms.
To maximise voter choice, compulsory preferential voting should be replaced by optional preferential voting. To increase fairness and to reduce the luck of the ballot draw while minimising the so-called donkey vote, the Robson rotation of candidates on the ballot paper should be introduced in tandem for the House of Representatives.
Elections should not only be fair, open and transparent; they should be seen to be so. An important element is the sanctity of the electoral roll and the importance of each citizen equally exercising one vote. Voter identification should be introduced for all voters, with savings measures similar to provisional votes.
Likewise, all electoral enrolments, whether new or changes, should require proof of identification.
The pre-poll voting period should be reduced from three weeks to a maximum of two weeks. Voters who choose to vote early should be required to explain why they are unable to attend on the day, rather than it being a matter of convenience.
The Electoral Act should be completely rewritten to make it fit for purpose. A new offence of political violence, both physical and verbal, should be introduced.
The rules governing the use of party names should be tightened to restrict the use of existing party names by new political entrants.
Parliament should also commence a conversation about whether the House of Representatives should be increased in size, as the last change was in 1984. Part of the dialogue should consider whether the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives should be reformed.
In addition, consideration should be given to changing the term of the House of Representatives from three years to four years. Likewise, a discussion on the utility of by-elections is overdue. By-elections could be abolished, with the party or group elected at the general election choosing the replacement. In a similar vein, an MP who voluntarily resigns from a party under which they were elected at the general election will be deemed to have vacated their seat.
We sleep safely in our beds protected from the claws of the banality of evil because we decide who governs. These reforms are about empowering further the voter. Governments in democracies should always be wary of the voter. Long may it be so.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in this report, has found that GetUp has been not a witness of the truth for a second time now. Paragraph 6.94 of the report tells us the committee notes that this is 'the second occasion that GetUp has misled it'. This shameful and wilful misleading of a parliamentary committee is serious and strikes at the very heart of how we do our business of democracy and parliamentary inquiries in this country. Moreover, it reflects the complete lack of ethics of this now completely discredited organisation, which acts without a moral compass. At paragraph 6.93, the committee find:
… GetUp's submission, dealing with purported specific findings made by the AEC, is misleading and note that, despite repeated opportunity and invitation, GetUp has failed to correct the record.
So the inescapable conclusion is made at paragraph 6.91 of the report:
The JSCEM believes that GetUp's submission to this inquiry is misleading, remains misleading and, that GetUp has failed to correct it, despite being provided ample opportunity.
The findings made against GetUp need to be made as the independent AEC has been egregiously misrepresented by this fringe-dwelling, morally-challenged organisation. The modus operandi of GetUp has always been to mislead or misrepresent. For GetUp the end justifies the means. Having been conceived in deceit, it unabashedly practises deceit—be it its deceptive vote calculator, be it the misrepresentation of coalition policies, be it misrepresenting the Australian Electoral Commission, be it encouraging bird-dogging and pretending to know nothing about it or be it giving false evidence under oath. This ugly organisation has a history of distortion and manipulation. Many honest Australians have been unwittingly sucked into GetUp, which has now been exposed as being conceived in dishonesty and practising it on an industrial scale.
In Boothby and Mayo, female Liberal candidates were stalked and harassed by creeps linked to GetUp. The Boothby stalker worked hand in glove with the GetUp SA Action Network. Despite its declared low-control strategy and its promotion of bird-dogging, GetUp still refuses to accept responsibility for the inevitable results. Meanwhile GetUp phone canvassers pretended to empathise with electors about their children's future while peddling poison and misinformation about coalition candidates. So in another election there was another dishonest campaign by GetUp, all predicated on the lie that it is somehow independent.
Let's read the actual submission made by GetUp to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. On page 3 of its submission it says in black on white:
The AEC ruled in GetUp's favour as recently as February this year, specifically finding:
GetUp campaigns are 100% issues based …
No such finding, specific or otherwise, has been made by the Australian Electoral Commission. Indeed, the Australian Electoral Commissioner, not once but twice, repudiated that false assertion. Yet GetUp continued with its submission and did not seek to change its evidence until the very end. It also claimed:
The AEC ruled in GetUp's favour … specifically finding … GetUp plays an important role on election day…
Mr Oosting, the CEO of GetUp, was challenged in relation to these assertions: 'Where is the evidence? Where is it? How can you quote the Australian Electoral Commission or commissioner in saying this?' He was unable to provide any shred of evidence. There was not a single letter in support of that false assertion. Not to be outdone by two untruths, the third one asserted was:
The AEC ruled in GetUp's favour as recently as February this year, specifically finding … GetUp is nonpartisan.
It is not the role of the Australian Electoral Commission to make such a finding. It has not made such a finding in relation to any organisation for the very simple reason that it cannot. It is not empowered to do so, so it would not do so. The Electoral Commissioner gave unequivocal evidence that that was a falsehood as well. Despite this being brought to GetUp's attention and being in public forums, GetUp pursued and continued with this untruth. Why do they do it?
Because by asserting that the Australian Electoral Commission has made these findings, false as that assertion is, they get money in from the unwitting Australian public, and good, decent Australians make not only a financial commitment but then also a personal commitment to support what they honestly believe to be a good and decent organisation.
This report once and for all explodes the myth about GetUp. It is now fully exposed as peddling dishonesty not only in relation to coalition policy but by egregiously misrepresenting the independent Australian Electoral Commission and its commissioner, Mr Rogers. This is very, very serious. That any organisation would even think of doing it, let alone actually do it and then think they can get away with it, is indicative of the thought processes in which the GetUp movement engages. These are extremely serious matters. These are matters that show that there is an organisation that has corrupted our political system and our democratic system in Australia.
We have seen what GetUp and its supporters did in the electorate of Warringah in relation to the posting of posters about the former member Mr Abbott. The New South Wales police need to tell us, given the CCTV footage, whether they have pursued the perpetrator, because there is very clear imagery that I would suggest to anybody shows that the perpetrator was one Mr Scott Marsh. Indeed, there are very telltale handprints on his tracksuit trousers. He's been photographed with those handprints on his trousers on a number of occasions, which of course tells us two thing: (1) he doesn't change his trousers very often; and (2) the chances are, more importantly, that he is the graffiti artist. I would encourage the New South Wales police to pursue this matter, just as they pursued Mr Marsh when he had a Black Lives Matter graffiti presentation with a burning police car. That is what excited the New South Wales police—as it should have done—just as much as this egregious behaviour in relation to Mr Abbott should have been pursued. I look forward to the New South Wales police doing that which they should be doing.
How can there be any credible CEO of an organisation that has been exposed as misleading a parliamentary committee not once but twice? How can a board continue to exist presiding over such an operation knowing it has misled a parliamentary committee not once but twice and has egregiously misrepresented the Australian Electoral Commission and its commissioner? So today I call for the resignation of the board of GetUp and its CEO for egregiously misrepresenting the Australian Electoral Commission and misleading a parliamentary committee, which is misleading under oath, which in fact is perjury. They should go, and the quicker the better. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Senator Abetz, your time has expired.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, I present the 180th report, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Mr Ben Davies. I move:
That the report be adopted.
This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified. On 13 November 2020, the President received a submission from Mr Ben Davies related to a question asked by Senator McAllister in the Senate on 12 November 2020. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution 5. The committee considered the submission at its meeting today and recommends that the proposed response be incorporated into Hansard. The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the response it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate.
Ordered that the report be adopted.
Response as recommended by the committee incorporated accordingly—
Appendix 1
Mr Ben Davies
Pursuant to Resolution 5(7 ) ( b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988
Reply to comments by Senator McAllister (12 November 2020)
1. On 12 November 2020, I was mentioned adversely in the Senate by Senator McAllister in a manner which would identify me.
2. The comments by Senator McAllister referred to me in my capacity as a former Chief of Staff to Senator Cash.
3. During Questions Without Notice on 12 November 2020, Senator McAllister made the following statement in reference to me:
" Is this the same Chief of Staff that was under investigation by the AFP for illegally leaking to the media and confirmed to be the source of the illegal leak… "
4. The assertion by Senator McAllister that I was "under investigation by the AFP" is incorrect. The assertion imputes that I was suspected of engaging in criminal conduct. Any suggestion that I was "under investigation" or had engaged in such conduct is completely false, defamatory and without foundation. Other than assertions such as those by Senator McAllister in the Senate under the cover of privilege, I am not aware of any suggestion to this effect by any other person.
5. It is an extremely serious matter to be under investigation for alleged criminal conduct. It is equally serious to falsely impute that a person has been.
6. The further assertion by Senator McAllister that I was "the source of the illegal leak" is also false. I have not engaged in any "leak" of information, whether legal or otherwise, to any member of the media. The imputation that I have is completely false, defamatory and without foundation. Other than assertions such as those by Senator McAllister in the Senate, under cover of privilege, I am not aware of any suggestion to this effect by any other person.
7. Given that the comments made by Senator McAllister on 12 November 2020 directly led to injury to my reputation, and were false, I seek this opportunity to provide the ascertainable facts and correct the Senate record.
Ben Davies
13 November 2020
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This is a very serious matter where somebody was maligned in this place—I'm willing to believe that it may well have been accidentally—by a Labor senator. This is a process that does allow people to have their reputation restored. Being the deputy chair of the Privileges Committee, I just wanted to agree with the report and thank the committee for the bipartisan—tripartisan, in fact—work that it does for the betterment of this place and its processes.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present two reports: one on general issues and one on the NDIS workforce,and I move:
That the Senate take note of the reports.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the 485th report of the committee, Cyber resilience: inquiry into Auditor-General's reports 1 and 13 (2019-20).
I present the government's response to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into the current requirements for labelling of seafood and seafood products, and I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report:
An inquiry into the current requirements for labelling of seafood and seafood products
December 2020
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the exemption regarding country of origin labelling under Standard 1.2.11 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code for cooked or pre-prepared seafood sold by the foodservices sector be removed, subject to a transition period of no more than 12 months.
The Government notes this recommendation.
In 2016, the Australian Government implemented ambitious reforms to origin labelling requirements applying to food products sold through retail. The reforms give consumers clearer and more meaningful information about the origins of food they purchase in retail. Food grown, produced or made in Australia and sold in a retail setting will now be clearly identifiable through the iconic kangaroo in a triangle logo. The new labels became mandatory on 1 July 2018. Further information on the new origin labels is available at foodlabels.industry.gov.au.
As part of the reforms, origin labelling requirements were moved from Standard 1.2.11 in Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code into the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) with the full implementation of the Country of Origin Labelling Information Standard 2016 (Information Standard).
To ensure the Information Standard balanced consumers' origin information needs with regulatory costs to businesses, the Government maintained the longstandinga1a exemption of foodservicea2a from mandatory origin labelling. The exemption was maintained through agreement with the ministers of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs (CAF), consisting of all state and territory governments.
The longstanding exemption of foodservice from mandatory origin labelling does not mean origin information is unimportant in foodservice. Consumers' values and habits are constantly changing, and the way businesses operate is also evolving, so the balance struck by the reforms must be reassessed to ensure it remains appropriate. The Government committed to evaluate the 2016 Country of Origin Labelling reforms in 2020-21, and that will present an ideal opportunity to engage with consumers to understand their preferences and desires, and to determine whether any adjustment to the existing CoOL arrangements is warranted.
1 The exemption for food for immediate consumption was included in Standard 1.2.11 when it was first gazetted in December 2005.
2 Foodservice encompasses businesses selling food to the public for immediate consumption. The sector is comprised mainly of restaurants, caterers, canteens, takeaways, cafes, pubs, clubs, bistros, hotels, motels, fish and chip shops.
On behalf of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, I present the interim report of the committee on Australia's general aviation industry.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020. As chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on this bill. This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 12 November this year. It was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee that day, with the committee delivering its report on 27 November.
The impact of the global coronavirus pandemic, which affected us so greatly this year, continues to be felt by Australians. Australia's highly targeted income support system is designed to support those who are unable to support themselves through work, savings or other means. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian government has assisted individuals, families, communities and businesses through the introduction of a wide range of temporary support measures. The Australian government is committed to supporting those impacted by COVID-19 through providing financial assistance to people who have lost their jobs or who have reduced income. To this end, we are extending the temporary coronavirus supplement for an additional three months, until the end of March 2021.
This temporary continuation of the coronavirus support measures includes extending the coronavirus supplement for an additional three months at a rate of $150 per fortnight; extending changes to the personal income test for recipients of the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance to allow earnings of up to $300 per fortnight; extending changes to the partner income test for the JobSeeker payment; extending expanded eligibility criteria for the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance to allow sole traders, self-employed and permanent employees who have been stood down by their employers or people who have been directed to self-isolate to continue to be eligible for payment; extending the waiting period waiver, seasonal work preclusion period and newly arrived residents waiting period; extending the period during which income support recipients can maintain eligibility for payment and retain their concession card while receiving no payments due to employment income until 16 April 2021; and other minor policy changes, such as extending pension portability arrangements, under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020.
This bill also allows the minister to temporarily modify social security law to respond to circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as when changes were applied in March and April to address the high volume of claims made to Services Australia at the height of the economic impact. Without this proposed extension, the minister's powers to make such changes will be automatically repealed on 31 December 2020.
We know that the temporary support measures that were introduced earlier this year have been successful in supporting Australians through a time of great economic shock and uncertainty. Eighty per cent of the 1.3 million people who lost their jobs or had their hours reduced to zero at the start of this pandemic are now back at work, and, over the five months to October, almost 650,000 jobs returned to the labour market. This includes almost 344,000 jobs for women and around 226,600 jobs for young Australians. The effective unemployment rate has come down from a peak of 14.9 per cent to 7.4 per cent, and the participation rate is at 65.8 per cent, which is approaching the pre-coronavirus level. October labour force figures show that market conditions have continued to improve, with employment increasing by almost 179,000 over the month. Full-time employment increased by 97,000, or 1.1 per cent, which is the largest monthly increase on record, and part-time employment rose by 81,000, or two per cent. The number of hours worked also increased by 20.6 million hours in October.
These labour force results show us that when coronavirus is contained and businesses have reopened across the country, jobs will return. National Skills Commission data show more businesses are looking to hire new staff now. In April this year, as we were grappling with restrictions imposed to combat coronavirus, less than five per cent of businesses expected to increase staff, but now that figure has risen to 24 per cent, and 47 per cent of employers are recruiting now, which is up 25 per cent on June's figures. After large falls between February and May this year, it is great to see gains in employment within accommodation and food services of almost 130,000 jobs, within retail trade of 59,600 jobs and within arts and recreational services of 53,000 jobs.
The NAB business survey found business confidence improved significantly in October 2020, rising by nine points to its highest level since May 2019. And the monthly Westpac–Melbourne Institute Survey of Consumer Sentiment index rose by 2.5 per cent in November, following an 11.9 per cent increase in October after the release of the federal budget. One of the reasons Australian business owners are confident is that their revenue is starting to increase. The ABS Business Indicators Survey showed 24 per cent of businesses reported an increase in monthly revenue in November, compared to 16 per cent in October, and 25 per cent of businesses expect their revenue to continue to increase, which is the highest percentage since this pandemic began.
The Reserve Bank of Australia has confirmed that Australia's economic recovery is well underway and has upgraded its forecast for Australia's economic growth and for our labour market. As Treasurer Josh Frydenberg pointed out when he spoke about the September quarter of the national accounts on 2 December, Australia's AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed, with Australia one of only nine countries in the world to have an AAA rating from the three leading credit agencies. In the September quarter, real GDP increased by 3.3 per cent, beating market expectations and making it the largest quarterly increase since 1976.
The RBA said the JobKeeper program has saved at least 700,000 jobs, and that government support programs helped to boost household savings in the June quarter. The figures speak for themselves. There were two million fewer workers and around 450,000 fewer businesses on JobKeeper in October, compared to September, and we have seen a drop in the number of people receiving JobSeeker payment. In mid-November, there were 1.46 million on JobSeeker and youth allowance, which is down from 1.57 million at the end of September. This recovery has been supported by the Australian government's record $257 billion investment in economic support through JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the cash flow boost, the coronavirus supplement and the two $750 payments to millions of pensioners and income support recipients, with more support in the form of two additional $250 payments on the way in coming months.
But we know we have a tough road ahead. We also know that the pandemic continues to provide challenging situations for many in our country. So we wish to extend the temporarily increased safety net for a further three months. The Australian government is very focused on supporting all Australians as we fight this virus and its impacts so we can open our economy again. The extension of support provided for in this bill will cost $3.2 billion, which builds on the overall response package of $507 billion invested since the crisis began. The 2020-21 federal budget was all about creating jobs, led by the $74 billion JobMaker plan to get people back into work. The HomeBuilder program has also been extended by a further three months, providing a $15,000 grant to build a new home or for a substantial rebuild and also boosting jobs within our construction industry. Jobs will continue to be our focus, because a healthy economy supports all Australians.
This government is focused on responding to this situation as it unfolds. While the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a situation that nobody could have expected, we have demonstrated that we will continue to monitor the situation and provide appropriate support. But we won't pre-empt future circumstances. We have always been clear that these enhanced levels of social security support were temporary and targeted. The plan is clear until the end of March 2020, in that we are providing an additional level of support while encouraging and helping people to get back into the workforce. We must strike the right balance between temporary enhanced support and providing incentives to work.
The provisions outlined within this bill will further support Australians as we continue to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill builds in additional flexibility to adapt to new circumstances as the country transitions to a post-COVID economy. This bill is part of a broader suite of measures aimed at ensuring Australians are supported to engage with the workforce, which in turn supports our economy to recover. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020. The bill extends the coronavirus supplement from 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2021, at the reduced rate of $150 per fortnight. This bill will force almost two million people to try and live on $51 a day, at Christmas time, and then go back to the unliveable rate of $40 a day in April 2021. There is an abundance of evidence and information out there which shows that this is not an adequate amount to live on and actually entrenches welfare dependency.
Forty dollars a day is not enough to cover the basic expenses of food, housing, transportation and health care, let alone if you get sick and need to buy medication or have to go to the dentist, get prescription glasses or attend specialist appointments. There is barely any room in the tight budget for getting a haircut or buying new clothes—items which help individuals to be presentable when they try to get an interview. There is no money for unexpected bills. There is no money to engage in any hobbies or buy loved ones presents. How can people rebuild their lives if they can't have these basic things?
It's unfortunate that those opposite haven't had any lived experience and haven't actually talked to people that are unemployed and looking for work—because maybe then they would have a little bit of compassion and understanding about how difficult it is to rebuild your life when you have lost your job. As uncovered by the Senate inquiry, this low rate of payment results in entrenched poverty, which further exacerbates social exclusion and poor physical and mental health outcomes, and increases homelessness. The Liberal government's disdain for people receiving social welfare means that they don't look at the evidence of how increasing this supplement would not only help people's welfare but also, importantly, help the broader economy.
The impacts of this pandemic are likely to last for some time. Following the release of the quarterly GDP data last week, which showed Australia's economy had grown by 3.3 per cent, the Treasurer himself heeded the warning that it would be a long bumpy road to recovery. The government have predicted that employment will not return to pre-COVID levels by at least 2024, but they committed themselves to cutting support at the end of March and have given no indication that they will permanently increase the rate of JobSeeker. This bill is a missed opportunity for the Morrison government to deliver a permanent increase to the base rate of unemployment support. That's why Labor is moving an amendment calling on the government to permanently increase the base rate of the JobSeeker payment.
The majority of submitters to the inquiry into this bill welcomed the introduction of the coronavirus supplement in April 2020 and noted the positive effects that it had on individuals, families and the community. It meant that people were not living in poverty, particularly single parents with children. The Salvation Army and Mission Australia both commented that their organisations witnessed a significant decrease in the number of regular users of their emergency relief services—that's a good thing—because people could afford to buy essential items such as fresh food and were able to pay for their housing, health care and other basic needs, and were able to pay their electricity bills et cetera. These are things that everyone should be able to do.
A reduction of the coronavirus supplement will contribute to the rising inequality we are experiencing in this country, which has been exacerbated by this crisis. It is well recognised, including by previous Senate inquiries, that the rate of Newstart, now JobSeeker, is inadequate, and it has been recognised as such for a long period of time. The appropriate thing to do is to not only maintain the supplement but go for a permanent increase so that people who have lost their jobs can live in dignity until they become re-employed. This year has clearly highlighted—and all Australians have been alerted to this, I believe—that the rate of $40 a day is simply not enough. As members of the Liberal government themselves have stated, the idea of going back to $40 a day was a 'fairly cruel and unusual punishment'. It's okay to make those comments, and I appreciate those comments in the public arena or in this chamber. But you have to follow them up. You have to put pressure on your frontbench and on your Prime Minister to ensure that the rate for those jobseekers is increased.
Following the unprecedented measures put in place to protect our health from COVID-19 we've seen a once-in-a-generation recession—the deepest and darkest that we've experienced in over a century. Despite being delayed, the federal government's response with the COVID virus economic supplement support made a very positive impact on people's lives. We've seen people able to pay for their housing, electricity and gas bills, turn on the heating during winter, pay for their water, telephone and internet bills, pay for medications and, most importantly, eat enough healthy food, pay for their children's activities, buy clothing and shoes for themselves and their kids, participate in some activities and even address outstanding debt. We have seen women able to re-establish their lives with reduced anxiety, having left violent family situations, as well as recover and regain confidence in establishing themselves into a pathway of employment. Now we will see this support ripped away from people who are already vulnerable. People shouldn't have to fall into poverty because they've lost their job, but reducing JobSeeker back to $40 a day will do just that. Not only would permanently increasing the rate of JobSeeker improve the social welfare of hundreds of thousands of Australians; an increase would be good for our local jobs and local economies, particularly in rural and regional areas. Most importantly it would help my home state of Tasmania.
Social security recipients spend an estimated 58 per cent of their payments on retail goods or services at supermarkets, convenience stores, pharmacies, essential merchandise stores and other small businesses. It is projected that the scheduled end of the JobSeeker payment will take the equivalent of $8½ billion per year from the retail sector. That's $8½ billion every year. The equivalent of 130,000 Australian retail jobs are also on the line if we return the rate of the JobSeeker payment to its old base rate. Australians on social security will have less to spend on local and small businesses, and these local and small businesses will have less to spend on wages or on creating jobs. Even before COVID there were strong arguments for making a permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment. What COVID has done is give us a strong evidence base for thinking and realising—and for the government to come to terms with—that we need to make it a permanent increase, without it having significant adverse effects on the incentive to find work.
We could have a substantial increase in JobSeeker without adversely affecting incentives to take up paid work. I don't believe the sort of rhetoric that comes from people like Senator Hanson, who likes to come in here and try to grab headlines whenever she can to badmouth and run down people who are unemployed. If they're One Nation people or they're migrants, then they're targets for what she has to say. All people who are unemployed want to go out and find a job that is satisfying and will lift their standard of living. There has been no data to suggest that the higher level of JobSeeker during 2020 has had any considerable effect on incentives not to take up paid work. There has been no evidence of any significance, and that needs to be corrected on the record. The notion that it has had an effect is just based on the Liberal government's and Senator Hanson's distorted view of people who receive welfare payments and continues their ideological crusade. With more than seven jobseekers for each job vacancy, there are simply not enough jobs for everyone in my home state. It is even more difficult to find a job in our regions as a result of the government's failure to deliver a jobs program for it.
The travel restrictions imposed by COVID-19 in my home state of Tasmania have resulted in a dramatic reduction in tourism, which is an industry that directly and indirectly—as you, Madam Deputy President, and Senator Urquhart well know—employed 40,000 people and brought in approximately $4.5 billion to the state annually. Due to the ongoing restrictions and the downturn in economic activity, there are currently around 27 jobseekers for every job application, and the unemployment rate is set to increase throughout next year. There are seven jobseekers for every job across Australia, and there are 27 jobseekers for every job in my home state.
It essential that we continue to provide adequate support for these people so that thousands of Tasmanians and Australians who are unable to find work can attain a basic standard of living. That is not only something that Labor has been calling for for some time; economists, those on the crossbench and industry specialists have all said that there needs to be a permanent increase in the rate of JobSeeker. Right now it is more important than ever, with 1.8 million people set to be on unemployment support by the end of this year—and numbers are still predicted to be above pre-recession levels until 2024.
Initially through COVID, the Morrison government demonstrated that they had the will to spend money on welfare. But they have failed to acknowledge how important it is to ensure that people who are unemployed have a basic living payment to give them dignity and allow them to rebuild their lives. These people have been given a reprieve until the end of March. But what happens to them in April 2021? They will go back to receiving an amount of money that it is impossible to live on. I remember only too well, back in the eighties when my family were trying to survive, that you can't live on welfare payments; all you can do is try and survive. There are unexpected expenses, or your children want to go on a school excursion and you don't have the money. It can be that you get to the end of the fortnight and you can't find enough coins to buy a carton of milk—that's the reality. If your washing machine or your fridge breaks down, or even something as simple as your iron breaks down, you won't have the reserves to be able to buy a new appliance.
That's the reality for people who are on welfare. And it's certainly not because they don't want to work. It is certainly not because they waste their money. But every bit of their money is circulated in their local economy.
That's the difference between the government and the people on this side and most of the crossbench: we understand. We understand because we listen to these people. We have these people coming to our offices and contacting us on a daily basis—people who are desperate. We have them crying in our offices. This is the time for the Morrison government to step up, and they need to do it now.
I'd like to make a contribution in this debate today, really just to put on record my concerns about the government's intention to scrap the increased rate of JobSeeker, come March next year. Really, the government's position, which is that JobSeeker should revert to the pre-pandemic level of $40 a day, is another example that, for all of their claims that Australians are in this together, that is not what this government are about. In fact, what they are preparing to do is to leave millions of Australians behind while we remain in the worst recession that this country has seen in decades.
Labor is putting forward amendments to this bill that I sincerely hope the government will support, because those amendments are intended to ensure that we continue to see the higher rate of JobSeeker that we have seen through COVID-19 remain in place once we get to March next year. As I say, if the government doesn't support those amendments, then, come March next year, the well over a million people in this country who are unemployed and the similarly huge number of people who are underemployed, unable to find the number of hours of work they need, will return to the poverty-level JobSeeker payment that we saw prior to COVID-19, that rate being $40 a day.
It is well documented, whether it be in the Senate inquiry reports, in other research or just from talking to someone who was on Newstart prior to the pandemic, that the $40-a-day level that the government had in place and stubbornly refused to increase condemned Newstart recipients to poverty. I've heard stories, whether it be in the media or in direct conversations with unemployed Australians, about the difference it made when the government agreed to the coronavirus supplement and a higher rate of Newstart than it had been pre-COVID. It meant, for instance, that single parents were able to actually put salad—a piece of tomato, a piece of lettuce—on their kids' sandwiches when they went to school, because pre-COVID, when we had the $40-a-day level, kids in single-parent families weren't able to have a bit of salad on their sandwiches because their families didn't have enough money to pay for it. No Australian and no Australian child should be forced to live in that sort of situation because of the mean-spiritedness of their government. But that is what we saw from this government before the pandemic when they stubbornly refused to increase what is now JobSeeker, and that's what we will see again if the government does not accept the amendments that Labor is putting forward to make the increase to JobSeeker permanent after March. If the government doesn't do it, it will condemn those Australians to poverty. And we're talking about not just unemployed Australians. We're talking about, all up, around two million Australians who will be affected by this, who will lose the increased payments that have been in place through COVID-19. It's unemployed Australians, it's young people receiving youth allowance, it's sole parents, it's students receiving Austudy or Abstudy, it's widows receiving widow allowance and it's farmers receiving the farm household allowance. A very wide cross-section of the Australian population will go backwards and be left behind by this government unless the government accepts Labor's amendments.
That will obviously be terrible for those individuals, but it will also be terrible for the Australian economy. In the middle of a recession we should not be pulling out economic support for Australians which they need for themselves and to be able to buy the very things that will create jobs in the wider economy. If we are really in this together, as the Prime Minister and his government continue to tell us they think we are, then they will back Labor's amendments and keep the higher rate of JobSeeker on a permanent basis.
( Quorum formed )
I thank senators for their contribution to this debate, and I commend this bill to the Senate.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Pratt be agreed to.
I move the Greens second reading amendment as circulated in the chamber:
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the measures in this Bill will cut the coronavirus supplement from $250 a fortnight to $150 a fortnight, and throw an additional 330,000 people into poverty, which means the Government will have forced a total of 1.16 million Australians below the poverty line since September 2020; and
(b) calls on the Government to immediately announce a permanent and ongoing increase to the Jobseeker Payment and Youth Allowance so that unemployed and underemployed Australians can live above the poverty line".
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1149:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:
1A After Part 1.3B of Chapter 1
Insert:
Part 1.3C—Additional economic support payments to address inequities arising out of coronavirus pandemic
38X Minister must consider what additional payments may be required
As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider whether to do any or all of the following:
(a) extend the COVID-19 supplement until 28 March 2021 at the amount of $250 per fortnight, in line with extensions to jobkeeper payments;
(b) better support recipients of the age pension, disability support pension and carer payment who are facing increased costs to protect their health in the face of the coronavirus pandemic;
(c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of jobseeker payments.
This implores the minister not to cut the coronavirus supplement this Christmas, to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of unemployment payments and to help pensioners and carers.
Thank you very much, Senator Pratt. In relation to the amendment on sheet 1149, to apply a further elevated extension of the coronavirus supplement: as the government has been very clear on, the extension of the supplement past 1 January to 31 March 2021 is going to continue. What the legislation before us today seeks to do is to put into effect the legislation that will enable that supplement to continue to be paid, otherwise the payment will expire on 31 December. We have put in place an extension, amongst other things, to this supplement of $150 for the period of 1 January to 31 March. That is in addition to the other provisions that sit within this particular measure to support Australians.
Whilst we have seen some signs of recovery, and we've seen the jobs market start to improve, we recognise that the Australian economy, although much better than the world economy, is still in recovery mode. That's why the government made the decision that it would continue with this elevated level of payment for people who find themselves still unable to get employment, but at the same time we are also seeking, through other measures, to incentivise people to re-engage with the workforce. As an example, on 25 September, when the original coronavirus supplement was due to expire, we put in place an elevated level of the income-free area. Doing so, we were hoping to encourage Australians who were coming out of a pretty traumatic time; back in March we effectively shut our economy down overnight.
What we are seeking to do, which is why the government will not be supporting the amendment that's been put forward by the Labor Party, is to strike a balance between making sure we recognise that there is additional support needed out there at the moment to help people through the first part of 2021 and continuing to monitor the economic conditions—particularly the labour market conditions, but more generally the economic conditions—as we move forward, standing side-by-side with all Australians to make sure we walk the pathway of this recovery together. If you have a look at the budget that was brought down back in October, you will see that what we did was put a whole heap of measures in place so that we could support Australians outside of these particular measures that we're talking about today. We believe the most important thing we can do is to provide incentives for people to get work, and the best way we can do that is to make sure we've got a strong economy that is able to create jobs so that people who have found themselves unemployed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, and those who were already unemployed prior to the pandemic, are able to find a pathway to employment into the future. The government will not be supporting Labor's amendment.
The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We have an amendment, which I will move later, that increases the supplement to the original $550. In the meantime we will support the $250 amendment.
During estimates, Minister, you and others made claims that the coronavirus supplement at the higher rate was a disincentive to people finding work. At the Senate inquiry into the bill, Professor Jeff Borland gave evidence to the committee that there was no evidence that the coronavirus supplement had acted as a disincentive for people to move into employment. These are two conflicting pieces of evidence that have been received at estimates and through the Senate inquiry into the bill. Firstly, can you provide the evidence you said you would provide us, that's beyond anecdotal evidence? Secondly, do you acknowledge that the supplement in fact doesn't act as a disincentive for people who are looking for work?
Thank you, Senator Siewert. You refer to some commentary that was made by an academic, Professor Borland. In terms of the professor's comments, I will make a couple of remarks before I respond to the final part of your question. Unquestionably, over recent months the labour market has seen unprecedented inflows and outflows as the economy has been impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. Clearly, any findings around recent experiences in the labour market cannot be analogous to or transferrable to normal economic conditions.
The other thing I would note about the data and the investigation undertaken by Professor Borland, which he referred to in the evidence he gave, is that the investigation almost entirely centred on ABS labour force data. It didn't go to administrative data on payment recipients, as an example. And, as you would well know, Senator Siewert, people on payment are not necessarily counted as unemployed. If they are exempt from mutual obligations or not looking for work, they could be counted as not being in the labour force. We understand that, currently, more than 20 per cent of JobSeeker payment recipients are reporting earnings, meaning that they have some employment and, accordingly, wouldn't be counted as being unemployed. I put that on the record so that we can get some context around the information that Professor Borland was seeking to present as the basis on which he was making his claims.
In relation to your overarching question on disincentives to work, we were receiving significant information from a number of different places in relation to the impact that higher levels of payments were having on, I suppose, the incentive for people to seek work. And don't get me wrong, Senator Siewert: I understand that, particularly at the height of the pandemic, it was a very traumatic time for people, and I'm sure a lot of people were particularly scared. I acknowledge that. However, as we were coming out of the pandemic, we started to see increasing numbers of businesses coming forward—either themselves or through employer organisations like the Australian Business Council, the Ai Group or ACCI. They were putting on the table data collated from surveys of employer organisations saying that employers were having difficulty finding people to fill jobs they were advertising. The National Skills Commission, for which Senator Cash has responsibility, does a monthly survey. In a survey of 2,000 businesses, 40 per cent reported that they were looking for employees, and the single most significant reason they were unable to get employees was that there were no applications for the jobs. In addition to that, the independent JobKeeper review found that, in effect, the elevated levels of payment were acting almost as a base floor in the labour market.
So there were a number of factors that contributed to that information. The other statistic that goes to this point is that we saw quite a significant uptick in people applying for jobs as the jobs market was opening. Clearly, we had to have the jobs available, and I think there was a 13.9 per cent increase in the number of job ads in November. We are starting to see people come back into the market.
It's disappointing to hear the minister indicate she's not willing to support Labor's amendment. Listening to her answers to questions posed by Senator Siewert, it is very clear that the government is operating on a deeply flawed understanding of how the Australian economy works, of how the labour market works and, indeed, of what the impact of these changes will be on communities all around the country, in particular regional communities. Let's be clear what the effect of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 is: this is a bill that confirms the return to the $40-a-day rate for JobSeeker at the end of March and it cuts the rate of payment from 1 January next year. There are some good things, of course, about the bill. It continues the coronavirus supplement for youth allowance student and apprentice recipients after December, which is important. It continues the more generous income-free areas and taper rates in partner income tests. Those things are important. But, at the heart of it, because of an ideological belief about people who suffer from unemployment being somehow at fault for their own circumstances, somehow indolent, somehow not interested in work, this bill essentially seeks to cut support provided to people who are unemployed.
Colleagues on this side of the chamber have been putting a very simple proposition to the relevant minister, Senator Ruston, and others on that side and it's this: this bill does represent a cut to the coronavirus supplement at a time when the economy cannot afford it. This is a case of very simple mathematics. The supplement started out at $550 a fortnight, effectively doubling JobSeeker. Then from 20 September it was reduced to $250 a fortnight and from 1 January next year it'll be reduced further to $150 per fortnight. Now, the mathematics on that are pretty straightforward: $250 is lower than $550; $150 is lower than $250. If the government want to cut the coronavirus supplement, they should be up-front about that, because that would make for a more honest debate, at the very least, about the amendments before us now and some of the other amendments that we'll be considering in the committee stage.
The cut in support is happening and will be happening, and the context for that is desperate. Here are some of the facts: there are 1.8 million Australians who are expected to be on unemployment support by the end of the year. Unemployment is expected to continue to rise. The OECD suggests it will hit 7.9 per cent next year, and that will be beyond the experience of many Australians, particularly younger Australians who haven't experienced very high levels of unemployment. The OECD is pretty clear about the remedy for this kind of thing and pretty clear about the risks in the policy decision-making. They have warned us about premature cuts to vital support, fiscal support delivered through mechanisms such as the coronavirus supplement, saying that cuts at this time could risk jobs and the economy. You can ignore that advice if you come into this chamber and you say that what you're doing is not a cut, but it's a silly semantic argument. We are experiencing the worst recession in a hundred years. It is not a time for silly semantic arguments. It is a time for grappling with the serious economic circumstances that are facing Australian families, Australian workers, Australian communities and, frankly, Australian employers. The cuts contained in this bill, the cuts anticipated in this bill for next year, will have implications for all of those participants in the economy.
This government likes to talk about employers a lot. This government isn't very interested in people who work for a wage. They're very interested in employers. We on this side of the chamber are interested in all of the participants in the economy and we're interested in structuring an economy that will work for everybody. Part of that means that businesses and employers need to be operating in an environment where there is demand for their products and services, and all of the advice before us suggests that withdrawing fiscal support at this time presents a very serious risk to economic performance. The exposure to that risk is not just to people presently receiving benefits through JobSeeker; it's spread right across the economy. I tell you what, it will hit hard in regional communities, like the community that I came from in northern New South Wales. It will hit a lot harder there than it will in some of the more affluent suburbs that some of those opposite are more familiar with and prefer to frequent. It will be noticed in regional communities, because this is a recession with very uneven effects. I am very worried about the communities that I know and love in my home state and the approach to economic policy being taken by this government.
It's not just the OECD warning us; the Reserve Bank are also expecting a further rise in unemployment. They expect, as the best case, that unemployment will be above prepandemic levels as late as 2022. There are still far more jobseekers now than there are job vacancies—many, many more. The vacancy report put out by the National Skills Commission showed that there were 155,000 vacancies in October. That compares with data from the Department of Social Services showing there were over 1.3 million people on JobSeeker in October. What does that really mean for people in the labour market? It means when they're going out looking for a job they're facing a lot of competition. Those jobs are just not there. Many, many more people are dependent on benefits provided by government and, as I've indicated already, the consequences of that dependency flow into the businesses and communities in which those people live.
Instead of reverting to $40 a day for JobSeeker, the government should be permanently increasing the rate. That's not contemplated in this bill. In fact this bill anticipates the circumstances where the coronavirus supplement comes to an end very soon. There are 1.3 million Australians currently on JobSeeker, and they've been through a lot this year. They've experienced uncertainty—personally, financially, psychologically—and they're facing down a very uncertain Christmas and a very uncertain new year. They'll be wondering what level of support will be available to them after 31 March next year. That's the date when JobSeeker drops back to $40 a day. All those people, some of whom haven't experienced unemployment before, will be facing a very uncertain labour market and very low rates of vacancies. They'll be rightly worried. They will be worried about how they'll pay the bills, how they'll put food on the table and how they'll pay their rent. It will make for an uncertain Christmas.
I do wonder about the motivation of those opposite in leaving that uncertainty in place at a time when—surely, after all that has happened this year—people deserve the capacity to have a secure Christmas with family and some certainty about what next year might bring for them economically. It's true for business too and I've talked about that already. It isn't just the recipients of benefits that we should be concerned about. These recipients are spending in small businesses locally. They play a vital role in helping to create and sustain jobs, and that is incredibly important as we emerge into a COVID-normal situation.
This amendment is not a radical amendment. It's an amendment that is tailored to the economic circumstances we find ourselves in. It asks the government to provide certainty for people who are experiencing great uncertainty at the moment.
Senator Siewert.
Minister, when will you announce a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance?
Senator Siewert, as I have constantly been saying inside and outside of this chamber, the government is absolutely committed to remaining agile and flexible to try and respond to the unfolding implications of the pandemic and our recovery. We are in a very volatile economy at the moment. We are, pleasingly, seeing some good signs of economic recovery and jobs market recovery. But, as we saw back in July when we thought we were through the worst of it—we thought that Australia had come out of the pandemic almost as unscathed as any nation in the world—and only a matter of seconds later we saw the outbreak in Victoria and the devastating impact that had on the Victorian economy—communities, families and people generally in Victoria.
We want to make sure that, as long as the coronavirus pandemic is an active threat within our economy, we maintain flexibility so that we can move, as we have done with the continuation in September of the supplement and once again with the bill that is before us today which seeks to extend the supplement past 1 January. In response to your question: right now, we are very focused on the here and now, and the circumstances we find ourselves in. We will continue to monitor the situation as we go forward and as vaccines become available—as an example—and we will continue to make decisions that reflect the economic conditions that are with us at the time. But I reiterate that the level of uncertainty that exists within Australia, as evidenced by what's happening around the rest of the world, means that we will remain in this temporary, targeted, scaleable and responsive mode, where we can respond to people's needs on an as-required basis.
You aid you want to respond to people's needs on an as-required basis. You saw fit to note that $40 a day wasn't going to be sustainable in the context of a pandemic. I take from what you're saying that you're quite prepared to go back to $40 a day and that there is no commitment from the government at all to assess the baseline of what Newstart should look like. I want to ask you, please, what assessment the government has done of rents in Australia to know how survivable that payment is, about the basket of goods that people need to buy, about people's capacity to pay their utilities, and their capacity to pay for school excursions, clothing, and home telephone and internet connections.
The decision in March to put in place the coronavirus supplement for people who find themselves on working-age payments at the level of $550 recognised that, almost overnight, the Australian jobs market closed. On 23 March—I think we will always remember that day—the states and territories shut their economies down and hundreds and thousands of Australians lost their jobs in the space of a matter of days. So the response by the government—and I acknowledge the support—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: A point of order?
The minister, sadly, is not answering my question. My question was specifically about the rate of Newstart, not the supplement, and the adequacy of that payment, without the supplement, to meet people's daily needs.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pratt, you've reminded the minister of the question. I'm sure she will return to that.
Through you, Chair, on the point of order, I draw your attention to the preamble to Senator Pratt's question, where she made reference to the fact of the increase in the payment because of the coronavirus supplement. I was just trying to explain to her why that had been put in place, and provide the explanation around the $550. It was for an extraordinary set of circumstances. Before you took a point of order on me, I was about to acknowledge the fact that those opposite were absolutely 100 per cent behind the actions of the government to be able to put in place all of those measures that were put in place to help us when, as a country, we found ourselves in that situation. I want to acknowledge the bipartisan support that was provided to the government through the management of the early stages of the pandemic. I think all Australians appreciated the fact we worked together to do that. But, as I said, it recognised the fact that the jobs market closed overnight: there were no jobs, and hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. That was the reason that we put it in place, along with the JobKeeper payments, which very successfully sought to help people maintain their engagement with their employer.
In reference to some of the further commentary in Senator Pratt's questions, some of the things that she was insinuating that I have been implying in my commentary are not necessarily correct. If she refers to my previous response to Senator Siewert, I've made it very, very clear that the government still considers what we're doing to be in a very temporary space, and we're looking at what we might need to do to respond to the economic conditions in the labour market, particularly what's currently before us.
That's why, Senator Pratt, we made the decision for the measures that are before us today in this bill. But, most particularly and clearly, the most important component of that is the extension of the coronavirus supplement post 31 December, which will provide an additional $3.2 billion over that three-month period in payments to Australians who find themselves on working age payments, so that they continue to have that elevated level of support, recognising that we are still in a COVID-19 affected world, a COVID-19 affected economy and a COVID-19 affected jobs market. That is where we are at the moment, and we will continue to work to make sure that we monitor the situation. But I also remind Senator Pratt that, with the constantly used '$40 a day', we always fail to recognise that very few people are on the base payment. In fact, I'm sure next to nobody is.
Senator Siewert interjecting—
It's not just the comments that we're getting from the other end of the chamber from Senator Siewert. Australia has one of the most comprehensive, targeted social safety net systems in the world. It is created as a safety net; it's not created as a wage replacement. It is targeted, and, as part of that targeting mechanism in our system, we actually look at the individual circumstances of people. If someone has children, they are supported through the family tax benefit system. If people are in a situation where they are renting, there's Commonwealth rent assistance available to them. If people are on low incomes—it's not just people on working-age payments, but people more generally who are on lower incomes—there are many subsidised and often free services for them in relation to being able to get access to pharmaceuticals, health care et cetera, and Australia does have a general healthcare system and an education system. So we have a very comprehensive welfare system, and it is very, very targeted. The constant references to '$40 a day' fail to recognise all of those other things that are associated—not just payments, but access to other services that would otherwise be required to be paid for, in, for instance, pharmaceutical allowances and supports and healthcare.
You said in your remarks, Minister, that the government was monitoring the situation and trying to be flexible.
Nevertheless, on the one hand this bill retains the current power to keep paying the coronavirus supplement—it reduces the rate—but it also ceases payment of that supplement on 31 March. Why does this bill have this provision, in terms of not wanting to keep the power to pay the coronavirus supplement—and it leaves it totally in the government's discretion to lift it, raise it or get rid of it; you don't have to pay it just because you've got the power to pay it. Why is it that you are, in this bill, seeking to remove the power to pay that supplement?
When we came into the coronavirus pandemic, one of the very core understandings was that the powers that were given to me by this chamber—and there were powers given to the Treasurer, in the other chamber—were almost unprecedented because of the situation. The basis of that was the inability of the parliament to sit to make legislation, pass legislation or create regulations. It has often been a very strongly held view that we should, wherever possible, embed any powers in primary legislation, especially powers that are as significant as these. So the reason that the government has sought not to accept the amendment that would grant me an extension of quite extraordinary powers in this area—powers that were very much warranted back in the turmoil of the initial stages of the pandemic—is that now that we are in a situation where the parliament is able to meet we believe that the power of the parliament should be respected and that we should allow the parliament to make those decisions when the time comes and when we have more information about what may be required post 31 March. At the moment, we clearly don't know that. So, Senator Pratt, the reason why the government is not seeking to put provisions in this bill to extend those powers is that we believe, principally, that powers of that nature and magnitude should be embedded in primary legislation.
Minister, why don't you go back to the issue of $40 a day. You just outlined things that are available to people. If all those things are so fantastic, if you think the system is so wonderful, why did you put the coronavirus supplement in place?
One of the things that we probably need to be a little bit careful about in here is when we elaborate, conflate and inflate with flowery adjectives what somebody had said. However, I did say that $40 a day is not all of the support that is provided to people who find themselves on working age payments and that the comprehensive and targeted nature of our welfare system enables people to receive additional supports that relate to their particular circumstances. But, in relation to the principal part of your question—which was very much the same as the question I was just asked by Senator Pratt and spent some time going through—the reason we put the $550 a fortnight coronavirus supplement in place in March was that, on 23 March, the Australian economy closed down. It just completely closed down overnight. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs overnight, completely unexpectedly. No-one could have foreseen what was about to happen to the Australian economy. Nobody knew what was about to happen over the forthcoming weeks. And so, by putting that payment in place, the government sought to recognise that there were no jobs. Even if there were jobs, no-one could go to work because of the shutdown and the lockdowns. So we put in place a blanket for Australia, to cushion the period of uncertainty. This was so we could get to the other side of that uncertainty and so we could make some decisions in relation to how we would put in place ongoing supports for the Australian economy.
The coronavirus pandemic has very significantly impacted people right across the country, but we are now seeing the recovery starting to come in quite strong—though that is mixed across the country. There were states that were able to open up more quickly because their health measures were dealt with quite swiftly and comprehensively, but then in other states and regions across Australia there has been a delay in their opening. That of course is creating an environment where we have a really mixed response in the economy. But we are seeing some communities recovering and the labour market picking up.
In my home state of Western Australia, in speaking to a lot of small businesses that operate across Western Australia, I have discovered that things are going quite well. In fact, some businesses are even saying that things are better than before. There is some real stimulus out there, possibly because of the stimulus that the Morrison government has brought in as part of the overall package to deal with the coronavirus pandemic and the related recession that we were in for a moment—which, thankfully, as a country we have emerged out of. Nonetheless, the impact has been felt. But there are businesses across Western Australia that are actually recovering—for example, a plumbing business in my patch, in the southern section of Perth, where I live. This plumbing business is run by Brad and Trudy. They're working in the residential market, which of course has been stimulated because of the housing support that we brought in. That's enabled their business to grow. They've also been able to hire a new apprentice in the last couple of months, because they've taken advantage of the incentives that we've provided.
But some employers are having difficulty attracting the staff that they need to meet the demand that they've actually got, and we're seeing that in agriculture. It is harvest time in Western Australia and, as my good friend and colleague Senator Brockman will be able to attest—because of his vast experience, knowledge and background in the agricultural sector—Western Australia is going through a good season. But some employers are struggling to find the workers necessary to take up these jobs and to take up the fantastic opportunities that are available, particularly for young people, to go out to the regions. There are incentives for people to go to the regions. For example, under one program, an individual can get up to $6,000 in reimbursements if they relocate, and you only need to work a minimum of six weeks to take up those opportunities. But we have seen through this pandemic and the resulting economic shock that employers say that they are not able to attract staff, and I believe there's a whole bunch of reasons why that has happened.
Of course, with the pandemic, we necessarily had to put a pause on mutual obligations, because the last thing we wanted was for people to turn up to their employment service provider, their jobactive provider, or maybe, in a regional or remote area, their Community Development Program, or CDP, provider. Because of the health restrictions that were put in place, you couldn't expect people to turn up and engage in activities—in training and job search requirements. That pause, which was absolutely necessary, meant that, while in some cases there were actually jobs available, some people chose not to take it on themselves to get out and search for jobs, because there wasn't that requirement. We hear of employers saying they advertise but then no-one's applying.
The other aspect was that, at the time when the coronavirus first hit us as a nation and we were dealing with the impacts of that, the government saw fit, and it was absolutely right, to provide the coronavirus supplement payment to people so they were able to deal with the shock of being told to stay at home. Some people, as we know, were stood down from their jobs. As we know, many, many Australians, sadly, even lost their jobs. That is a big impact. That's a big impact not just on individuals but, of course, on their families. So the support that has been there has been really profound, and it's been a real game changer for many individuals and many families.
But we've heard feedback within the community that there has been an disincentive to get out and search for work, and it was important that we follow through with what we said at the beginning. When the Morrison government implemented the coronavirus supplement, we said it was a temporary program. It wasn't to go on forever; it was short and it was sharp. This was absolutely necessary because, if we baked in certain elements, those disincentives for individuals and also the impact that it would have upon the budget position would be ongoing. It would be something that future generations, for many generations, would have to deal with. So following through with that commitment that we made that it was just a temporary program has been important. So the stepping down of the coronavirus supplement payment is, I think, a very necessary thing to ensure that people are active in taking up the many, many opportunities that are available.
My question to the minister is along these lines: if someone is able to maybe pick up a little bit of extra work—there may not be a full-time job that's available to them at the same level that they were at prior to the pandemic, but there may be some part-time work and opportunities—I understand that this bill amending the coronavirus supplement will enable individuals to earn up to $300 per fortnight and still receive JobSeeker or the youth allowance. Minister, how will that work in practical terms? People will be able to go and maybe get some part-time work and earn that money before it starts to impact them, and I'm interested in understanding what happens if they earn over that and what impact that would have on their take-home pay.
Thanks, Senator O'Sullivan, for a comprehensive analysis of what is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. I think none of us would ever have thought we would be in a position where we would be talking so many times in this place about unprecedented measures to support our country through a once-in-a-century pandemic. However, there are a number of really important elements in the contribution that Senator O'Sullivan just made that I would like to expand on a little bit.
First of all, we have seen disproportionate impacts depending on where you are and what types of jobs are on offer, the types of skills that are available and the geographically different demographics. So, whilst we went into the pandemic with probably a bit of a one-size-fits-all response, with the coronavirus supplement, as we're starting to come out of the pandemic we're actually seeing that different regions, different industries and different groups of people are coming out of it at different rates. Some of it is good news. It's great to see that 80 per cent of the jobs that were lost during the pandemic have now come back.
In relation to the work incentives that Senator O'Sullivan was talking about, we have certainly seen that rural and regional communities have been much harder hit by an inability to access a labour force than perhaps some of our metropolitan areas have been. Coming from a rural and regional area myself, Senator O'Sullivan, I've certainly seen the great and grave concern amongst our rural and regional employers about their ability to get a workforce for entry-level jobs, the lower paid jobs, but also, very specifically, in agriculture, particularly harvest jobs, and in hospitality.
So we have a situation where there are parts of the country that are screaming out for a workforce, and we put in place a number of incentives through the budget so that people maybe look at the incentive and think, 'Yes, I'll give that a go; that's worthwhile.' There is the $6,000 relocation allowance that was offered to people who were prepared to move to specific regional areas where harvest labour was required. For young people trying to get independent status, there is the incentive of the opportunity for an accelerated work test measure by going out to the country and working in the agricultural sector. They can work on the harvest and more quickly be eligible for independent status so that they are able to, for instance, put themselves through university with Abstudy. So we tried to do that, but, disappointingly, I'm afraid we've had quite a slow take-up of this. We'd certainly encourage anybody who is listening to this debate to take that up. If you find yourself unemployed and you're in an area where employment opportunities are more restricted, there are opportunities if you're prepared to move and there are incentives and supports in place to help you if you would like to move. Certainly, the farmers of Australia would love to see more people come out there and put up their hands to do the harvest. Yes, it is hard work and, yes, it can be pretty hot out there in the middle of summer, but I know from having been brought up on a farm and picked and cut apricots every summer it actually is quite fun, and people in the country are super-duper-friendly too. So I would encourage people to maybe have a think about it. It may not be the job that is your life's ambition. It may not be a job that is as engaging or as fulfilling as one you may have lost. But, if you re-engage with the workforce, we know that, if you report any hours of work, you are more than twice as likely to come off payments in the short term than those people who are on payments who don't report any earnings.
That is probably the most significant driving factor behind the income-free area that Senator O'Sullivan referred to in his contribution. Previously, the income-free area was at $106 per fortnight. We did see quite a number of people reporting earnings, but the increase to $300 per fortnight appears to have had quite a significant impact on the number of people doing so. Maybe people looked at that $300 and thought: 'It's a couple of shifts a week or a fortnight. If I go and do that I won't lose one cent of my payment for the first $300 I earn.' For every dollar you earn over the $300 until you reach the cut-out threshold—the cut-off threshold equates to an income of $1,257 per fortnight received by the individual, because it only tapers off at 60c in the dollar.
We were, and we remain, really keen, as we transition out of providing supports to people to help them cope with the impact of the intensity of the shutdowns when the pandemic first hit, as we're walking the walk with Australians through this pandemic and through this recovery out to the other side, on transitioning so that we maintain a balance between the support we referred to and the incentive for people to get out and re-engage with the workforce, but at the same time we have a package of measures that incentivises the creation of jobs. Only this week the ATO opened registrations for people interested in availing themselves of the opportunity presented by the JobMaker hiring credit scheme. Also, very significant investment has been put into the JobTrainer program so that we can make sure people who may not be able to go back to the industries or the businesses they were previously working in have got the kinds of skills that are going to be relevant and in demand as we go forward. We know our economy is changing. It was changing before we went into the pandemic, but the pandemic certainly accelerated the change in the market balance between the types of jobs that are in demand.
Senator O'Sullivan, in response to your question: in summary, it is about trying to create incentives so that people will look up and think that it's worth having a go; keeping in place a level of elevated support, recognising that we've still got a way to go with the recovery; and at the same time remaining agile so that, should anything change—it can overnight, as we well know—we still remain fleet-footed so that we can change in response to any situation that may be brought upon us because of the extraordinary volatility and uncertainty of this coronavirus pandemic and the impact it's had on our country.
Minister, in the context of your powers to raise the Newstart rate, you said that you didn't want to overstep the discretionary—sorry, the JobSeeker—
Senator Ruston interjecting—
No, no, I understand that; the parliament has the powers to do that, and the government has the powers to make the suggestion to do that. Can you explain to me the process, please, for raising the rate of JobKeeper substantively?
I probably need to make a little bit of clarification around that. I have no interface with JobKeeper at all. That's something that the Treasurer—
Sorry; I meant to say 'JobSeeker'.
The rate of JobSeeker has not changed. The base rate of JobSeeker has remained the same throughout the pandemic. For those who are confused about all the names: JobSeeker is the new name of the consolidated payments that were primarily, in the past, the Newstart rate. Just by some extraordinary quirk of coincidence, the day that those eight payments became one payment, the JobSeeker payment, happened to coincide with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. I think there is a misconception in a lot of places that the JobSeeker payment is a coronavirus-specific payment; there just incidentally happened to be a name change to a consolidation of payment from the Newstart rate. I just want to put that on the record so that we have clarity around what we're talking about.
The powers that we were discussing, Senator Pratt, were in relation to the powers that are on offer through the amendment that's been put forward by the opposition—to vest in me, as the minister for social services, ongoing powers to make changes in relation to measures that relate to the pandemic. There are a number of measures that were impacted. We all talk about the coronavirus supplement—and that's certainly the headline thing that we've been talking about—but there are a number of measures that are impacted. I know that, by this instrument, you're seeking to enable me to have the power to be able to make changes, whether they be to the partner income taper rate or the eligibility for people to be able to get access to payment. We have quite a large number of people who currently have access to payment who would otherwise not have access to payment, whether they be sole traders, people who've been stood down, or somebody, for instance, who has to isolate because they have the virus or they are caring for somebody who has the virus. Another one that relates to this power is the income-free area and the ability to be able to change the rates of the income-free area. The matter that you're referring to, in terms of the powers that you are seeking to provide to me as the minister for social services, relates to coronavirus-specific actions that were put in place.
As I said to you, Senator Pratt, the reason that the government is suggesting that we don't proceed with this particular power is that we believe that the parliament is able to sit and that, as a result of it being able to sit, the parliament should be allowed to exercise its power and responsibility over this type of decision. It is because of the magnitude of the decision that we believe that it should be something that we should ask the parliament to make a decision about instead of just vesting that power in the minister for social services. I recognise that that has been done in the past, but the reason it was done in the past was that we were concerned that the parliament might not be able to sit as a result of the fact that the coronavirus pandemic had restricted any movement by us as politicians, as it did every other member of the population in terms of their ability to move around the country.
Yes, of course. We've been through the debate on 1149, and of course many of my questions related to our amendment 1161, which strikes out the parts of the bill that repeal the minister's current powers to pay that virus supplement, so I'd like to move that now. In doing so, I will also move sheet 1162, which strikes out those parts of the bill that repeals the minister's current power to exempt people from the liquid assets waiting period—
Senator Pratt, from a procedural point of view, we already have a question before the chair, which is the first amendment you moved, so you can't move the other amendments until that question is dealt with.
An honourable senator interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Amendment (1) on sheet 1149 has already been moved.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1149 be agreed to.
The opposition opposes division 2 of part 1 of schedule 1 in the following terms:
(1) Schedule 1, Division 2, page 3 (line 12) to page 5 (line 25), to be opposed.
We just need to be clear, Senators—through you, Madam Chair—about what this amendment does. We've had a significant debate, here and now, about the fact that this minister says that it is beyond her authority, that she wants the commission and the trust of the parliament, that she only wants to take action that she is allowed to take by the parliament and that too much discretionary power is no good. That is of course a principle that we can accept, apart from the fact that this government stubbornly refuses to increase the rate of the JobSeeker payment. It's all very well to say, 'We need more parliamentary oversight on these issues,' and, 'I don't want to be able to exercise too much discretion to give money to people in the course of this pandemic.' I would be the first to admit that this amendment wouldn't be necessary if the government just got on and raised the rate of JobSeeker. I put the question.
I want to make it very clear that what this amendment seeks to do has nothing to do with what Senator Pratt just alluded to: that it is somehow for me to increase the rate of JobSeeker. That is not what this amendment does. What it seeks to do is give me the power in relation to the JobSeeker supplement and it gives me the power in relation to other measures that sit around that, such as the taper rate for partner income, accessibility for different eligibility categories to be able to get access to payments and the income-free area. It does not address the rate of JobSeeker.
The CHAIR: The question is that division 2 of part 1 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1164 revised:
(1) Schedule 1, item 44, page 10 (after line 21), after section 1262, insert:
1262A Minister must immediately consider required modifications
As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider whether the period for which a determination can be in force under section 1263 should be extended to allow determinations to be made for as long as the impacts from COVID-19 continue to exist.
Example: This could allow for the continuation, after 31 March 2021, of the extended partner income test, $300 income free areas and eligibility rules for people who are self-employed or sole traders.
This amendment calls on the minister to consider extending the beneficial regulation power that has been used to increase the partner income test, increase the amount of money a person can earn before they lose the payment, and make it easier for sole traders and self-employed people to access unemployment support. The minister has said a lot in this place about the extra support that has been extended to sole traders and self-employed people through the JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments; however, in this legislation the government does not want to extend that power, so we are here calling on the government to consider extending that power on an ongoing basis so that the government can be flexible in responding to the needs of people.
Earlier in the year, at the beginning of the pandemic, we negotiated a general regulation power with the government. Labor pushed the government to do that. The government rightly used that power to intervene and help Australians struggling in the time of the coronavirus. This included paying students and apprentices the coronavirus supplement. This was particularly important because students and apprentices would have lost access to their part-time work and Newstart would have gone down to the base rate. It also enabled the minister to double the partner income test to around $80,000. This helped households where one income earner had lost their job. Around 100,000 households benefited from this change. It also enabled the minister to increase from $106 to $300 the amount a person could earn each fortnight before their payments started tapering out.
As I highlighted before, the government has been very happy to talk up the support it has given sole traders and the self-employed access to. The government says it wants to do the right thing, monitor the situation and keep Australians supported during the time of the coronavirus. It should be doing these actions. Just as our opposition to schedule 1 on sheet 1161 would have enabled the government to keep making higher payments, here again the government should be allowing itself the flexibility to do the right thing by Australians.
We're not worried about too much power being in delegated legislation in the case of the government taking this action, because the government would need to bring back primary legislation to do this. We think it would be a good thing to do that. Just like the increased payments themselves, we need to see changes that continue long after March because the impacts of the coronavirus, as all economic reports show, will continue a long way past March. There are projections that 1.8 million people will be unemployed and that that will continue to grow.
As all of us in this place know, the government has already said that it's going to phase out JobKeeper. Once JobKeeper is phased out we will have to rely on the sustainability of those businesses to pay the wages of their own workers. Sadly, some of those workers will end up on JobSeeker payment, and the minister should have the flexibility to enable people in that environment, sole traders and self-employed people, to continue to access unemployment support. We want to see concessions continue. There'll be double the number of people on unemployment payments in Australia for some time, so the government needs to be held to account on this. We call on the government to make these changes, just as we call on them to raise the rate of JobSeeker.
The thing that's really stuck out for me throughout this year has been that the response from the Morrison government has been varied and has enabled a very tailored response to the coronavirus challenge and the pandemic that we're dealing with. We've got a mix of cases. We've got to face all sorts of problems and challenges across the country in dealing with the economic impact of the coronavirus challenge, and the coronavirus supplement has enabled people to provide for their families at a time when, having dealt with the immediate shock of maybe being stood down from their job, they don't have secure employment because they've lost their job. The coronavirus supplement has enabled them to meet those important needs, but it's actually part of a tapestry of responses. It wasn't the only thing that the government did, and we of course know about the JobKeeper payment.
When you go around Western Australia, as I've been able to do, and you speak to businesses, you speak to people on the ground, you get a real appreciation of the impact that that program has had in making sure that people were able to remain connected to their employer. That's much better than having to go on to the JobSeeker payment, because those people were able to remain connected to their employer. What we've seen throughout this time is a remarkable response from the Morrison government in ensuring that there's a tapestry of support, a real mix of support, to ensure that that support is getting to where it's needed, so that individuals and families are not left high and dry, so they're not just left out on their own, but they're actually supported. We've seen that across the board—the housing stimulus has enabled tradies to keep their jobs. So I think, as we're discussing this, the coronavirus supplement has been incredible in ensuring that individuals who weren't able to take up those sorts of opportunities that came through the stimulus have had the opportunity to be able to receive that support.
What I would like to do in my contribution is put on the record, to make sure that everybody in the chamber has absolute clarity, what this amendment will actually do. I believe that this amendment is almost identical to a similar amendment that I think the Australian Greens have on sheet 1160. When the Australian government put in place the coronavirus supplement in March, the initial coronavirus supplement had a provision that said that, for as long as the supplement was in place, people who came on to the payment would not be expected to wait for any liquid asset waiting period. It applied to two payments. It applied to JobSeeker payment and it applied to youth allowance (other). It did not apply to any of the other working-age payments.
So when we made changes, when the coronavirus supplement was due to expire on 25 September, we made the decision to extend the supplement. The process of extending the supplement meant that the liquid assets waiting period and the assets test, as they applied to those two payments only, would remain in place. At the time, the government sought the support of the chamber to remove those two provisions, to allow all of the other provisions that were put in place subsequent to the first coronavirus supplement provision, to no longer waive the liquid asset waiting period and to no longer waive the assets test. This chamber voted for that to occur.
This seeks to reintroduce, from the period of 1 January to 31 March, a waiving of the liquid asset period for the two payments of JobSeeker and youth allowance (other) only. I have no discretion whatsoever. It is an automatic action that anybody who comes onto payment after 1 January would not be required to wait the liquid asset waiting period. It would not matter how much money that person had in the bank. They could have hundreds of thousands of dollars or they could have $20,000 and I would have no discretion whatsoever in the provisions that are contained in the amendments on sheet 1162 and 1160 to say something to somebody who has $150,000 in the bank. I would put on the record that there are a lot of people who have come onto payment in the last couple of months who are subject to the liquid asset waiting period that do have significant amounts of money in the bank. I have no discretion whatsoever in terms of being able to say that this provision would only affect people under a certain level of resources.
So I just want to make sure that this chamber is absolutely clear. This is not giving me a power to have discretion to say: 'If you have many hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, you will be required to have a liquid asset waiting period. But, if you only have a few thousand dollars in the bank over the $5,500 limit where you don't have to serve any period as a single or $11,000 as a couple.' I have no discretion whatsoever. As soon as somebody exceeds that—I have no discretion at all. So it wouldn't matter how much money somebody had in the bank, they would automatically be able to access payments from day one, because, as you would be aware, the one-week waiting period is waived at the moment. That continues to go through. So nobody has any waiting period if they are eligible. However—I just want to be very clear—this is not a discretionary power you are giving me. It is something that is embedded in this legislation that says that anybody coming onto payment from 1 January 2021, no matter how many liquid assets they have in the bank, will not have to wait any waiting period. So I just wanted to make sure everyone was very clear about that.
Can I just ask a question in relation to what you just said, Minister. Can you give me some feel for how you have exercised the discretion to date. What sorts of considerations have you made? What are the sorts of circumstances in which you have exercised the discretion?
I don't have any discretion. I've never had any discretion. What we sought to do in March, when we put the coronavirus supplement in place—so we could get people onto payment as quickly as possible for administrative ease because, of course, we all saw those long lines around Centrelink and we worked so quickly and so hard to make sure that we got rid of those. One of the ways that we did that was to streamline our process, and one of the mechanisms was not to require many of these other things that we would normally require under normal circumstances for people to provide proof about other circumstances in their life. So we waived a number of the things that we required of them, and one of them was the liquid asset waiting period. So for the period from March to 25 September the liquid asset waiting period was waived for everyone. But what we sought to do—and we were successful, with the support of this chamber—was to reintroduce the liquid asset waiting period from 25 September. It is currently in effect for people coming onto payment who are over the threshold of the no-waiting period. What this particular amendment seeks to do is to reintroduce it on 1 January through to 31 March for two payments only—not all of the payments, just those two, albeit two big ones—with no discretion whatsoever: you serve a waiting period or you don't serve a waiting period.
In those circumstances, moving forward, can you give some idea of how you would exercise a discretion, assuming this amendment didn't get up? If this amendment didn't get up, I understand that a discretion would then apply—the minister would have a discretion. Can you give me some idea of how that would be exercised?
Sorry, Senator Patrick. I should have been clear: I don't have a discretion. It reverts back to the existing provision in legislation that says what the thresholds around the liquid asset waiting period are. Just as a bit of a summary, single people who have $5,500 or less in the bank do not serve any waiting period at all, and couples who've got more than $11,000 in cash in the bank don't serve any waiting period at all. Then it's one week for every $500 up to a maximum of 13 weeks. As an example, people sometimes do have significant levels of their own resources when they come onto payment. I suppose one of the fundamental, underlying premises of Australia's welfare system is that there is an expectation that people draw on their own resources and assets to support themselves before they actually ask the taxpayer to support them. That's the fundamental underpinning of why the liquid asset waiting period is in place.
Can I just point out that this isn't in fact the amendment that's before the chair? The amendment before the chair is the one on sheet 1164 revised. I will make a comment—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The CHAIR: No, it's 1164.
I do appreciate the minister's explanation. I will make a comment on the other amendment shortly, but I figure it's not appropriate to do it now, given that we've got sheet 1164 revised before the chair.
The CHAIR: Senator Siewert, I just remind you of the hard marker at 6.30. Keep going, but you might run out of time.
It'll make life easier for the chamber if we do this now and then get to that other one.
Just to be clear—I've been trying to keep up with this—did your explanation apply to the last amendment or to the next one?
My apologies, I was talking to sheet 1162. I apologise. I actually thought that was what I heard Senator Pratt move. The amendment that you're referring to, which is the one on sheet 1164 revised, basically gives me the power to consider whether I would like to act in this area. It has no substantive impact. The one that has the substantive impact is the one on sheet 1162.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1164 revised be agreed to.
Subject to the wishes of the chamber, given that the substantive issue that might merit some discussion is the next amendment, we're happy to call off the division on the basis that, obviously, the opposition is recorded as voting 'aye'—subject to Senator Siewert's views.
I say ditto. I think we actually need to deal with the next one. Can you record us as supporting the amendment?
The CHAIR: I will. So we don't need a division. We've done this before. We're going to record the agreement of the Labor Party and the Greens.
Question negatived.
The Greens will be withdrawing our proposed amendments on sheet 1160 as they relate to the liquid assets test. I just want to explain, very briefly, why. We actually very strongly were trying to get to the position where the minister could ensure that the liquid assets test suspension could last as long as the coronavirus supplement, for example—as long as the pandemic lasted. We didn't seek to make the liquid assets test permanently suspended. Just for the record, we actually support very fundamental reform to our social security system and support the concept of the guaranteed adequate income, which puts the liquid assets test in a different frame. But, while we have the current system, we do think that there needs to be some issues related to the amount of savings someone has. But we very strongly wanted the minister to have the discretion to suspend it, particularly while we're in the pandemic. We thought that the amendment we got drafted did that. We believe the explanation that it doesn't in fact do that, and so we will be withdrawing it. But we particularly want people to be able to access the JobSeeker payment and the coronavirus supplement while we're in the pandemic and the recession because people shouldn't have to wear down their savings.
The principle of our amendment is the same. We wanted to see the government be able to vary that assets test, in the context of doing the right thing by people during the pandemic. However, we don't want to see it deleted entirely so that an assets test waiting period does not apply on a permanent basis. We call on the government to address this issue themselves by reform of this issue in further legislation.
I withdraw Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1160.
I withdraw opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1162.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2), which are in the form of requests, on sheet 1124:
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 31), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 7—Increasing the COVID-19 supplement
Social Security Act 1991
53 Subsection 504(4)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
Amount of supplement
(4) For the period beginning on 1 January 2021 and ending on 31 March 2021 the amount of the COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is $550.
54 Subsections 504(5) to (8)
Repeal the subsections.
55 Subsection 557(4)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
Amount of supplement
(4) For the period beginning on 1 January 2021 and ending on 31 March 2021 the amount of the COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is $550.
56 Subsections 557(5) to (8)
Repeal the subsections.
57 Subsection 646(4)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
Amount of supplement
(4) For the period beginning on 1 January 2021 and ending on 31 March 2021 the amount of the COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is $550.
58 Subsections 646(5) to (8)
Repeal the subsections.
59 Paragraph 1210B(1 ) ( d)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(d) the amount of the COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is $550.
60 Subsection 1210B(2)
Omit "paragraphs (1) (b), (c) and (d)", substitute "paragraphs (1) (b) and (c)".
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (2)
Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill in a way that would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
The effect of the amendment would be to increase the amount of the COVID-19 supplement from 1 January 2021, from $150 to $550 per fortnight, for persons receiving an eligible social security payment. The amendment would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
Amendment (1)
Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (2)
If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of theSocial Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.
Amendment (1)
This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.
This relates to increasing the coronavirus supplement back to its original level of $550 a fortnight.
Question negatived.
Can I have it recorded that the Greens, of course, supported our amendments.
The CHAIR: Yes.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill forms part of the Government's commitment to protect the rights and entitlements of the Australian flying public, and provide greater certainty for air carriers.
In aviation, accidents resulting in death, injury or loss are rare. However, as with any industry, accidents can occur, and it is important to ensure there are appropriate and equitable compensation arrangements in place when they do.
Suitable liability and insurance arrangements facilitate the timely resolution of liability issues and minimise the risk of protracted litigation for both airlines and victims on those rare occasions when things go wrong.
Dedicated aviation liability arrangements are implemented in most countries in recognition of the unique risks associated with civil aviation and the complex task of awarding damages to passengers under civil liability frameworks.
Australia has implemented a strict liability system for domestic travel that imposes liability on the carrier regardless of any fault, negligence or intention; while providing a cap on the maximum amount the carrier will be liable for.
The system also applies to the small number of international flights that are not covered by an international agreement on airline liability such as the 1999 Montreal Convention.
The framework simplifies the claims process for victims and minimises complex litigation. This structure reflects the responsibility placed on carriers and the high standard of systems and controls needed to ensure the safety of passengers and third parties.
These liability limits and associated insurance requirements need to be increased to ensure they keep up with inflation and continue to meet community expectations.
This Bill will increase the amount of mandatory insurance that carriers are required to obtain.
The revised insurance requirement will match the increase to the liability cap which was implemented when the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Regulations 2019 came into effect on 1 October 2019, with the revised liability figures to also be included in the principle Act.
The Bill also includes a series of more technical amendments.
Expanded regulation making powers will ensure that the quantum of mandatory insurance can be increased by regulation.
The new regulation making powers will also provide the ability to ensure that the liability caps and required insurance amounts can be increased as appropriate, more efficiently, potentially through an automatic indexation arrangement. The Government will consult stakeholders further before finalising a mechanism in this regard.
The new regulation making powers will also provide the ability to establish a mechanism to expand the type of risks that carriers' are required to insure, to potentially include so called 'war risks'. Again, the Government will consult further before expanding the scope of any mandatory insurance requirements.
Another technical amendments clarifies that a carrier, and servants and agents of the carrier, share the same scope of liability. This amendment reflects suggestions from stakeholders that it was appropriate to provide additional clarity on this point.
Stakeholders have also proposed a range of further technical amendments to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 on issues such as a right of contribution and the process by which damages are assessed.
The Government is intending to consult further on these and other issues in the next financial year.
In summary, the amendments in this Bill will assist to further protect the rights and entitlements of the Australian public, and the carriers involved in or affected by air accidents.
I commend the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I commend the bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
As I was saying yesterday, this fund will be subsidising ongoing destructive native forest logging. It is clearly recognised as being destructive by the Federal Court, by the government conservation regulator in Victoria, by the amazing scientists who have put in decades of research on these forests, by First Nations people and by the communities who are living with seeing their precious forests being devastated and who are putting their bodies on the line to protect these forests. There are brave, incredible community groups like Environment East Gippsland, the South East Forest Alliance, Friends of Leadbeater's Possum, the Knitting Nannas of Toolangi and Forest Conservation Victoria. This is what this fund would be doing.
I'm really pleased that this debate has continued across to today, because just this afternoon I received some answers from some questions on notice that I asked at estimates in October. I asked: what proportion of the forest reserves system was burnt in last summer's fires? The answer for the worst fire-hit areas was really sobering. In East Gippsland, 71 per cent of the forest reserves were burnt. In south-east New South Wales, 70 per cent of the forest reserves were burnt. In north-eastern Victoria, it was 67 per cent. And yet these are the very forest areas that this fund would be subsidising the further logging of—the forests where over two-thirds of the reserves were burnt, where there were massive deaths of precious wildlife and where every single bit of unlogged and unburnt forests that remains is incredibly precious. We would be spending $40 million of taxpayer funding to subsidise the ongoing logging of these incredibly precious bits of forest. This logging has got to stop rather than be propped up by further subsidies, and the regional forest agreements that allow this logging must be scrapped.
I want to finish by noting that not only are our forests and wildlife that live in them in a desperate situation, not only have we got logging laws that are resulting in our wildlife hurtling towards extinction, not only do we have this slush fund that we're considering today that would prop up and subsidise native forest logging, but yesterday we saw Senator McKenzie's bill that would make things even worse. Her bill would mean pretty much open slather to native forest logging. Her bill would completely exempt logging from our national environment laws in order to overrule the Federal Court decision that found that logging in Victoria that impacted on critically endangered Leadbeater's possums and threatened greater gliders was illegal. When you find something that's illegal—they have been breaking the law—what do you do? According to Senator McKenzie, you change the law. You don't fix it in order to protect the animals; no, you change the law.
Senator McKenzie's bill would be a licence for extinction and should be renamed the 'killing animals bill'. Instead of propping up a failing industry, we should be doing everything we can to protect our precious forests, to acknowledge that we've now got almost 90 per cent of the logging industry in plantations, to celebrate the plantation based industry, to shift the remaining 10 per cent as quickly as possible out of our native forests, to protect our precious forests, and to see them valued for their beauty, for recreation and tourism, for wildlife, for water and for carbon. If we really care about our forests and care about how important they are to us, to all Australians and, in fact, globally, we can start caring about them and show that care by disallowing this fund today.
The hypocrisy is actually mind-boggling here tonight—absolutely! This is actually what the Greens are arguing for: we have one of the most ultimately renewable industries in our sustainable Australian forestry industries, employing over 200,000 Australians right across the country, contributing $24 billion to our economy, a renewable and sustainable, well-managed, world-class industry, and they want to stop it. You know why they want to stop it? Because the foresters in our regional communities do not vote for them, because they want to ensure that foresters and their families have no future.
This illogical disallowance motion only reinforces what rural and regional Australia already knows: the Greens are anti-agriculture, anti-farming, anti-forestry and also anti-fishing—aren't you? Oh, yes! Let us not actually harvest the bounty of the sea in a sustainably managed way! It isn't about raping and pillaging; it is about using science and data to set up a regime where we manage these resources appropriately for the benefit not only of the people who work in these industries but of the regional communities that support them and, indeed, of the world.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, again, because the Greens are in here arguing to shut down our sustainable forestry industry every chance they get. Where will we get our timber products from? Will we get them from other countries that do not have the environmental regulation that our industries are rightfully governed by? To get up in this place, time and time again, and assume that either party of government is not really interested in ensuring good environmental outcomes through our forestry industry is an absolute misrepresentation of the truth. Do you know what happens if you don't use the highly regulated Australian timber products? Where do we get them from? It's a bit like saying, 'Don't eat beef, because it's bad for the environment.' Where do you think people will get their protein sources from? Will they get them from other countries, where rainforests are being denigrated and orangutans are threatened species, where there are land-clearing laws to ensure that they grow protein through beef farming, when here, in our country, we do it in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner? Instead of knocking Australians and their hard work and knocking these industries and communities, the Greens should be standing up and saying, 'Thank God I live in Australia, and I'm very proud of our forestry industry.'
Yesterday, I had a few people here from the forest industry for my private senator's bill, which I'm glad the senator mentioned in her contribution. It seeks to amend the EPBC Act to remove the ambiguity and to ensure that the relationship and arrangement between Commonwealth and state governments for the last 20 years, through regional forestry agreements, is not able to be overridden by activist justices that just ignore the regulatory framework of any given state. I had foresters come from Eden, Gippsland—and a big shout-out to Heyfield and Bairnsdale, and the McNultys in Benalla, because they care about their children's future. I always hear, 'Why don't you care about your children's future?' I actually do care about my children's future. I am the daughter of—
An honourable senator interjecting—
It's funny you say that. I'll tell you what the background of my family is. My dad was a blue-singleted worker, a logger, in a little country town called Marysville. His first job was driving a Bedford truck up and down very, very dangerous roads in very, very difficult circumstances. I care about my children's future. I care about the futures of the communities I represent, and that means backing in a sustainable and renewable industry, such as the Australian forestry industry.
One of the things that the foresters talked to me about yesterday was how tough they'd done it in the bushfires. It was actually these forestry workers who risked life and limb actually fighting the fires. They knew the tracks better than some of the fire crews that had been brought in from city areas or other districts. They knew those forests like the backs of their hands. The forestry industry is not just about producing world-class fibre and timber products; it is also about managing our natural resource appropriately, making sure that we do have tracks throughout our forest areas and making sure they're upgraded so that, when we do have a bushfire event, we can access those more remote areas easily. It's the forestry industry that undertakes that task.
Post the bushfires, our government is very proud to help rebuild this industry and the regional communities that rely on it. We don't back away from supporting workers at all. We don't care if you're a worker in a small business. We don't discriminate against workers. We don't say that some workers are more deserving of support than others. We very proudly stand with the industries where there is hard manual labour, such as the forestry industry. Devastation was wrought particularly on the New South Wales and Victorian forestry industry, but the South Australian forestry industry was also hard hit by the bushfire. We stand by them to ensure they have the support they need to rebuild and to continue to employ people in this sustainable industry. We're doing this by providing $65 million in targeted support. The government has established the $40 million Forestry Recovery Development Fund Program. This provides grants of up to $5 million to support processors to address future wood supply shortages through innovation and product diversification.
One of the great timber product manufacturers that I got a chance to meet with yesterday was a company called ASH. They operate out of Heyfield. In terms of advance manufacturing, you could not get better than this particular company. The technology that they've implemented down in Heyfield means that they use every single part of a harvested tree, which is fantastic news because we don't want to waste this very precious resource; we want to be very diligent in how we use it. ASH's implementation of this superadvanced technology means that they are not only providing hundreds of jobs in the local community but producing a great product that Australians can use to make kitchens et cetera, rather than sourcing timber from overseas, which may not have been as sustainably produced as it is here in Australia.
We're providing $15 million for salvage log transport assistance to help Australia's sustainable forestry industries in their immediate recovery from bushfires. One of the greatest frustrations I heard from these foresters at the time of the bushfires was that state governments, particularly that of my home state of Victoria, were not allowing the forestry industry to salvage the logs that had been cut down as a result of a bushfire. They were to be left on the forest floor to potentially become undergrowth and fuel load for the next bushfire season, which is absolutely abominable. The foresters who came to see me yesterday were just in shock that city bureaucrats and Labor Party apparatchiks were making decisions about their communities, putting their communities at risk—
Senator Rice interjecting—
Because they couldn't salvage the logs, Senator Rice, that had already gone through the bushfire and were a danger. We had people coming along with chainsaws to clear them so that it was safe to move through a community. Rather than letting this industry, which has been so devastated because the resource has burnt, to use those logs and do what they could with them to make sustainable products, decisions were made outside the community with no understanding of how we live and work out there. It just beggars belief and causes a whole lot of frustration, and it probably explains, Senator Rice, why your vote in places in Heyfield is as it is.
We're also providing $10 million for the Salvage Log Storage Fund, to establish storage facilities for fire affected salvage logs during the COVID-19 pandemic. So I say to state governments that halted the ability of the foresters to collect and use the salvage logs: we're providing the money for storage, we're also providing the money for transport, but we have to be allowed to get the things off the ground, right? You've got to allow them to get them off the ground. Jaclyn Symes, I hope you're listening tonight.
This support keeps mills operational and people employed and it ensures Australians can enjoy sustainably grown Australian wood products, rather than what the Greens would like, which is unsustainably produced timber products. That is what they actually would prefer was used by Australians who may not be able to afford the types of timber products that they can in the suburbs that they represent. But the average Australians in suburbs right across our capital cities are very proud of the richness of our timber product. I think they should be able to have their kitchens in it, build their houses with it and have some great decking, rather than using unsustainably produced timber.
Every tree that is harvested as part of native timber harvesting in Victoria is regrown, because do you know what happens? You actually plant a tree, and over time it grows again, right?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Something that my father did, some of the senators over there deride as if he was some rich guy just doling out the money. One of the things my father did after he and his crew went through and harvested the timber for places like Mount Buffalo was to then go through, in the mid- to late sixties, and replant everything. Do you know what? Those trees—I'm 50, so they're 50 years old now—are just ready to harvest. Fantastic!
Senator Gallagher interjecting—
Sorry, what was that, Senator?
You can't possibly be 50.
Order!
I'll take that interjection, Mr President. Merry Christmas, Senator Gallagher! Merry Christmas to you too!
The sustainable industry supports thousands of rural and regional jobs and businesses, like the ANC Forestry Group in Morwell. The ANC is dedicated to the Gippsland region and provides long-term employment for many workers, from truck drivers and machine operators to mechanics and administration staff. ANC and many others in the forest industry have worked hard to keep their community employed and engaged during these tough times. Our government has been prepared to stand with them, to give real and practical support targeted at those forestry communities impacted by the bushfires. Being part of our broader COVID response, it's been so responsive in these difficult times and has actually responded to each and every industry in a different, unique and targeted way, which has meant we are in a very good position relative to the rest of the world.
This is an industry that contributes around $24 billion of economic turnover to our economy each and every year. We've got hundreds of thousands of jobs in the broader supply chain. There are 80,000 people in the industry value chain. We roll these numbers off our tongues as if tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Do you know what they are, Senator? They are actual people feeding their families in a sustainable industry, paying mortgages, educating their kids, playing sport on the weekend, volunteering at their local sporting clubs. And you know what? There are 80,000 of them in the industry value chain. The fact that you stand up here and do not care about them and their children's future is, I think, an indictment on each and every one of you.
Every year the Australian forestry industry plants around 70 million trees so that—guess what?—in 50 years we can harvest them. Then we can plant them again, and again and again and again. That is what a renewable resource is all about. The forestry industry is the ultimate renewable industry. That is equivalent to 136,000 football fields; I do love my sporting analogies! That is more than two seedlings for each and every Australian every year. And the Greens political party, as Senator Macdonald used to call them, wants to shut this down.
In August the Greens and the Labor Party showed their contempt for rural and regional Victorian families in their pathetic failed attempt to shut down Victoria's sustainable timber industry. Ending native harvesting in Victoria, as the Andrews Victorian government announced in November 2019, is a devastating decision for regional communities. It means job losses, mill closures and negative impacts on regional communities in towns like Orbost, Heyfield, Benalla, Corryong and many more. Seven mill owners across Victoria were so concerned by the Andrews Labor government that they formed the Victorian Hardwood Sawmillers Association. Led by Leonard Fenning, who operates Fenning Timber in Bairnsdale, they are focused on promoting the economic benefits of their industries. Groups like AFPA— (Time expired)
I want to commend Senator McKenzie on that wonderful contribution—from the heart, about a great industry—to the disallowance motion we are discussing with regard to the forest industry and to vital support that is needed to help an industry that has been hit many times over by significant events. At a time when we are trying to reopen the economy, get people back to work and support regional economies in particular, we have a disallowance motion trying to pull the rug out from underneath an industry that needs this support.
I will come to the mischaracterisation of the program. Senator Rice conflated issues terribly around what the funding in this program would do. Most of what Senator Rice said had nothing to do with this program, the way that her contribution painted it. In fact it will go to do a lot of the things that I'm pretty sure Senator Rice, who, I'm pleased to acknowledge, is a supporter of parts of the forestry industry—the plantation industry but also the value-add industry in this country. Instead of shipping jobs offshore, we can keep them in regional communities to turn these raw products—these beautiful, sustainably managed raw products; timber products, the fibre that we get from these trees—into wonderful products in this country. That's what this program goes to.
Let's look at the history leading up to the need to provide this support. At the beginning of the year the bushfires that hit many parts of our nation had a huge impact on our forest industry, and we're still coming to terms with the actual gravity of the impact felt by this industry. We're still seeking to understand exactly how much of the forest resource was burnt in those bushfires across New South Wales, Victoria and Kangaroo Island in South Australia, and in order to properly support the industry we do need that data. But the fact is we lost a significant amount of resource, so for industry to be able to continue on, to be able to do what it does, to provide jobs in regional communities in a sustainable way, we need to do more with less. There is less timber to use, and so we have to find ways to support industry to be able to get as much out of that resource as it possibly can.
On top of that we've had COVID, which had an impact on freight and logistics chains, an impact, of course, on the consumption of these products, hence the need for programs like HomeBuilder to stimulate home building across the nation. The impact of the downturn in housing starts, as was predicted before HomeBuilder was announced, would have had devastating impacts on the timber industry and those right throughout the supply chain, so we need to make sure that they can keep up with demand for this wonderful material while being able to support the housing and construction sector. Again, we only have to look at more recent issues post-COVID: bushfires, COVID and now we have issues with exports, and this is why we need this program. Far from propping up an ailing industry, far from having anything to do with the points of the industry that Senator Rice highlighted as what this funding would go to, this is about actually helping this industry innovate to improve its practices, to improve the technology available to it to be able to get more out of less with less waste, to be able to produce new products that new markets might wish to access.
If only!
That's what we want to do, and Senator Rice says, 'If only.' Well, that is the case. That's what this program is all about. Do you know what? We want these regional communities, like the north-west coast of Tasmania, one day, hopefully, through future rounds of programs like this—and I hope there'll be many more—to be able to innovate and augment their processes, so those hardworking men and women in regional communities will be able to actually use this resource in a better way. I don't know how many timber mills Senator Rice has been through in recent times, but I tell you what: there are some amazing advancements in technology when it comes to some of these operations. What we want to do is take them to the next level, so we can compete with other advanced wood-processing countries around the world.
Senator McKenzie made a fantastic point about what happens when we shut down or attempt to damage our timber industry in Australia, one of the best in the world, contrary to the assertions of some of those people down the end there; we source it from elsewhere. I suppose this is a good opportunity to point out what we in the Australian government have been doing when it comes to clamping down on illegal logging and the sale of illegally harvested timber products. Recently, we were able to do a series of DNA tests on timber being sold in Australian retail outlets. A number of the pieces of timber being imported from other countries labelled as certain types of timber, weren't that timber at all.
This is what happens when Greens policy comes to the fore. There is a major retail outlet in Australia that has decided it won't use timber sourced from Victoria because of claims around certain operations. There's a court case which is under appeal and, as Senator Rice well knows, it doesn't mean it's final when it's under appeal. It's something that's being questioned as we speak, and I'm very confident about the outcome of that case, just as I am about the Bob Brown Foundation case in Tasmania. I acknowledge Senator Ciccone, who's a massive supporter of the timber industry, the best one in the world. The fact is, though, when we drive this industry offshore, we end up seeing products ripped out of the ground, true deforestation, and consumers here, who still want the products that come out of our forests, don't know where it's coming from. It's not coming from sustainably well managed forests here in Australia that are replanted, reforested, but from forests of South America, West Papua.
Senator Rice shakes her head as if it doesn't matter, because, if it's not in our backyard, we don't care. I tell you what: that is a shameful attitude to take because not only are you driving deforestation in other nations but you're driving up unemployment when you damage this sustainable, proud industry. The battles in campaigns that are run—and I often say this—have now moved from forestry coupes to the courtroom. It's their new high-tech way of trying to damage a very, very good and proud industry, something that I think they should be ashamed of.
It's about jobs.
Yes, because, as Senator Ciccone says, it is about jobs in regional communities. It is about being able to provide for these communities and ensure that they can send their kids to school, put food on the table, pay the mortgage and keep the lights on. But Senator Rice, with her disallowance here, wants us to find any way to penalise this industry—it's not enough that they were hit with the bushfires—and we want to help them get more from less. We want them to be able to get more resources out of the timber that remains in the reserves that they have access to. It's not enough that they've been hit by COVID and it's not enough that we have export issues at the moment. We want to do as much as we can to value-add here, not send our raw products overseas—
Senator Rice interjecting—
Senator Rice says 'if only' once again. My door is always open. Pop on in. Let's talk about a constructive plan to grow this industry. If you're a supporter, as you say you are, of 90-odd per cent of the industry then come on down with a plan to grow the industry, not shut it down, talk it down or damage the brand. Senator Rice, my door remains open every day of the week I'm here. Come and see me in Tassie. Let's go and do a tour.
Go to the Heyfield mill.
Let's go and have a look at the Heyfield mill. Let's go and actually talk to the people you are denigrating through this motion, claiming that we are propping up an ailing industry. It's an industry that those who work in it should be very, very proud of. So, while imploring colleagues here to vote against this disallowance, I implore Senator Rice to come and work with me. Come and work with Senator Urquhart; Senator Ciccone; Senator Scarr; Senator Molan, who I spent last Friday with talking to bushfire affected communities; and all of my colleagues here. Work with us, those who are pro-forestry and who actually deal in science. Contrary to the fact—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Let's talk about science while we're on this matter. It was asserted a couple of Senate estimates ago that 20 per cent of all of the forests in Australia had burnt in the bushfires. In fact, as we know, Senator Rice, 20 per cent of a certain biome was affected, not the entire forest estate. It's dangerous assertions like that—like those prefaced with the words 'We know X happened.' I've seen the Greens in this parliament do it all the time. They speak with authority, claiming something to be true, and there could be a kernel of truth in there, but you get to the end of the sentence and there's a little asterisk: 'Terms and conditions apply. Don't dig too deep.' We only have to look at the science that was claimed to be proof positive that forestry operations in this country increased the risk and severity of bushfires. Well, of course, as we know, that paper—from some scientists in Tasmania—was withdrawn because it was found to be riddled with errors. This is the thing. Let's talk in facts. Let's talk science. Come and talk to the people who are in the industry who are proud of the brand they have.
Primary producers—Senator McKenzie mentioned a whole heap of them—rely on a good brand. They don't want to trash it. You guys are doing a good enough job of that by peddling falsehoods. 'Propping up an ailing industry'—we are one of the best in the world. As I say, come on out to the country communities that actually support what we do. The timber in this chamber did not fall out of the sky, Senator Rice—through you, Mr President. It was harvested sustainably.
How do you know that?
I reckon it's because the forests are still there, in response to Senator Siewert's question—
Senator Rice interjecting—
'Decimated'? Why am I going to engage with people who are not going to listen to reason at all? They have no idea when it comes to sustainable, well-managed, world-leading forests. There's a head-in-the-sand approach to what is the world's best forest industry. Let's remember a former member of the Tasmanian parliament, Peg Putt, who made a full-time career out of travelling into foreign markets to damage the brand of a sustainable industry. I think the organisation was called Markets for Change. Do you know what? They changed from sustainable, well-managed forest resources and estates, where science underpinned what was done, to markets where they ripped trees out of the ground and didn't replant them.
In fact, Senator Rice, on the issue of invitations, while I'm trying to convince my colleagues that this is one of the worst disallowances that has ever come across the table in this chamber, I'd love for you to come down the Arve River with me. There's a coupe down there that a group called Environment Tasmania had custody of. They were given funds by the taxpayers of Australia to reforest this particular coupe. It's in the heart of World Heritage wilderness. It's barren. They believe that the practices the forest industry put in place are wrong. If you go to the forestry coupe next door that Sustainable Timbers Tasmania, formerly Forestry Tasmania, and contractors managed, you wouldn't know it was ever harvested. But come down and see what ET, Environment Tasmania, these bleeding heart antijob people did to this piece of land. It is barren. There is erosion. You wouldn't know—
Senator Rice interjecting—
Look, come on down to my office after this and we'll look at Google Earth and you can see what your friends have done. You don't care about the environment. You certainly don't care about jobs in regional communities, from downtown Melbourne. Please accept my invitation—anyone: come into my office and we'll look at Google Earth together. Vote against this ridiculous disallowance, support hardworking men and women in this industry and reopen our economy when we need it most. Stop the madness.
The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That Senator Farrell be granted leave of absence for today for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008, and for related purposes. COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The world is facing a climate emergency. Countless scientists warned us for decades, and now we're actually in the midst of an emergency. We're experiencing the impacts already of the more than 1 degree of warming that's occurred. Around the world, we've seen a greater frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events from heatwaves, droughts, flooding, winter storms, hurricanes and wildfires. Just last summer, we saw a horrific bushfire season, linked to the climate emergency. The time for contemplation and questions is long past. The time for action is now.
It's urgent that we act because the emergency will get worse if we don't. Some of the impacts of only an extra degree include:
Some governments are taking urgent action in response to this crisis. New Zealand has declared a climate emergency. That includes:
In the United Kingdom, a conservative government has recently announced a target of reducing emissions by 68 per cent by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The European Union has previously proposed a target of a 55 per cent reduction on 1990 emissions by 2030. If President-Elect Biden implements his climate plan, that will also involve rejoining the Paris agreement, making US electricity carbon-free by 2035, and a clear target of net zero.
So while the Liberal party is holding Australia back on climate action to address the climate emergency, on the international stage they are increasingly isolated.
If we're going to tackle the climate crisis, a clear part of that is action to support electric vehicles, which provide zero carbon transport when they are powered by 100% renewable energy. Countries around the world are taking urgent action to support a transition to electric vehicles, including providing government support to make them more affordable and accessible, and ensuring the infrastructure is available.
The European Union has approved a new fuel economy standard for cars and vans, with specific requirements or bonuses for electric vehicles. Those standards are providing a clear signal and incentive for manufacturers to produce electric vehicles.
China has introduced fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles, and an electric vehicle efficiency standard with voluntary targets based on weight classes.
In the United Kingdom, a conservative government has announced a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, a decade ahead of the previous timeline.
In Norway, in October 2020, over 60 per cent of new vehicle purchases were electric vehicles. That fantastic figure is a result of clear government policies: providing charging infrastructure, and providing clear tax incentives to make electric vehicles more affordable.
The international examples show what happens when governments listen to the scientific evidence and advice, and are willing to take urgent action to address the crisis.
In contrast, sadly, Australia has seen a complete lack of action. The Liberal Party first promised a national strategy on electric vehicles in February 2019. They then spent most of the 2019 election campaigning against electric vehicles, running a scare campaign that cheap, renewably powered cars would somehow take away your weekend.
When I asked officials in Senate Estimates whether any of those scare campaigns were true, they had to take it on notice, and the answers they came back with weren't particularly impressive. But despite how comical the Liberal party's ideas are, the impacts are terrifyingly real. There's been a complete failure to consult publicly on an electric vehicle strategy, let alone to actually develop one. Instead, we're now told that there'll be a 'future fuels' paper sometime before the end of 2020.
The Liberal party is terrified of change, of the future, and they are holding Australia back.
Transport emissions policy matters, because transport is an important sector contributing to our emissions - it makes up around a fifth of emissions in Victoria and New South Wales, and is even higher - a third of emissions - in South Australia. That makes it even more important that we have policies to reduce transport emissions, at every level. Sadly, the complete policy vacuum at a Commonwealth level has contributed to disastrous policy at a state level.
In South Australia, we've seen the Liberal party there make their state the first jurisdiction on the planet that wants to make it more expensive for people to operate electric vehicles.
In Victoria, the government wants to apply a charge to electric vehicles that wouldn't apply to other vehicles, unfairly penalising them and making them more expensive to operate.
In New South Wales, they are actively considering the same terrible ideas as South Australia and Victoria, that will make it more expensive for people to operate an electric vehicle.
The reason this is all so unacceptable is that we know that electric vehicles are already more expensive than they should be, and that governments should be doing more to incentivise their uptake. Economic analysis shows that every driver who switches to electric vehicles provides a $1,370 boost to government revenue, and an $8,763 boost to the Australian economy. Keep in mind that's even without a price on carbon, based on current settings. Converting just a quarter of Australia's fleet to electric vehicles would deliver a $4.4 billion economic benefit - again, in a context without a carbon price.
So let's be clear. This isn't a perfect bill. What we should have is a national electric vehicle strategy that incentivises uptake, not a Commonwealth vacuum and ad-hoc state taxes. At the last election, the Greens had a clear policy that outlined steps the government could still take:
In the interim, this Bill provides a clear route for the Commonwealth to undo the state taxes on electric vehicles, ensuring that state governments don't impose them unfairly, at exactly the wrong time, when we need to be encouraging uptake of electric vehicles. Any state government that would impose an unfair tax on electric vehicles would lose a comparable amount of revenue, which would be distributed to other states on a per capita basis. This is a basic step, to ensure we're not putting road blocks in front of electric vehicles.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 947.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australian journalist Peter Greste recently stated the Northern Territory (NT) Government 'has set a dangerous precedent' with its continued press ban on one news organisation, NT Independent: 'I'm very concerned. The NT Independent is a legitimate newspaper, a legitimate news organisation...And so to ban the NT Independent seems to be frankly a ridiculous step and something that I think is quite dangerous when it comes to press freedom...It sets a really dangerous precedent and I'm really uncomfortable about the way it's been unfolding',
(ii) the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance have also repeatedly denounced the NT Government's stance, which it has labelled as 'vindictive', and have offered to mediate,
(iii) since April, the NT Government has banned the online publication NT Independent from entering press conferences and media events, and government departments don't respond to the publication's questions, and
(iv) when asked on ABC Radio this Monday morning if the NT Government would take up the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom's mediation offer, Mr Gunner declined; and
(b) calls on the NT Gunner Government to acknowledge that the NT Independent is a news organisation, employing journalists, and reverse its ban on the organisation attending press conferences and media events.
Question agreed to.
I'd like to add Senator Davey to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Davey, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that today is the last scheduled sitting for this parliamentary year;
(b) recognises that:
(i) the Australian people have faced extraordinary challenges in 2020, and
(ii) throughout 2020 the Australian people have made significant sacrifices;
(c) wishes all Australians:
(i) a very Merry Christmas,
(ii) a Happy Chanukah,
(iii) a wonderful holiday season, and
(iv) a Happy New Year; and
(d) hopes all Australians will be mindful and stay safe on the roads during this holiday period.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Wong, Farrell, McAllister, Gallacher and Marielle Smith, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 7 December 2020 Senator McKenzie called on the Senate to note that 'delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan would threaten the productivity and resilience of industries', and
(ii) on 23 October 2020, Senator Birmingham told the estimates session on cross portfolio Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters that 'Our government is doing everything it can to meet the legal obligations and expectations of the Water Act…';
(b) also notes that:
(i) on 7 December 2020 Senator McKenzie also called on the Senate to acknowledge that 'the 450 gigalitres of 'up water' will result in significant socio-economic damage', and
(ii) on 23 October 2020, Senator Birmingham said in relation to the 450 gigalitres that 'It is important for river health' and '…we will do everything we can to try to achieve those outcomes';
(c) further notes that the government's announced policies are not sufficient to guarantee delivery of the 450 gigalitres or the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full; and
(d) calls on all coalition partners of the Government to guarantee that they are committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Morrison-McCormack government is committed to the Basin Plan. The government have done the heavy lifting and we've recovered 98 per cent of the water required to meet the SDLs. The reports identified that it is basin communities that have borne the brunt of this achievement. They clearly show that a flexible approach is needed to continue progress. That is why we have committed to no more buybacks from farmers. We are unashamedly committed to basin communities and the irrigated agriculture that supports them. Our policies, including the $270 million Murray-Darling Communities Investment Package, are focused on delivery.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Sheldon, I move:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Job Security, be established to inquire into and report on the impact of insecure or precarious employment on the economy, wages, social cohesion and workplace rights and conditions, with particular reference to:
(a) the extent and nature of insecure or precarious employment in Australia;
(b) the risks of insecure or precarious work exposed or exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis;
(c) workplace and consumer trends and the associated impact on employment arrangements in sectors of the economy including the 'gig' and 'on-demand' economy;
(d) the aspirations of Australians including income and housing security, and dignity in retirement;
(e) the effectiveness, application and enforcement of existing laws, regulations, the industrial relations system and other relevant policies;
(f) accident compensation schemes, payroll, federal and state and territory taxes;
(g) the interaction of government agencies and procurement policies with insecure work and the 'on-demand' economy; and
(h) any related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before the last sitting day in November 2021.
(3) That the committee consist of five senators, as follows:
(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and
(c) one nominated by minor party and independent senators.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and
(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.
(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(9) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(10) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(11) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government does not support this motion. ABS data confirms that the biggest increase on the record to the rate of casual employment occurred under the Hawke and Keating governments, with the level then remaining steady thereafter for more than 20 years leading into the COVID pandemic. Incentivising the growth of stable, permanent jobs and higher incomes are two of the key goals of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020.
Honourable senators interjecting—
We're debating general business notice of motion No. 946 on the select committee.
Yes.
Honourable senators interjecting—
I seek leave of the chamber to move to the next matter.
I add Senator Ryan to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Antic, Stoker, McKenzie, Fierravanti-Wells, Van, McDonald, Abetz, McGrath, McMahon, Molan, Paterson, Davey, Scarr, O'Sullivan, Askew, Rennick, Small, Brockman, Hughes, McLachlan, Chandler, Bragg, Henderson, Dean Smith and Ryan, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 18 November 2020, State of Origin 3 was held at Suncorp Stadium with a capacity crowd in attendance,
(ii) most state governments maintain restrictions on church attendance,
(iii) some states prohibit singing at church, yet attendees at stadiums can cheer and shout for their teams,
(iv) the freedom to express one's religious views is a fundamental right for all Australians,
(v) Christmas Day is one of the most important days on the Christian calendar, and
(vi) this year, during a time of uncertainty, Australians want more than ever the opportunity to come together to celebrate the birth of Christ; and
(b) calls on all state governments to ease restrictions on church attendance, and other restrictions, before Christmas so they are no more restrictive than those pertaining to football games, and allow more Australians to express their religious rights this Christmas.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor supports most of this motion in principle but will not support the government on its call in part (b) for state and territory governments to ignore the advice of health professionals. That's why we ask the President to call for separate votes on part (a) and part (b) this evening.
Labor wholeheartedly supports the freedom to manifest one's religious views. Indeed, it's a fundamental right for all. Australia is a pluralist democracy. Christmas is an important religious event for people of faith and people of no faith alike. It's a season that stretches out across the entire population and calls us to gather with family and friends to give thanks for the many blessings of each year and to share reflections of the year past in the season of peace, hope and love. Many Australians will be keen to attend religious services. The first night of Hanukkah will be celebrated tonight. On 25 December—and for those of the Orthodox traditions who will celebrate Christmas twice by gathering again on 7 January—we urge all state and territory governments to support the largest safe religious gatherings possible in line with health advice in those jurisdictions. Paragraph (b), however, we cannot support, as it will force state and territory governments to ignore health advice.
Senator O'Neill, I will separate, then, at your request, paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). The question is that paragraph (a)—including all the Roman numerals—of motion 949 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that paragraph (b) of that motion be agreed to.
In lieu of a division, could we have it recorded that the opposition does not support paragraph (b)?
Could you have the Greens recorded as opposing that component?
So recorded, and I appreciate the spirit of Christmas shown by people doing that.
Question agreed to.
I'm going to put the question on motion 946. It has already been moved, and I understand there's been a resolution.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 950.
Leave granted.
I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber. I move the motion as amended:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9.30 am on 11 December 2020, any correspondence from any of the hosts of the Climate Ambition Summit 2020 to the Australian Government in relation to Australia's participation or attendance at the summit.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The official correspondence between heads of government and cabinet ministers remains confidential as it occurs and for a period of time afterwards to ensure discussions can be candid and a trust can be built.
The question is that motion No. 950, as amended, be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Watt, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Morrison Government still refuses to formally rule out the use of so-called Kyoto carryover credits to meet its emission reduction obligations under the Paris Agreement,
(ii) according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Senator Abetz said the carryover credits should not be 'given away' because they were a sign of what Australia had achieved,
(iii) according to theGuardian, Senator Rennick told the Coalition party room meeting the Government should deploy carryovers to meet the target because Australia was entitled to use that accounting method,
(iv) according to the Australian, Senator Canavan said 'I think it is crazy to give them up unless other countries have Kyoto debits', and
(v) the use of so-called Kyoto carryover credits is not supported by the international community, international law experts, the scientific community or the Business Council of Australia as well as other business leaders; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to formally rule out the use of so-called Kyoto carryover credits to meet Paris Agreement emission reduction targets.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government's policy is that past overachievements should be recognised. It was the Labor Party that made carryover a condition of Australia signing up to the second period of the Kyoto protocol. It was under this coalition government that Australia beat its 2020 target by 459 million tonnes.
Question agreed to.
I inform the chamber that Senator Bilyk will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Bilyk, move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) since the publication of the Senate inquiry report They never came home–the framework surrounding the prevent ion, investigation and prosecution of industrial deaths in Australia in late 2018, 183 workers have lost their lives in the workplace,
(ii) 183 lives were lost in 2019 which represented the first increase in workplace deaths since John Howard was Prime Minister, and
(iii) as of 19 November 2020, 147 Australian workers have died on the job this year;
(b) congratulates the Victorian, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Northern Territory governments for passing comprehensive industrial manslaughter laws; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) act on the recommendations of the 'They never came home' report,
(ii) act on the recommendations of the Boland Review, and
(iii) implement a Federal industrial manslaughter regime.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Safe Work Australia's members, which include the ACTU, decided in March this year that they did not want Safe Work Australia to progress any non-COVID-19 related work. The Attorney-General wrote to ministers to restart the process for discussing the review of model work health and safety laws in the second half of 2020. The ACT and Northern Territory governments requested a further deferral due to caretaker periods. The government will be considering its ultimate position on the issues raised in this motion as part of the SWA process, which it is required to do. It should be noted that workplace fatalities have decreased by almost 53 per cent from a peak of three fatalities per 100,000 workers in 2007.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens support this motion. We have long called for federal laws on industrial manslaughter. Our workplace health and safety laws are broken. Employers who do not ensure their workplaces are safe must be held to account and there must be strong deterrents for cutting corners on safety. Action on the recommendations of the reports on industrial deaths should have already been implemented. The government has clearly deprioritised this. The families and loved ones of hundreds of people who have died at work since 2018 deserve to see justice. These workers should not have lost their lives in the first place. Their families and loved ones deserve to see the government take action to make sure that going to work means coming home from work, safe and sound. Everyone has the right to a safe workplace.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator O'Neill be agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
I wish as a matter of courtesy to inform the house that we are still awaiting a message from the other place that needs to be dealt with by the Senate. I believe that the matter that is the subject of the message has been dealt with in the other place, and hopefully will arrive in this place very soon. I thank the Senate for its indulgence.
I seek leave to make a statement.
Leave is granted.
I thank the Senate. What has just been indicated to us, fellow senators, is the pettiness of the Prime Minister, who is demanding this Senate stay for an amendment that was indicated very clearly as acceptable to the government. That is what he is saying. I want every coalition senator and every member of the crossbench to understand that we are waiting because the Prime Minister doesn't want to have a loss. That's what this is about. The amendment that was moved, which the minister indicated was acceptable, is an amendment which simply enables the situation which currently exists to continue, which is to enable the minister to have a discretion to continue paying the coronavirus supplement. But this Prime Minister is so determined to take from those who have so little that he doesn't even want her to have the discretion. The amendment itself doesn't require the supplement to be paid. It simply continues the power that the minister currently has. A sensible government, a competent government, a government who didn't want to blame others but actually wanted to deliver for Australians, would say: 'Okay, we lost that. But you know what? That's okay, because we don't have to do anything. It makes no practical difference.' To be fair to the minister, I accept that she gave me that indication in good faith, because she is right: it is acceptable. But, you know, the bloke over there—
Order! Senator Wong, if you're referring to the Prime Minister—
Sorry. The man who's supposed to be the Prime Minister of the country and care about the nation doesn't want a loss. So we all have to stay because he doesn't want a loss on a power which this minister already has. We will debate this when this comes back, but I just want to be clear: at a time when Australians have had the year that we have had, when working Australians and those who have lost their jobs have had the hardest year one can imagine, where this parliament has, at times, come together to support Australians in this pandemic, the pettiness of this Prime Minister is on display as we lead into Christmas.
I present a statement on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, relating to the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework.
I present a response to the order of continuing effect relating to Australia's estimated future greenhouse gas emissions and a response to the order for the production of documents concerning the Australian Broadcasting Corporation election coverage.
I present the response to a question taken on notice during question time on 8 December 2020, asked by Senator Kitching, relating to pensions and benefits. I seek leave to have the response to the question taken on notice incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The response read as follows—
Dear Mr President
I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Kitching during Question Time, Tuesday 8 December 2020, on the matter of pensions and benefits.
I am advised that these questions go to allegations made by the Applicants in the class action in relation to the Income Compliance Program that is currently before the Federal Court as part of their Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (SFASOC). The Government rejects the allegations from the Applicants and, as the litigation is still before the Court, the Government will not be commenting further.
Both the Applicants and their solicitors, Gordon Legal, acknowledge that the Commonwealth's agreement to settle the matter is not an admission of liability by 1he Commonwealth, and does not reflect any acceptance by the Commonwealth of the allegations that the Commonwealth, or any of its officers, had any knowledge of unlawfulness associated with the income compliance program.
I have copied this letter to the Prime Minister, Minister Robert and Senator Kitching.
Yours sincerely
Simon Birmingham Minister for Finance
9 December 2020
Senators, with respect to the document that was tabled about the ABC, I'd like to make a brief statement. In that package of documents is a letter to me from the Chair of the ABC, which is included with the letter from the government. I will be writing to the Chair of the ABC, because the letter, as you will see if you read it, asks me to exercise a power or consider the exercise of a power I do not have, and that is the non-public tabling of a document. I don't know how that came about. My office was not consulted. The order for the production of documents was directed at the government, but a document was forwarded to me requesting that I table it in confidence, and I don't have that power. So I will be writing to the Chair of the ABC to explain that. But I don't have any role in the tabling of a document in response to the order for production of documents. I wanted to put that on the record given the letter does contain that request of me as President.
In respect of the ministerial statement on the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework, I move:
That the Senate take note of the statement.
This is a really important document that has been tabled here today. The coalition government has implemented for the first time in our history the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework, which provides a guide to national action to address existing disaster risks and also to look into the future. We learnt many, many lessons from last year's catastrophic summer of bushfires. One of the things we did learn and understand is that, as a nation, we need to get better at coordination. We need to work cooperatively with the states to be prepared, to have an eye on the future and also to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Our National Partnership Agreement on Disaster Risk Reduction has agreed to invest $261 million over five years for these risk reduction initiatives. But one thing that I am particularly proud of in this framework, that I think is so vitally important, is that what we did learn from last summer's bushfires was how dependent we are on our emergency services—on our paid emergency services but, more importantly, on the volunteers and the charities and the not-for-profit organisations that come together to assist those paid personnel and then to support the communities in their recovery activities. And for the first time we are truly recognising those organisations, but we're also focusing a lens on their mental health and their wellbeing, because these people put themselves out there on the front line. I don't care if you're an SES volunteer, a rural fire service volunteer or a Red Cross volunteer pouring tea and being the support person for the other personnel at the end of a really tough day—you feel what you're going through, you're working day after day and you are seeing the ravages of the emergency on your friends, on your colleagues and, most importantly, on your community.
Last year, just after the bushfires, I travelled around the state of New South Wales and went to many bushfire affected communities. I went down to Malua Bay and I spoke with the volunteers who were coordinating efforts to provide people with the day-to-day essentials, people who'd lost everything. I went to Cobargo and I met this amazing woman who was coordinating recovery efforts for stock. She was coordinating getting stock feed in from all over the state and then distributing it on a triage basis to those who needed it most, and her efforts should be absolutely commended. I went to Rylstone and I met with personnel from Indonesia who'd come over with the Indonesian defence force to help with our efforts in our bushfire recovery. I also travelled to Wagga where I met our own Defence Force personnel and I met evacuees who had been rehomed temporarily at our RAAF base in Wagga. They said the RAAF personnel were their blue angels. They really spoke so highly of them. What I saw was that when these people put themselves out there, and they weren't thinking about themselves; they were thinking about their community.
But in the wash-up of all of this, we need to think of those people. We need to think about how they are doing in that wash-up, because during that time they absorbed all of the anguish of their communities and now it's time for us to help them. I'm so proud of our government and of the Nationals for working hard to invest over $15.9 million to support the mental health of emergency services and workers and their families. We're doing this by providing $11.5 million to the Black Dog Institute and to Fortem Australia, so that they can provide specialist mental health support services for those who responded to the 2019-20 bushfires and support for their families. We're also developing the first-ever mental health national action plan for emergency services workers, so that we can work to reduce suicide and mental illness among these vital personnel and the people who put themselves forward first when we're in times of need.
Further to that, our framework is also looking at critical incident planning capability so that next time we are better prepared and we can effectively respond to these critical incidents, not just bushfires. These incidents could be floods and other catastrophes, like cyclones in Queensland. We need to better understand and build resilience and develop our critical systems so that our first responders are better prepared and better able to hit the ground running. We're also investing in a number of management capabilities to assist in this. We are putting $88.1 million towards disaster and resilience research. This is vital money going to research into not only what causes catastrophes but also how best to address those catastrophes. We're also investing in streamlining our fire danger rating system, because at the moment, from state-to-state, we all use different terminology and different rating systems. We need to get better at working together as a nation. If we've learnt anything through COVID, it is that we are one nation and that borders, when they become hard borders, make life incredibly hard. When you don't have something like a pandemic—when you've got something like a bushfire—it doesn't give a toss about a line on a map or about where a river flows. That bushfire is going through regardless. It is so important for us to have the same language in that situation. We have responders who are doing the same job so we need the same language. It is vitally important that we get that right.
The National Coordination Mechanism and Emergency Management Australia are also leaning into a number of substantial challenges that we collectively face across this nation. But what we are also doing—and this is really important in the current environment—is incorporating COVID-safe guidelines. This is something we don't think of when we talk about emergencies in Australia. Last bushfire season people were evacuated. They went to the school hall. They're all crammed into that building. The Red Cross came along and served them tea. The Salvation Army brought them food. It was fantastic. Imagine if that happened right now in the time of the pandemic. We are already working on developing on how we adjust our response to ensure that we can do so in a COVID-safe way, to ensure that we have the hand sanitiser and to ensure we have enough space between people but, importantly, also to ensure that those people are safe from the emergency and safe from COVID.
We are learning all the time. This is not a silver bullet. This framework is an ongoing living document, and that is so important, because we know that, as technology gets better, as we get more data and as our knowledge gets better, we are going to improve how we respond to emergencies. This government is working really hard to make sure we are on the front foot and ready to go, ready to adapt.
I commend this framework and the report on it to the chamber and I encourage you all to read it. Please, as we go into summer and we go off for our summer holidays, remember to be bushfire ready. If you live in a regional area, like I do, have your bushfire plan ready, clear your gutters out, get your hoses ready and be prepared, because it's really important. If you're not safe, you're not going to be around to help your neighbours. So I commend the framework to the chamber. I wish you all a merry Christmas and a very safe bushfire-ready flood-ready season. Thank you.
I also would like to take note of the ministerial statement regarding the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. I must respond to some of the things that my friend Senator Davey has said today. She has made a valiant effort to put forward her party and her minister's position on natural disasters and our preparedness for them, but I am afraid that there are some pretty important points that she missed in that statement and which do need to be put on the record.
We found out only yesterday evening that Minister Littleproud was intending to make this ministerial statement about the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. It can only be interpreted as another desperate attempt by this minister to distract attention from his failure and his government's failure to prepare for the coming disaster season. I have been on the record now for months—as has the Labor leader, Mr Albanese, and many other members of the Labor team—warning this government about the weather conditions we face this summer and our lack of preparedness for them. We are not doing that as some political manoeuvre. What we are doing is bringing to the government's attention a number of reports and pieces of advice that have been given to this government over the last few months about what we are facing this year.
The warnings from the Bureau of Meteorology, among other groups—the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, for instance—could not be clearer. This summer we face above-average bushfire risk in parts of Western Australia, particularly in the south-west, and also in western New South Wales. If we need any reminder that we need to take these warnings seriously, just have a look at what's happening on Fraser Island, in my home state of Queensland, right now. Almost half of the World Heritage listed forest is destroyed by bushfire, and this is before we get to the height of the disaster season in our country.
We know from these warnings that we face bushfire danger in a large proportion of the country this year. But potentially even more concerning is that, due to the La Nina conditions we're seeing, we face very serious and above-normal risks of cyclones, particularly in North Queensland and other northern parts of the country, and floods spreading basically right down the east coast. These are serious warnings. We remember the Prime Minister received similar serious warnings last year about the kinds of fires that were likely to occur in so much of the country, and that's exactly what happened. After last year, with the devastation, the loss of life, the loss of property, the loss of species, the loss of forests and the huge embarrassment and humiliation to this Prime Minister when it was demonstrated that he just didn't prepare and take these warnings seriously, you would have thought we would be facing something different this year. But we're not.
What the minister has attempted to do in this ministerial statement that he's delivered today, is say: 'It's all okay. Forget about what Labor's saying, because we have got this National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework, which shows that the government is taking natural disasters seriously and is investing to protect Australians.' Well, let's have a look at what's actually happened through this National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. We all know too well that we can't take at face value statements that ministers in this government or the Prime Minister make about what they claim to be doing, because we know that what they do is they make an announcement, they make a statement, and it never actually happens. When you dig into it just a little bit, it crumbles, and it is exactly the same here.
The National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework was announced by this government in 2018, two years ago. They didn't commit any funding whatsoever for it for another 12 months, till mid-2019, and took another year to get money out the door. So it took two years after this National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework was announced and was claimed to be the solution to protect Australians from natural disasters for a single dollar to be got out the door and, even now, two years on, not a single dollar has been spent in the Northern Territory, in New South Wales or in Western Australia. So there are a number of states which haven't received a single dollar and they just happen to be the states and territories that are most at risk from disasters this very summer. As I say, New South Wales and Western Australia are at above-normal risk of fire, and the Northern Territory is at above-normal risk of cyclones, and yet they haven't received a single dollar from this government to help keep them safe through this National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework.
So, yet again, we have statements from ministers in this government who say that they are acting to protect Australians from natural disasters, but you don't have to scratch too deeply to see that it's not actually true. That shouldn't be surprising to any of us because, as I say, we know there's a tendency by this government to make an announcement and not actually deliver. Even in this space of natural disaster management, it happens. The classic example is the Emergency Response Fund. The $4 billion fund that this government announced 18 months ago was set up to spend up to $200 million a year on disaster recovery and mitigation. Eighteen months on, how much has been spent? Zero.
We had this ministerial statement from Minister Littleproud today because he knows and the government know that they've been caught out failing to invest the funds from the Emergency Response Fund that are needed. He's trying to distract attention and point to anything that suggests he's doing something about natural disasters. But, as I say, the problem for him is that it's taken two years for money to get out the door and, even now, there are a number of states and territories that are most at risk from natural disasters this year that haven't seen a cent of it. This minister, this government and this Prime Minister have got to stop talking about doing things. They've got to stop claiming to have done things that they haven't. Just make use of the funds that are available.
There is a very serious risk of cyclones and floods, particularly in the north of our country, this summer. There is a bucket of funding that was set up with the opposition's support last year to prevent exactly the kind of damage that we're likely to see in a few weeks time. We shouldn't have to be coming into the chamber repeatedly to point this out to ministers—that they've got funds available that can be spent—and we shouldn't have to see what is likely to happen in a few weeks time, which is that Australians are impacted, yet again, by disasters that could have been prevented. It's not too late for the minister to spend some of those funds that are sitting there available. He should get on and do it now, rather than making ministerial statements that attempt to distract attention and overclaim for things that he has done.
I rise to take note of the report from the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management on the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. I appreciate that the chamber is tired and wants to move on as quickly as possible, but I could not sit and let the comments by Senator Watt pass unnoticed.
It is a tragedy for those of us who live in the part of the country where we see a lot of natural disasters—floods, bushfires, cyclones—that we have people from the Gold Coast making commentary around what are primarily state based risks. Unfortunately, in Queensland, we've just seen Fraser Island burn to the ground. The locals have been begging the state government to take appropriate action to prepare for the bushfire on that World Heritage listed island. They have been begging the state government to utilise the water-bombing plane. And yet: nothing. But this government—the federal government, guided by the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, has been providing the very tools that we need to provide assistance and support to Australians who've been left unprotected by their state Labor governments, primarily. There are things like telehealth for mental health services and things like additional radar, weather bureau measurements and flood monitoring.
In Queensland, it was the LNP government that built levies around towns like Goondiwindi, Charleville and Roma that have saved people from flood risks and floods since they've been built. In north Australia, it is very difficult to get insurance. There are people who are underinsured or not insured at all. The ACCC has made several recommendations to provide ways to reduce the costs for northern Australian people. Yet the Queensland state government and others won't take the necessary steps to reduce those costs by at least 9½ per cent straight off with the removal of state stamp duty. So I could not let Senator Watt make such outrageous comments about what is required from the federal government, when the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework, as presented by the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, has provided $2 billion of support for Australians to manage natural disaster resilience. I commend it to the Senate.
The question is that the motion to take note of the ministerial statement relating to the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
A report in relation to the ABC's coverage of the 2019 election was provided through an order for the production of documents. I won't take too long, because I know we all want to get home. I'd like to say I'm very disappointed that the ABC, who believe in the right to know, apply that test to everyone except themselves. I wrote to the ABC asking for a copy of this review. They did not supply it. My office lodged an FOI in relation to this review, and they did not supply it. The ABC only supplied this review, not because I demanded it, but because yesterday the Senate passed a motion for the order of the production of documents in relation to this review. This review has now been supplied through what can only be described as a lot of teeth-grinding by senior ABC executives, which is why it is so disappointing that the ABC—who did not want this election review to be released—is already out briefing about this election review within mere seconds of the document being tabled in this chamber by the minister. On the ABC website they had a banner claiming that the ABC review into the 2019 election found that it was impartial. Craig McMurtrie, their director of news, is already on Radio National talking about this election review. The ABC are now out happily briefing about a document they wanted kept secret—a document that this billion-dollar organisation, funded by the taxpayers of Australia, did not want taxpayers to see.
I say to the ABC: you exist because you are funded by the taxpayers of Australia. You are our national broadcaster. I would suggest that you start behaving like a national broadcaster, not like some little clique. You should listen to the people of Australia. Perhaps it would be good to listen to and read some of the observations in that review about the need for diversity of voices within the ABC, instead of it being such a left-wing talking shop. I have a plan for the ABC to be saved from itself—shift its headquarters out of the inner city areas, open up the recruitment process and put ads on the ABC. That way, we will truly see a national broadcasting corporation rather than this sadly depleted organisation that believes it is in its own interest not to release these reviews when it is actually in the public interest to release these reviews. The taxpayers of Australia have a right to know. Shame on the ABC for only releasing this document through an order of the Senate, but congratulations to the Senate for ordering it. Merry Christmas, everybody. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the committee does not insist on its amendment to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.
In doing so, I emphasise that the government has brought forward this legislation to this chamber and to this parliament to extend an additional support mechanism that we put in place as part of the economic lifeline that we have provided to Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been an important part of the comprehensive response provided by our government to this global pandemic. In doing so, it's provided assistance that, from the very outset, our government made clear would be targeted, temporary and proportionate. We have stuck to those principles to guide us through the crisis. In doing so, we have been able to provide the greatest levels of support at the greatest times of need. But it is important to recognise that the scale of government intervention put in place in the depths of the pandemic is not sustainable for the long term. That is why we were clear at the outset that measures would be temporary. They would be targeted and they would be proportionate. In relation to the JobSeeker supplement and the JobKeeper payments, we have been true to those initial principles that we outlined as a government. We have ensured that, in being proportionate, we have adjusted them—gradually, at stages, over time. We have always indicated that they would be temporary. The measures brought forward here have a clear end date of 30 March. That is no secret; that is what the government said when we announced this extension. We brought it transparently to the chamber.
The amendments that the House of Representatives has disagreed with would provide for an enduring ability of the minister to continue the supplement. It is not the government's belief that that enduring power is necessary, and certainly not that it need sit in the hands of the minister in that way. This parliament will have appropriate powers, as it always does, in relation to legislation. We put in place extraordinary powers for ministers in the depths of the global pandemic, during those extraordinary and dark days. Australia is in a far better place right now, which enables us to be here, in person, debating these things, with parliament having resumed its sittings, in the ordinary, normal course of events. In these times, it's not necessary for the minister to maintain such powers in an enduring way. We said that these measures would last until 30 March. That's what our legislation does. That's what we're standing by. That is why the government has not accepted the Senate's amendments.
Well, what an extraordinary contribution, but not as extraordinary as the statement of reasons. Everybody, hold on to your seats! Mr Morrison wants us to not insist on the amendments because he says it is important to respect the parliament. It is important to respect the parliament and to deal in primary legislation rather than regulation. It is important to respect the parliament! I've got two names in response to that. The first is Angus Taylor—a bloke who misleads the House of Representatives, relies on—
I have a point of order.
Senator Birmingham?
Senator Wong well knows to refer to members of the other place appropriately.
That says something about the debating style, doesn't it? You can defend on a technicality but not on the ethics, because you know this bloke relied on a forged document and doesn't have the decency to front up. But he's still there. That's respect for the parliament under Scott Morrison. Do you want to know the second name? It's Senator Richard Colbeck—censured by this chamber, turns his back on the Senate chamber when he's asked to explain his role as minister when so many Australians have died. And now we have the representative of the Prime Minister coming in and doing Mr Morrison's bidding, obediently trotting in here and saying, 'We have to respect the parliament, so we don't want you to insist on the amendment.'
What this really shows us is the pettiness of this Prime Minister. What it really shows us is the pettiness of this Prime Minister. He doesn't want to compromise. This is a provision—I'll say it again—that the minister told the opposition she had no problem with. I accept that they've been come over the top of—your Senate team. I accept that those in the PMO who advised Mr Morrison have said, 'No, we can't possibly compromise.' But the reality is that she knew the truth of it. She knew the truth of it—that the amendment that was moved by this chamber simply put the minister in the position she was in already, whereby she had the discretion to extend the supplement. That's the pettiness of the Prime Minister.
He's a bloke who pretends to be the daggy dad. But you know what he actually is? He's a bloke who never holds a hose. He's the bloke who never holds a hose. He's the bloke who never takes responsibility—never takes responsibility. It's always about the optics and the photo shoot and the headline and the story, and never about the reality. We see that here again today. We see that here again this evening, where he can't even cop an amendment that his minister knew was acceptable because he doesn't want to have a loss. Really? That's what we want the leader of the country focusing on? This message and these reasons for the decision demonstrate very clearly the sort of man that leads this country—prepared to talk about respect for the parliament but not prepared to demonstrate it.
I say to the Senate we should vote to insist on this amendment. I will also say—and the Australian Greens know; I made this clear to them before—we had a very productive discussion with the government. I'll come back to that. We have taken a responsible approach to this legislation because we believe we understand how many millions of Australians are relying on the continuation of these payments. So, unlike Mr Morrison, we're not going to play games.
I do want to say something about the shemozzle that we've seen in these last few hours, where the government belatedly realised it did not have the numbers to defeat two amendments and was unable to get those resolved. It was in this context that the discussions were had, where the minister made it very clear that she could live with this amendment but not with the other one. To her credit, she did what was requested of her. She explained to the chamber—to the Australian Greens and to the Australian Labor Party—why the government could not live with the second amendment. It was a shemozzle, and the government should have sorted it out earlier and should have explained it earlier; it should have made sure that it could actually run the procedure and the numbers. But, leaving that all aside, we didn't make a big song and dance about it, and we tried to find a way through because I understood what she was saying and so did Senator Siewert. How is this chamber met by the Prime Minister in the face of that cooperation? He's given us the proverbial finger. Let's be clear, he has. This statement of reasons makes it really clear: there is no substantive reason why the government can't accept this amendment that has no practical effect. The minister knew that and she told the truth. The only effect is on the Prime Minister's, Mr Morrison's, ego.
The fact that he's prepared to do this, in this way, with a bill that is about support for so many Australians, says something about his character. It says something about what his priority is, because it isn't the people who are supported by the bill. It's himself. And that's the consistent theme, isn't it? It's always about him—how he looks, the spin bike, the daggy shorts, the chicken coop. All these great picfacs are always about him, not about the people we're supposed to be helping and representing, and, in this bill, not about the people who are doing it tough. It is pathetic. It is a pathetic display—first, an incompetent display from the government, but we all make mistakes; worse, a display of pettiness and lack of character from the man who's supposed to lead the nation. 'I don't hold a hose, mate'—that's who he is.
This legislation, we know, is important. But it's also important that the minister is provided with the measures that may be necessary to deal with what we still don't know may happen. We aren't out of this pandemic yet, and those of our fellow Australians who are doing it tough at the moment certainly aren't out of trouble. We're still suffering from a recession. This is the very least the government can do. We aren't out of this pandemic yet, and those of our fellow Australians who are doing it tough at the moment certainly aren't out of trouble. We're still suffering from a recession. This is the very least the government can do.
They won't raise the JobSeeker payment. They keep saying, 'Oh, let's wait to see what's happening with an economic recovery.' You don't actually need to know what's happening there, because we already know the JobSeeker payment is not adequate, and the government knows that. Those who were listening earlier would have heard the government tie themselves in knots trying to explain why they brought in the coronavirus supplement while denying that the JobSeeker payment of $40 a day was inadequate. They refused to acknowledge that. They know very well that the JobSeeker payment is inadequate. There is absolutely no excuse not to raise it now. If you need to do a top-up, do a top-up later on, in case something happens down the line. But we know we are never going to come to a situation in this country where 40 bucks a day is enough. It simply is not. So what this amendment did was ensure, just in case. But no. The government wouldn't do that, because apparently the government are always right. Well, no, you're not. You're not right on the cashless debit card, and you're not right on this.
I'll remind everybody that this bill actually cuts the supplement. Do you think I want to support a bill that cuts the supplement? Not really. I moved an amendment to keep it where it was, at $550 a fortnight. But we're supporting it because we don't want to see people going into Christmas and New Year having to survive on 40 bucks a day. So I'm sucking it up, as are the Australian Greens, when what I'd like to do is knock it back into the ballpark and make you come back with some better payments. That's what we want. We want a permanent increase to JobSeeker.
So it breaks my heart that we're having to sit here to support a bill that I know will make people live in poverty if they're trying to survive on this. We know it's dropping people down to below the poverty line as we come up to Christmas. Happy Christmas! We know that the January period is one of those periods when essential services, emergency relief and financial counselling are in demand, yet the government are cutting the supplement. They dress it up in fancy words: 'No, we're extending it, because it was going to run out.' No. Australians know that, come 1 January, the money in their pockets will be reduced by another 100 bucks. As we run up to March, when people are going to start not being able to pay their rent and they're going to start having to default, we are going to have a problem here. We still don't know what's going to happen with the pandemic. We still don't know what's happening with the vaccine. We don't know the future, which is the point the government's made. Yet what you're doing is cutting off an option to give the minister the power to deal with a situation that may arise.
The government knows that we are not going to deny people money in the run-up to Christmas and into next year. We can't possibly. It's inconceivable that we would not support at least some money going to those people in Australia doing it tough. This is an appalling way to treat this Senate. It was a very reasonable amendment. We supported it because it was a reasonable amendment, and it's appalling for the other place to just kick it back. The Prime Minister has effectively kicked sand in our faces—that's what it's about—while they do over so many Australians by dropping them into poverty. Australians who are trying to survive on it will be thinking about that over Christmas: 'How are we going to make our rent payments? How are we going to pay the mortgage? How are we going to continue to put food on the table?' They'll start going without medications and skipping meals again, like they used to on the 40 bucks a week that JobSeeker was. People will be living in poverty. Over a million children will be dropped into poverty or further into poverty.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on the left!
This is not good legislation, but we have to support it because we don't want to see people literally go hungry.
Let's just turn to the words in the message from the House of Representatives: 'It is important to respect the parliament.' I want to pick up on the word 'respect', because this is a government and this is a prime minister who do not understand what it is to respect. The do not understand what it is to respect the Australian people, to respect hardworking Australians who are doing it tough during this pandemic. We know that right now in Australia there are 1.5 million people on JobSeeker. We know that there are two million Australians—our fellow citizens—who are relying on the coronavirus supplement. While there is promising news about vaccines, we don't know when a vaccine is going to come. We don't know what is going to happen in the economy over the next few months. We know the government spent $15 million to come up with one word, 'comeback'. They think the economy is coming back. They made a $15 million bet that it is. But we know the snapback didn't occur. We don't know that the comeback is going to occur, and that's why this chamber, this Senate, believes it is important that the minister have the power for discretion to respond to changing circumstances. She doesn't have to use it, but she should have that power and she has even agreed she should have that power.
The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is correct. We are here because the Prime Minister respects only one thing: his own ego and his own standing in the community. He doesn't care about Australians who are doing it tough. If we want to talk about the lack of respect from this Prime Minister, let's talk about the lack of respect he has for Australians in aged care. He gets delivered a report called Neglect from the royal commission. It talks about older Australians—our parents and grandparents—starving in their beds, with wounds with ants and maggots crawling out of them. Does this Prime Minister respond? Does he allocate money sufficient to give a response? Does he ensure that there is a plan in place when a deadly pandemic hits our shores? Does he deal with the fact that he has an incompetent minister who is censured by this Senate? No. The disrespect that this Prime Minister shows for older Australians in aged care is the sign of his disrespect not just for the parliament but for the Australian people and for older Australians in aged care.
Let's talk about his disrespect for workers. Dnata workers were deliberately excluded from JobKeeper by this Prime Minister and this government. These are Australians citizens who paid Australian taxes and worked hard in Australian jobs, but this Prime Minister disrespected them and discarded them from JobKeeper. Let's talk about the Qantas workers. This Prime Minister disrespected them. Two thousand Qantas workers got the sack this month. They got the sack. Their jobs were outsourced; their jobs didn't disappear. Let's understand this: this wasn't a pandemic problem; this was a privatisation and outsourcing approach by Alan Joyce and Qantas, and they were allowed to do it by this Prime Minister.
An opposition senator: And they got JobKeeper.
Qantas was given JobKeeper by this government. What did it do? This government stood by, with no plan for aviation, no plan for workers, and let Qantas disrespect. So don't talk to me about respecting the parliament, Prime Minister. You haven't shown respect.
You're not showing respect to the victims of the bushfires. You told us you don't hold a hose, Prime Minister. You haven't even had the decency to deliver one cent—one cent—out of the emergency relief fund for bushfire victims. People are still living in caravans on the South Coast of New South Wales because this Prime Minister disrespects the trauma of their experience.
And let's talk about the lack of respect that this Prime Minister has for First Nations people. He has fundamentally rejected the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the First Nations Voice to the parliament, the makarrata commission. They have rejected every cry from the heart from First Nations people. Shame on them! Shame on them! And then there was the most appalling display last night as we listened. I was inspired and I was proud to be a senator in this chamber with the likes of Senator McCarthy, Senator Dodson and First Nations senators from the Greens and the Independents, who stood in this chamber and spoke from their experience in their communities about the racist nature of the cashless debit card. Don't talk about respect, Prime Minister, when you have fundamentally disrespected the oldest continuing culture on earth, our First Nations people. You have rejected their voice and you have disrespected them.
And let us talk about the Prime Minister's lack of respect for veterans. Veterans and their families know the scourge of veteran suicide. They have called for a royal commission; they have demanded a royal commission; they have pleaded for a royal commission. What did this Prime Minister do? Did he respect their views? Did he listen to them? No, because it's all about him. If he hasn't had the idea first, it's not a good idea. If he can't claim credit for it, if there's not a marketing campaign in there for him, he just rejects it. There's no respect from this Prime Minister for our veterans. Don't talk to us about respect, Prime Minister. Don't send a message to this Senate about respect.
Let's talk about the lack of respect for workers who helped us through this pandemic: nurses, teachers, cleaners, childcare workers, police officers, aged-care workers. What does he do? What's his Christmas present to them? It is an industrial relations bill that will cut their pay. The Morrison pay cut, that's what workers are getting: WorkChoices 2.0. It is in their DNA. He has disrespected the workers who put themselves on the line, put their health and wellbeing on the line, to ensure that Australians were able to have fundamental services. Retail workers, grocery store workers, the people who stock the shelves, the truck drivers—all of these people are going to get the Morrison pay cut for Christmas.
Don't talk to us about your respect, Prime Minister, and the esteem you hold it in. If you had respect for people you would never have introduced robodebt when you were the social services minister. If you had respect for people, you would have woken up to the fact that thousands of Australians were dying after they got robodebt notices. This is the Prime Minister who invented robodebt, proclaimed robodebt and banked his false surplus off robodebt. So don't talk to us about respect, Prime Minister. And, if you really had respect, you'd hold your ministers to account. Richard Colbeck has been censured by the Senate. Angus Taylor created fake documents and was never able to explain where they came from. Come on! What happened to ministerial accountability here?
Excuse me, Senator Keneally. Senator Abetz has a point of order.
I shouldn't have to raise the point of order. Senator Ayres has a silly smile on his face, which tells it all. He called out, 'He's a crook,' in reference to Mr Taylor. That clearly has to be withdrawn. Nobody has ever suggested that Mr Taylor fabricated a document. That is a fabrication in itself.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Ayres, it would assist the chamber if you could withdraw, please.
A silly grin is my resting face, but, if it assists the chair, I'll withdraw.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Keneally.
If this Prime Minister really respected the Australian people, he would not have bought their votes with his corrupt sports rorts scheme. Let's call a spade a shovel here. This corrupt government bought votes in marginal seats with their colour coded spreadsheets and their corrupt sports rorts scheme, and they voted against accountability of Minister McKenzie—no, sorry, Senator McKenzie—fronting up to the sports rorts committee. So don't talk to us about your bloody respect, Prime Minister. Don't talk to us about it.
This legislation should go back. We should insist upon this amendment because it is the right thing to do, and the Prime Minister should respect the will of this Senate.
I'm just rising to perhaps look at this from a slightly different perspective. I actually don't understand the reason for a vote on the motion not to insist on the amendment, because, in effect, the government's asking us to vote to remove a power from one of its own ministers to exercise a discretion. And, actually, we've heard a few things about different ministers. Minister Ruston is one of the ministers that I wouldn't suggest would abuse a power, would abuse a discretion.
People might recall that, when I rose to talk on the valedictory about Senator Cormann, I talked about relationships. I want to talk about Senator Ruston over the last few weeks as she has stepped up into the role of Manager of Government Business in the Senate. It's been pretty hectic. We've had some controversial bills. And, look, some mistakes have been made. I don't think anyone can be blamed. It's a complex task. Minister Ruston has to run the chamber as the Manager of Government Business in the Senate but also has to deal with her own legislation. She has been dealing with some controversial legislation over the last couple of days.
Notwithstanding that I don't agree with the proposition that has been put forward by the government, what I can tell you is that her engagement with me personally in dealing with this legislation started probably a month or more ago, when Minister Ruston took me out to show me the technology provider for the cashless debit card and organised a cashless debit card for me. She sat down and ran me through all of the legislation. People might note that I asked about 50 questions on notice last week, which were returned really quickly. She's been available at any point in time to answer my questions. I think people appreciate that, after a heavy week in parliament last week, she gave up her weekend. She came with me to Ceduna and she showed me around, basically pushing her bill.
And I can tell you that there have been a number of conversations taking place between me and Senator Ruston, between Senator Ruston and Senator Lambie, between Senator Lambie and Centre Alliance, between Senator Ruston and Centre Alliance, and between the opposition and Senator Ruston, and those conversations have been taking place at all hours of the day and night. Minister Ruston looks tired. Minister Ruston looks a bit battered! I watched your facial expression today when you realised that you actually didn't have the numbers. Whilst people here have to vote on the merits of legislation, I actually felt a little bit sorry for you, noting the couple of weeks that you've had.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Prime Minister, in picking his cabinet, has to pick good people and then he has to empower those people to make decisions. And I'm very disappointed that, after Minister Ruston made a decision and made a commitment to Senator Wong, which Senator Wong then transmitted to the crossbench, the Prime Minister didn't stand by Senator Ruston's decision. That, to me, is disrespectful. Whatever you might think about the legislation that has been before the chamber over the last couple of days, the passing of that particular bill was very difficult for the government, and we all got snookered. When, finally, the numbers weren't available, Senator Ruston had a backup plan and she out-snookered all of us. So, whilst I'm not in any way suggesting that her managing to get the bill through the Senate is a good thing, I think she did a good job and I think it is hugely disrespectful, her having made a decision in this chamber, for that to be overturned by the Prime Minister. I think that's the wrong thing to do.
Can I just put on the record some clarity around this amendment disagreed to by the House. The amendment that is being proposed would keep supplementary provisions in place indefinitely, rather than being managed by primary legislation. In the contributions from everybody else in this chamber, we actually didn't hear very much about the substance of the amendment. Instead, what we heard was an absolutely vicious personal attack on the Prime Minister. I think Senator Keneally traversed just about every single subject matter that's ever been before this chamber, with the exception of the matter that was before the chair.
When we first brought this particular measure into the chamber at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, on 23 March, we asked this place to enable me to exercise these powers in the absence of being able to come back to this place to seek for this place to make this decision as it normally would. Senator Gallagher, I'll quote your own words back to you. When you stood up in this place, when you gave me the powers for this particular measure, you said it gave 'unprecedentedly broad powers to the minister' and you said:
We did believe that this needed an expiry date because of the significant powers that are being delegated from legislation to regulation …
It has been extended. It has been extended but we're seeking—
Senator Keneally interjecting—
So it is, rather, rank hypocrisy to come in here—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order, Senator Wong!
and then arguing the fact that somehow—
Senator Wong interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order!
I'm having a little trouble hearing at the moment, Chair.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, could you take your seat, please. Could we please have order? I'm having trouble hearing the minister and I'm two metres away from the minister. Please, everybody, we're almost there. I can see Santa! Minister.
I just want to put on the record that, despite all that's gone before us today, the government believes it is an unnecessary amendment because it gives me the power to retain an instrument to make a power indefinitely when the parliament is sitting, as we speak. Additionally, the amendment engages highly technical legislation. If you passed this amendment, it would actually have unintended effects by the way of inadvertently ceasing some elements of the social security law linked to the payment in the supplement.
This power-making provision was initially put in place due to the unprecedented circumstances being faced by the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncertainty around the ability for this place to sit. So circumstances have clearly changed, because the parliament is sitting. We are here today and the parliament is sitting. So, if the government decides to extend any measures past 31 March 2021 in response to circumstances that we might find ourselves in at that time, we will seek to legislate through the parliament in the usual manner because we do respect the power of this parliament.
The CHAIR: The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
It's that time of year, even if it doesn't always feel like it as we approach it. Across Australia this year it has been a time that, in some ways, brings to mind the Charles Dickens phrase from A Tale of Two Cities'the best and worst of times'. In Australia, as we approach the end of 2020 we can have enormous gratitude and thankfulness for the country in which we live and in which all Australians live. When compared to the rest of the world, our nation has come through what has been the most challenging period the world has faced since World War II far better than most others. We've done so with typical Australian resilience, capabilities and compassion.
It has been the worst of times for many around the world, including many in Australia. This year, as we pause, many of us will think of those who have lost loved ones as a result of COVID-19, those who have suffered loss—personal loss, financial loss, loss of job, loss of business—and the many challenges that many Australians have faced. Australians can look back, knowing that their resilience, their efforts and their coming together throughout this year have enabled many Australians to withstand the circumstances far better than the rest of the world, and that there is much to be thankful for but also much that we should be respectful of and mindful of as we pause and not only give thanks but also remind ourselves of the losses that have occurred.
In getting through this remarkable year, we in this place owe enormous gratitude to many. Whilst the world has faced a pandemic unlike any other for a century, this place has had to function in a way unlike at any other time in its history. We pay thanks first and foremost to all those who have enabled our parliamentary institutions that were never designed to face the type of environment we have—where travel became restricted, where ability for members to attend parliament became restricted—to function through it all. We have functioned as a result of the efforts of those who manage these places. We pay particular thanks to the parliamentary staff: to those in the Department of the Senate, led by our Clerk and all of the deputy clerks; and to the teams across the board and across the parliament who have enabled us to meet and to do what Australians have required in the most challenging of circumstances. They have adapted. We need only look around this chamber to see the large black screens staring back at us as a reminder that this is a very different image for the chamber than the one at the start of this year. In doing so, no doubt we have learnt much in terms of the way in which we can operate, particularly when it comes to the engagement of committees and other processes, to get the most efficient and effective use of our time.
I thank all the teams working across the parliament, not only the clerks and their assistants but all those across the parliamentary departments, and the attendants across the chamber, who have had to bear particular burdens of managing rearranged seating and restrictions in terms of access. We pay tribute to them, along with others who have had to do similar: the Comcar drivers, the security staff and the cleaners, who have all had to adapt to changed work patterns, regulations and restrictions in this building as a result of COVID-19. We acknowledge those in the background: the building maintenance, the Hansard staff and the various people working right across the building who make it all hum and tick, whether at a normal time or at an extraordinary time.
I want to place on record our thanks to, particularly, all staff of all senators. This has been a very challenging year for them. As Australians have been doing it tough, as measures and radical interventions have been put in place to keep people safe and to keep their economic position secure, our staff and the staff across many government departments and agencies have had to be on the front line responding to Australians in their hour of need, providing them with advice, with compassion and with assistance. I know that across all political offices and all political parties, our staff will have helped many constituents navigate the support that was available to them to get them through their toughest hours and times. I thank all of them as I thank all those in our Public Service for their work in stepping up, responding and often performing duties well outside of what they were employed or expected to do.
I acknowledge, particularly with nearly all of the state leaders in Canberra tonight, the fact that this year we've also had to call upon much cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth. The advent of the national cabinet, which has allowed for a faster, more responsive approach to Commonwealth-state cooperation than old COAG mechanisms did, has been a good thing. It is hopefully one of the lasting positive changes to come out of this terrible time. It's not perfect and, of course, the Federation still has its battles, but I do acknowledge that the states and their cooperation have been very important to all of the efforts across the board.
Returning to the Senate, of course, I have taken on the role as leader during the course of this year. I want to acknowledge, firstly, my predecessor, Mathias Cormann, and thank him for his leadership and service over many years, as we did at the time of his departure. I particularly also want to thank the current leadership team, Senator Cash and Senator Ruston. I thank the whips, led by Senator Dean Smith, and his team: Senator McGrath, Senator Brockman, Senator Perrin from the National Party, who have all done an outstanding job during the course of this year. Ours is a coalition, as we all know, and I particularly thank Senator McKenzie and our National Party friends for their partnership. I thank Bridget for her work alongside me in leading and working with the coalition and for all that you did in working with Mathias during a year that has been tough at times. To all of my Liberal colleagues, I thank you very much for the support that you have provided to Michaelia and me as we have stepped up into the leadership ranks. Across the board, I acknowledge the hard work in the Senate committees with the committee staff that all senators have performed in a range of different ways. I thank each and every one of you for that.
Looking around the chamber, I acknowledge that we have disagreements and they can be fierce disagreements at times. We've witnessed some of that even tonight, but it is also the case that in this chamber of this parliament ultimately nothing is achieved without cooperation. As fierce as the disagreements get at times, we all need to keep in mind that we need to find ways to work together to get things done for the betterment of our country. Our country can stand tall in the world as an influential nation, but one that faces very challenging times right now. Yes, we've stood up to the threats of COVID better than most, but we also find new strategic challenges in our region that will be present for some time to come. I congratulate Australians on the resilience they've shown this year. All members of the government, I'm sure all members of the Senate, are proud of the way in which Australians have adapted, responded and survived. We want to see them thrive and succeed in the years to come, and our cooperation in this place will be important to getting them through those years.
To those who will, as most Australians will, celebrate Christmas and the Christian Christmas, we wish you all every success, every happiness, every blessing in your celebrations. To those who will celebrate other festivities through this time, we wish you every happiness through your celebrations. To all Australians, we hope this is a time that people can give thanks for the presence of their loved ones, remember those who they have lost whether from COVID or other causes, throughout the course of the year, and come together to be grateful for being Australians, for being in our great country, and all commit to making sure that 2021 is a year in which the recovery that is underway helps us all on the journey to further success and prosperity. Mr President, thank you for your leadership through this great but challenging year, and we wish you, your loved ones and all senators a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
I thank the Senate for the opportunity to place some remarks on the record as we end the parliamentary year.
Much has been said about the challenges of 2020 and the impact of the pandemic on everyone's lives. Certainly the Senate has found some extraordinary ways to continue its work, but the adjustments all of us have made to our work have been trifling in comparison to the shock and challenges faced by so many of the people we serve: nearly a million Australians unemployed, 1½ million on JobKeeper and 1.8 million on JobSeeker by the end of the year; those lost to coronavirus and those who mourn their loss; the 685 Australians who died in residential aged care; and Australians who lost loved ones and homes in the bushfires of last summer. This has been a year that has been tough, a year defined by tragedy, loss and grief for too many of our fellow Australians.
Our job here is to do everything we can to help. Our positions carry great privilege, and, in return, they demand accountability. They demand responsibility to help and protect our fellow Australians. I'm very proud to lead the Labor team in this place, and I am grateful on their behalf to place some thanks and season's greetings on the record.
I'll start with you, Mr President. Can I say personally how much I've appreciated the opportunity to work with you again this year. This President is a principled, trusted custodian of the chamber. I'm grateful for your constructive and cooperative manner and your extraordinary efforts to maintain the operations of this place, including working with states to facilitate the movement of senators for parliamentary business. While occasionally we may not live up to the standards you set—only very occasionally!—your commitment to upholding them is to the benefit not just of this place but of the Australian democracy, and I know you understand that.
I want to thank the Deputy President and Chair of Committees, my dear friend Senator Lines, who does an enormous amount of work behind the scenes and also in the chamber as Deputy President and Chair of Committees. She brings a calm, practical and inclusive approach, and I think we saw that in a difficult debate last night. I thank her for that. I did tell her she wasn't allowed to leave! It is very important work, and I want to acknowledge her and thank her for her work.
To my counterpart, Senator Birmingham: obviously for Christmas we have a freshly minted Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Birmingham is the fourth leader I've faced—is that right? Somebody wrote that! Is that actually true? Can I wish him a successful and short stint as Leader of the Government in the Senate! It was a joke, Michaelia! She's looking so serious! I also acknowledge the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cash, and acknowledge her promotion to that role.
On my own side, can I first start with Senator Keneally. I am particularly grateful to my deputy, Senator Keneally, who is—and we saw it again this evening—a tireless, fierce advocate for the Labor cause. She is relentless in every aspect—in seeking to hold the government to account, for example, for its promise to have Australians who are stranded overseas home by Christmas. She knows personally the pain of being kept apart from family by the pandemic at the most difficult of times, and, through it, she has kept going. So, Kristina, I hope you have time with your family this Christmas and I hope you have the time and space to remember and celebrate your father.
I couldn't ask for better sisters to be in the trenches with than Senator Keneally and, of course, the Manager of Opposition Business, Senator Gallagher. Senator Gallagher has extraordinary skill, finesse and diplomacy in performing one of the most gruelling and complex jobs in the parliament. Her EQ is high; mine is not. She does her best to make up for it! Did you notice that my colleagues didn't laugh at that joke, by the way?
Opposition senators interjecting—
They're thinking, 'Am I supposed to laugh?' I particularly thank Katy for the critical role she's played in the COVID-19 select committee, which is one of the most far-reaching programs of work I can remember. Thank you for that. I also thank the staff of Senators Keneally and Gallagher, who are highly effective and diligent—dogged, at times—and a pleasure to work with.
I thank our Opposition Whip and Deputy Opposition Whips. Senator Anne Urquhart, Senator Ciccone and Senator McCarthy are a fantastic team, and I thank them and their staff. My staff have said, 'I hope the only bells you hear over Christmas are on Santa's sleigh!'
I thank my team for their commitment this year. It is a privilege to hold the position I hold, and it makes the job so much easier knowing I have such an incredibly committed, capable and talented group of individuals supporting our effort. Anthony Albanese said this week that this is the most talented Senate caucus he can remember, and he was right. So thank you for your work. To all colleagues in this chamber: in the spirit of the Christmas season, I extend my best wishes to all of you and to your families. Those who love us endure a great deal, and, without their care and support, we wouldn't be able to do our jobs.
I do want to thank the Clerk, Richard Pye; the Deputy Clerk, Jackie Morris; Tim Bryant; Rachel Callinan; Toni Matulick; John Begley; and all of the staff of the Department of the Senate. Thank you for the work you do for Australian democracy. Thank you, particularly, to the secretaries of committees and the staff of secretariats; I know how much your workload has increased. Thanks to the chamber attendants. We really appreciate the work you do and the way in which you keep this place going. I'm sorry my knee keeps hitting my button and you keep having to come over to see if I want anything!
Thanks to all at the Department of Parliamentary Services, with particular thanks to the Parliamentary Library, PBO, and, of course, Hansard, security, maintenance and ancillary staff who work to ensure the running of Parliament House. I always want to mention the cleaners. I'm grateful to the work of the hardworking cleaners. We know how essential their job is to the maintenance of our health and wellbeing, and they always deserve more than they are paid. Thanks to all who support what we do inside and outside the building, including the Comcar drivers, and I thank also the parliamentary security team and the AFP.
To the press gallery: these are hard times to work in the media, and I acknowledge the uncertainties and pressures you work under. But your work is so important, because there is no democracy without you. To staff of Labor senators, I want to express my thanks. We are privileged on this side—and I'm sure all senators would say this—to be supported by outstanding people. Their efforts are reflected in so much that we do—in the speeches we deliver, in the policies we develop, in the operation of the institution and, of course, in our ability to serve our constituents. For many staff it has been a very demanding year. I want to say that I recognise that personal sacrifice is, regrettably, often so much a part of the job of being a political staffer. We are all very grateful. I express my personal gratitude to my whole team, ably led by Tom Mooney.
Finally, to all the Labor members and supporters throughout Australia, including our friends in the labour movement: on behalf of the Senate Labor team, I extend our gratitude and our solidarity and I hope that the holiday season is a happy and safe one for you all. To those comrades in our movement who work inside and outside of this place in service of the Labor cause, who understand that Labor governments change the country and who are working to make a federal Labor government a reality: I thank you for your commitment, your values and your aspiration. I wish all a Merry Christmas.
What a year the world has had. On behalf of the Australian Greens, I express love and support to all Australians who have suffered this year. What a bin fire of a year.
To the formalities: here in the parliament, President, can we start by thanking you for the important work that you've done this year to keep the chamber mostly civilised and focused during a particularly chaotic and challenging time. This has been an extremely testing year for everyone, and you have personally done well to keep it ticking along, as has your family. You've been fair and patient. You must remember to buy the trampoline for the kids for Christmas!
I'd like to extend the Greens' thanks to the Clerk, Richard Pye; to the Deputy Clerk, Jackie Morris; and to all of the amazing staff at the Table Office and the Procedure Office. To Toni, to both Rachels and to everyone in the drafting office: thank you for your tireless work. To the Senate staff and, of course, the lovely attendants who keep this place ticking over—who, thankfully, don't have to bring us glasses of water anymore; we can get our own water now so that's halved their workload, at least in my instance—thank you very much for the work you do for us but mostly on behalf of the Australian people. You go about your business professionally and with purpose and with patience. From all of us, have a wonderful break over Christmas.
Thank you to the gardeners. They make this place look absolutely stunning, and they shine a little light onto how our public places should look. Being able to steal a few moments every so often to wander outside brings a much-needed perspective to our decision-making in this place.
I'd also like to thank the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Parliamentary Library, of course the COMCAR drivers, the security staff, the baristas, the chefs at the Trough, who make fantastic chips, and the Department of Parliamentary Services staff for the service you give us all hours of the morning, noon and night. Particular thanks, of course, to the cleaners—what a year to recognise the value of cleaners, teachers and health workers.
Thanks to the IT teams for their immense efforts in keeping democracy operating safely during a pandemic, particularly as we transitioned to remote parliament. Remote parliament was a long time coming, and you did a remarkable job in getting a bunch of technophobes, for the most part, to successfully dial in, sometimes with cats, pets and children in the background, which was also delightful to see. I look forward to future discussions about the opportunities for greater participation and diverse representation that remote parliament could provide.
Thank you to the colleagues from all sides of this chamber. Thank you for your commitment to our nation in performing these roles. We know it's not an easy job, and we acknowledge the work that you do to represent your constituents. In particular, thanks to the crossbench as well.
Thank you to the staff of all of you in this building. It's important that we keep those staff in this workplace safe from harassment and bullying and ensure that their interests are best protected. I look forward to working more on that collectively as we resume next year.
Thank you, of course, to all the engaged citizens in our electorates who contact us with stories, ideas and sometimes robust critiques. It's critical to democracy that we remain connected to the people that we represent.
I'd of course like to thank my wonderful Greens Senate team—all true friends and passionate advocates. A particular thanks to all of our Greens staff who keep us on track, and special mention to Clare, Colin, Rod, Jay, and to my staff, Jess and Justine, who come here to Canberra. We couldn't do any of this without you. It's been a big change this year for our party with a change of leadership. The wonderful member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, has handled this year marvellously despite a pandemic and working on the wrong side of the building. We were also pleased to welcome our fierce new senator, Lidia Thorpe, who, I might add, makes this place majority female for the first time in its history. I want to particularly thank Rachel, our Whip, for the power of work that she does not only to advocate never-endingly for vulnerable Australians but also to wrangle the bunch of us. Some of us are easier than others to wrangle. I think Rache is the best Whip in this place, and probably will be the best Whip that this place ever sees.
On a personal note, I want to say thank you to my daughters and my family for their love and support. The work of everyone in this place comes at a cost to our families, and none of us could do this without them. My oldest daughter graduated from primary school yesterday, and I'm very much looking forward to giving her a cuddle and celebrating tomorrow. I'm sure everyone's similarly in that boat.
Thank you all for the sacrifice and the commitment and the passion you bring to these roles. I'll just sign off by saying to those of you who don't believe in Christmas— not mentioning any names—happy non-denominational, gender-neutral, environmentally sustainable, socially responsible holidays. For the rest of you, happy Christmas!
Wow! I believe in Christmas, but thank you very much. I'd like to associate the Nationals with all of the wonderful words that have been said tonight.
For regional Australia, 2020 has been a tough one. We started it with the drought—it's broken in a lot of places, which has been fantastic, and we've seen bumper seasons—then bushfires, floods and, obviously, COVID. If you're in a border town, you couldn't—as Senator Keneally had to experience—be with loved ones at very difficult times. You're separated. I know there are so many of us around this chamber and around our nation who are very thankful that premiers have finally opened the borders and that they can actually catch up with their very dear family and loved ones in this particular period.
Thanks to our government for actually making the tough decisions and steering our nation as best as possible to protect lives and livelihoods. I think, relative to the rest of the world, we can be very confident that the right decisions were made.
Thank you to the opposition for supporting our government in many of those very, very difficult programs that have supported broader Australia.
Thank you to our frontline workers with respect to COVID. It's scary sending your loved one onto the front line, and we just want to say thank you to them. Thank you to all the staff of Parliament House. You keep it ticking. It hasn't been an easy year. To the CFA and the RFSs, thank you.
Simon, thank you very much for your leadership of the government in the Senate, and I look forward to working with you very closely on behalf of our two parties within a strong coalition in 2021. Vale, Mathias, the legend, but he's been with us much—
Senator Wong interjecting—
No—well, he's left. Okay, Penny, he's left the building.
Senator Wong interjecting—
No, I'm not saying—okay. It's alright. It's late.
I want to say thank you to the fantastic National Party Senate team. We have rocked. We've done very, very well on behalf of our communities and the people who sent us here this year, and I'm really looking forward to you all getting a good rest and recuperation and coming back fighting in 2021. Thank you to Paul Murray for letting Matt arrive late to his daily Sky interview today. I just wish everybody in the chamber and all your families a very blessed and sacred Christmas season. Thank you.
Thank you. If I could make some observations myself, I will commence by associating myself with all the comments of the four party leaders.
I've got a lot of thankyous to acknowledge this year, and I'm going to start with the people I think are the real custodians of the Senate in many ways, and that is the team of staff led by the Clerk, Richard Pye; the Deputy Clerk; the assistant clerks; and all the staff at the Department of the Senate—in particular, the committee staff. We know that, in a year like this, a parliament sitting matters. The staff have had to do extraordinary things to enable us to go about our work and undertake extraordinary workloads, and this parliament has successfully sat. The committee that Senator Wong mentioned, chaired by Senator Gallagher, with Senator Paterson, and with all parties represented on it, has undertaken a very serious amount of work, and this parliament has functioned—I might say unlike those of some of our states, where they have not been able to continue in the same way. That is a shared commitment across all sides, despite the occasional difference, that I have experienced this year in both houses.
We farewelled John Brown during the year. It does feel odd in for the first time in my 14 years to not be thanking John and his team of attendants. But to Steve and the team of attendants: thank you for all the work that you do.
In a year like this, more than most, we are reminded that we often take a lot for granted—the basic things we do. But, in this building in particular, I'd like to give particular thanks to the Department of Parliamentary Services, who don't always get the plaudits they deserve. That is for the cleaning staff, who we previously did not depend on to the same degree for our safety; the IT staff, who had to ensure this parliament could keep functioning in a matter of weeks without people travelling; and Broadcasting, who have enabled a rapid transition to virtual participation so that our work could keep going—to name just a few. We have asked a lot from them this year, and they have delivered.
I want to have a few personal thanks for people the Speaker and I have worked with on your behalf in the health departments—to Professor Michael Kidd and Dr Catherine Kelaher from the Commonwealth Department of Health. We have had fortnightly conferences with them that have involved everything from wearing masks to the seats we put you in to when we can sit to when Aussie's can open or you can use the gym. They have been available and have answered the most detailed questions for this unique workplace, which, like nowhere else in the country, was bringing people from all around our nation when others were not able to travel.
The ACT Health Directorate were exceptionally helpful. Occasional disagreements might have happened, but the officials in the Health Directorate facilitated the travel of people across state and territory borders where travel restrictions were put in place. I'd like to thank in particular Vanessa Dal Molin, who I worked with and who I can imagine other Victorian senators worked very closely with over the last six to eight months.
To the leaders and whips: for the very kind words said by Senators Birmingham, Wong, Waters and McKenzie, thank you on a personal level. To the whips also: we have had to have challenging, difficult, under-pressure discussions at various points this year, and our shared commitment to this Senate working and your belief that we and the officials are working on your behalf and the Senate's behalf have made that possible.
To the Deputy President, Sue Lines: thank you very much for your support and all the work that you have done, particularly in very long committee stages, very late, when I can't even come in and relieve you. To the Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the other place: this has been a year where we've had to do a lot more in some ways together in the operation of the parliament, because we could not take for granted that we could be here. I'd like to thank them. I know that work has been done across parties to ensure that we could come together.
To all senators: you have been very understanding. Arrangements have constantly changed. You have had to travel at short notice, you have had to not travel at short notice and some of you have been turned around while travelling. For your understanding of these arrangements and your personal support for me and the work I do, I just want to say a very big thank you for your flexibility and understanding. To all our staff: it has been a challenging year. To my staff, in particular, who I hadn't seen for several months up until the borders opened, being here in Canberra: my deepest appreciation for you being able to work in very challenging circumstances—given they were based in Melbourne.
I want to particularly thank my Victorian colleagues. I'm not just being parochial. Most of you have had a tougher year than others because of your situation in Melbourne. Your staff have had to work from home. You haven't been able to travel. You have had limitations placed on you at home. I know that has made your job more challenging, so I want to thank you in particular.
Our families—all of our families—who, here in the toughest of all years, have felt our absence probably more than any other year have shown an enormous understanding of what we do. They've appreciated that we view our roles as important. And I know I speak on behalf of all senators when I say thank you for understanding our absence in this year in particular—although one whip did say to me that he wasn't sure whether his family wanted him as present as he had been this year either!
One thing that this year has done to me is to make me think we may never know what burdens, sadnesses or challenges other people have and, in a year like this in particular, we don't necessarily know which of our colleagues have had family losses, illnesses, job losses and all the challenges that all Australians have experienced this year. This year has been a time to remember that and to remember, heading into a season that may not be as joyous for all of us in this building, let alone across the community, empathy is something we can take away from this year, I hope.
Now, on a personal level, I want to thank my own family—Helen, Nick and Ben—and Helen's parents, John and Fran, who have carried a burden for us when we've come here on very short notice, and who even let us use their home to quarantine in so that we could stay together. I want to say particular thanks to my own mother, who has borne a very difficult year with stoicism I don't think I could muster.
But I just want to finish with this: merry Christmas to everyone. Normally, the focus is on the 'merry Christmas' bit, but let us just go away saying let us all not just have a very merry Christmas but a very happy new year, and hope for a very different 2021. Thank you, all.
I move:
That this bill may now proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 is a significant step forward in the Morrison Government's fight against transnational, serious and organised crime groups.
Transnational, serious and organised crime—or TSOC ('tee-soc')— harms our communities, our economy and our national security.
TSOC groups pursue criminal profit at the expense of the health, prosperity and safety of ordinary Australians. Whether this is done through the importation of illicit substances, or through tax evasion, market distortion or money laundering, the direct cost to Australia is estimated to be 47.4 billion dollars per year. When the indirect social and economic impacts are factored in, the full cost is immeasurable.
TSOC groups operate as sophisticated and compartmentalised businesses generating huge profits from their criminal pursuits. In order to 'clean' their proceeds of crime and realise these profits, the TSOC business model relies on money laundering. This allows profits to be concealed and reinvested in further criminal activity, or used to fund lavish lifestyles.
These organisations are well financed and are intent on retaining their profits through any means necessary. As such, Australia needs a tough regime aimed at destroying their business model.
The Bill demonstrates the Morrison Government's continued commitment to combatting TSOC and giving honest Australians a fair go.
Key features of the Bill include an overhaul of the Commonwealth's money laundering offences in the Criminal Code to address the increasingly complex methods employed by TSOC actors. In addition, the Bill includes crucial amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act to strengthen and clarify provisions to ensure that law enforcement agencies can restrain and forfeit the profits gained by TSOC actors.
Money laundering networks are becoming increasingly complex and more difficult for law enforcement agencies to disrupt. The networks are typically led by 'controllers' who issue directions to others to launder criminal profits, while keeping themselves at arm's-length to avoid criminal liability. The person who physically deals with the money or property is intentionally kept ignorant of its criminal origins.
The Bill ensures that the Commonwealth's money laundering offences can effectively target the controllers at the heart of the operation by treating them as though they dealt with the criminal money or property themselves, and are punished accordingly.
These reforms also target individuals who are wilfully ignorant to the criminal nature of money or property they deal with, by creating new offences which remove the need to link money or property to knowledge of a kind of indictable offence. The Bill also amends the defence of 'mistake of fact' as to the value of money or property, ensuring that potential loopholes in the current defence cannot be exploited.
The Bill also creates an additional tier of offences for the highest-level money launderers, who deal with money or property valued at 10 million dollars or more. This ensures that penalties keep pace with the increasing scale of money laundering operations.
Together these amendments will make it harder for offenders to evade the reach of law enforcement. They will support increased prosecution and sentencing outcomes for serious money laundering offences, severely degrading the ability of TSOC actors to realise the profits of their offending.
Schedule two of the Bill clarifies that undercover operatives are exempt from the obligations imposed on investigating officials under Part IC of the Crimes Act, and brings the definition of the term 'investigating official' into line with the Commonwealth Evidence Act.
These measures ensure that any lawfully obtained evidence gained by undercover operatives is admissible, subject to the court's ultimate discretion regarding admissibility of any evidence.
Schedule threetightens the circumstances in which a person can apply for a 'buy back' order under the Proceeds of Crime Act. This is to prevent criminals or their associates from buying back their forfeited property.
In order to ensure that forfeited property is not repurchased using illicit funds or unexplained wealth, this measure also provides law enforcement with appropriate information gathering powers to confirm the money used to purchase a property is 'clean'.
Schedule four ofthe Bill clarifies the definition of the term 'benefit' under the Proceeds of Crime Act to include the avoidance, deferral or reduction of a debt, loss or liability. This reinforces that the Act can be used to confiscate the benefit a person gains through the criminal evasion of import duties, excises or taxation, ensuring that a person does not profit from this criminal behaviour.
And schedule five clarifies that all courts with jurisdiction under the Proceeds of Crime Act are able to make orders in relation to property located overseas.
This amendment makes it clear that TSOC actors cannot simply move their tainted property offshore to avoid the reach of Australian law enforcement.
The Bill also seeks to enhance the ability of law enforcement to enforce compliance with the information gathering powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act. These powers provide law enforcement with valuable information about an individual's property and its potential links to crime.
Operational experience has demonstrated a willingness by suspects to obstruct the information gathering process meaning that the offences for non-compliance are currently impractical to enforce. These amendments will greatly assist law enforcement agencies to target offenders and their tainted property, and also allow for enhanced information sharing between law enforcement agencies.
In addition, the Bill strengthens the powers of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. It enhances the ability of the Trustee to manage property that has been forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime Act. It seeks to remedy an existing limitation which prevents the Trustee from effectively dealing with property which has already vested absolutely in the Commonwealth.
Further, the Bill contains measures to enhance the Official Trustee's cost-recovery powers.
The Commonwealth's partnership with the States and Territories is crucial in the fight against TSOC. To this end, the Bill provides a more efficient mechanism to make grants from the Confiscated Assets Account to the States and Territories for crime prevention, law enforcement, drug diversion and drug treatment measures.
I urge senators to support the passage of this critical legislation. Together, we can ensure that the flow of illicit funds that enables the devastating harm caused by TSOC in this country can be switched off. Permanently.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
I have received a letter requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
I move:
(a) Senator Small be appointed a participating member of all legislation and references committees; and
(b) senators be discharged and appointed to committees in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber.
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Discharged—
Senator Gallacher, as a substitute member for Senator Green, for the committee's inquiry into the impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment
Participating member: Senator Green
Job Security—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Canavan, Faruqi, Sheldon, Small and Walsh
Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Ayres, Bilyk, Bragg, Brockman, Brown, Carr, Chandler, Chisholm, Ciccone, Davey, Dodson, Farrell, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Gallacher, Gallagher, Green, Henderson, Hughes, Keneally, Kitching, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, McMahon, Molan, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Polley, Pratt, Rennick, Scarr, Small, Dean Smith, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stoker, Urquhart, Van, Watt and Wong.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(a) That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and
(b) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to the order agreed earlier today, the Senate stands adjourned and will meet again on Tuesday 2 February next year at 12 noon. Merry Christmas to all.
Senate adjourned at 21:31