Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 will amend the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, to provide greater access to free English language tuition for migrants to Australia.

Without English, it's harder to get a job, it's harder to integrate into a person's local community, and harder to participate in Australia's democracy.

Only 13 per cent of those with no English skills are in work today compared to 62 per cent of those who speak English well.

Migrants with no English skills are also more vulnerable to fall victim to foreign interference and misinformation, and will likely find it harder to seek help if they are a victim of family violence or exploitation.

English language is also vital to our social cohesion—if we can't communicate at school, or work, or in social settings, how can we fully connect as a nation?

Census data shows that the number of people in Australia who do not speak English well or at all has risen.

In 2006, about 560,000 residents did not speak English well or at all. By 2016, at the last census, it was 820,000.

Following that trend, there is now likely now close to a million people living in Australia who do not speak English well or at all—about half of those are working age.

It's in their interest and it's in the interest of all Australians that we reverse this trend. We must do better.

This bill is designed to support migrants to increase their English language proficiency. It contains four key measures, which I will discuss in greater detail.

The first measure is to remove the current 510-hour limit on free English tuition that a migrant is entitled to under the Adult Migrant English Program (the AMEP).

Learning a new language is complex and takes time. The number of hours of tuition required by each individual varies based on many factors, including age, prior education and the linguistic distance of their first language from English. Research shows that 510 hours is not a realistic time frame for most migrants to reach even a functional level of English. This amendment will ensure that migrants participating in the AMEP have the opportunity to continue to undertake free English tuition until they reach a vocational level of proficiency in English—that is, that they will be able to do as many hours as they need of free English language classes.

The second measure is to extend the upper limit for eligibility to access the AMEP from functional English to vocational English.

The AMEP currently provides free English tuition for migrants up to the level of functional English. This is lower than the level of English required by most employers, and for entry to most TAFE courses. By raising the upper limit to vocational English, the government will be ensuring that migrants have the opportunity to study English for longer and reach a higher level of proficiency. This will enhance migrants' prospects for further education and future employment, as well as support their full participation in the Australian community.

The third measure is to remove the time limits on enrolment, commencement and completion of English tuition for certain visa holders.

This amendment will remove disincentives to participation in English language studies, by allowing certain visa holders with low levels of English proficiency who are in, or have already entered Australia, the opportunity to re-engage in language learning. This recognises that migrants often have a number of competing settlement priorities when they first arrive in Australia, including work, accommodation and family commitments. This amendment will provide a strong message regarding the importance of learning the national language, and the level of support that the government is committed to provide to do this.

Finally, the fourth measure is to provide the discretion for English courses to be delivered to people who are outside Australia and who have applied for or been granted a permanent visa, or a specified temporary visa.

Currently, this discretion only applies to people outside Australia who have applied for a permanent visa. It does not include people who have been granted a permanent visa, or persons who have applied for or been granted a temporary visa.

This amendment will ensure that tuition options can be developed in the future for the delivery of English courses to people who are overseas, including after their visas have been granted, in preparation for their migration to Australia.

In conclusion, this bill makes a number of important amendments that will better support migrants in their efforts to learn English, and contribute to enhanced social cohesion within the Australian community.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (09:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill makes minor but necessary changes to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to make clearer current arrangements for recovery of Medicare payments owed to the Commonwealth.

The bill corrects a possible misunderstanding about the operation of the act. Medicare benefits are recoverable if incorrect information provided in connection with a claim leads to an overpayment, even if the information was not intentionally incorrect.

The bill will also provide government the flexibility to adapt to changes in the way Medicare claims might be made in the future. It is worth recalling that the provisions for recovery of amounts overpaid were first enacted more than three decades ago, that is—in digital technology time frames, at least—eons ago.

Technological advances in Medicare claiming may be easily accommodated because of the stipulation that it is the giving of information, regardless of its form, rather than the making of a statement that will be the basis for a claim for Medicare payments.

Critically, these amendments will help protect the integrity and financial viability of the Medicare program that each year provides for hundreds of millions of services through billions of dollars in benefits. In 2018-19, for example, there were 424 million Medicare services, with benefits totalling $24 billion.

The vast majority of practitioners do the right thing—only a small proportion of Medicare services are claimed incorrectly, but given the quantum of money involved they comprise significant recoverable amounts nevertheless. These amendments will ensure that the Commonwealth may continue to recover overpayments and continue to protect Australia's universal healthcare system.

The Medicare program gives Australians access to world-class and affordable health care by providing benefits or rebates for around 6,000 services, each with its own item number, listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The schedule's services are specified in regulations, which require that practitioners fulfil the criteria described in items before Medicare benefits are payable.

Subsection 129AC(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973enables the Commonwealth to recover amounts overpaid for incorrectly claimed Medicare benefits or payments where a false or misleading statement has led to a payment that should not have been made.

The amendments to subsection 129AC(1) will clarify for practitioners its intended operation—that is, that the Commonwealth can seek to recover Medicare benefits and payments because of false or misleading information provided in relation to a claim, whether or not the information was intentionally incorrect.

Under the amendments, it is immaterial whether the false or misleading information is given:

in a document, or

in a statement, or

in any other form.

This will ensure recoveries are possible where claims have been made through digital claiming channels. Currently, no amounts can be recovered from a person under subsection 129AC(1) unless the Commonwealth has given the person a clear, written explanation of its decision to recover the amount. This bill retains these protections, ensuring that anyone who may be found to have received recoverable amounts has the opportunity to understand the reason for the decision and to submit evidence and has the right to a formal review under legislation.

These changes do not impose additional requirements upon practitioners. Practitioners are currently responsible for ensuring that all claims they make are accurate and correct. This will not alter, and, critically, no patients will be affected by these amendments. The bill retains the provision that overpayments are recovered from the person who was responsible for the false or misleading information, even if the Medicare benefit was paid to the patient or another third party.

The amendments will apply retrospectively, to ensure that any incorrect claims or payments made prior to the passage of this bill may be recovered.

The amendments do not change the lawful basis for which Medicare benefits or payments are payable and, as such, do not affect a person's existing rights. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (10:23): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. This bill makes technical amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and is mirrored by amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to ensure consistency across all electoral events.

These amendments remedy anomalies in legislation and improve clarity, to enhance electoral processes and allow greater workforce flexibility for the Australian Electoral Commission, so they can use more modern workplace practices.

This bill progresses technical amendments that were previously supported by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and carried over from the last parliament. These amendments were deferred to facilitate passage of only the most urgent amendments ahead of the 2019 federal election. This bill also includes further technical amendments proposed by the AEC following the 2019 federal election.

The bill contains a number of measures variously designed to modernise electoral processes, build greater workforce flexibility to allow the AEC to streamline election delivery, and strengthen electoral integrity.

The bill includes necessary amendments in response to the High Court decision in Spence vs State of Queensland to better clarify the interaction between federal and state electoral laws. These amendments narrow the operation of provisions that were passed in the last parliament, to reflect the High Court's findings about the exact limits of the Commonwealth's legislative power.

The revised provisions ensure that federal law only applies exclusively to donations that are expressly for federal purposes, while fully respecting the application of state laws to amounts used for state purposes. The new rules do not purport to apply federal law exclusively to amounts that are 'untied', namely donations that are not specifically pledged to either a federal or state purpose.

To ensure integrity, the revised rules provide that if a donation is initially made for federal purposes but is subsequently used for a non-federal purpose, then the recipient will lose any immunity from state or territory law for receiving or keeping the gift. For example a political party may need to disclose the amount under state law and may be liable for penalties if the donation was not permitted under state law.

The bill also clarifies changes made through the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. These changes simplify and clarify funding and entitlement rules including the rounding and indexation of public funding entitlements for eligible candidates, parties and groups.

It makes clear for avoidance of doubt that public funding for joint Senate tickets is split in proportions decided by the relevant parties and the bill allows amendments of public funding applications, including permitting applicants to clarify or add information to justify their claim;

It also fixes an unintended contradiction between rules related to the de-registration and registration of political campaigners and associated entities.

The bill allows greater workforce flexibility for the AEC and more nationally consistent processes. For instance, it allows the Electoral Commissioner to devolve functions of a divisional returning officer to other AEC officials. This enables the AEC to more effectively utilise its resources to ensure greater service delivery to its stakeholders, while maintaining public confidence.

The bill reduces unnecessarily prescriptive practices, including by allowing the AEC to use the most effective postal services; permitting them to supply pens as well as pencils in polling places; and allowing variation in the order of the three questions that must be asked of voters to ascertain their entitlement to vote.

The bill removes the obligation for divisional offices to be pre-poll voting centres, as many are not suitable due to poor access for people with mobility issues.

A particularly welcome reform is to permit party and candidate names to be printed under a preference box on a Senate ballot instead of alongside it, to reduce the possibility of one-metre-wide Senate ballot papers.

Removing stringent rules where they do not always work, will reduce public confusion, without diminishing the integrity of the electoral process.

The bill extends telephone voting to eligible Australian voters living in Antarctica, to improve the secrecy of votes for Antarctica voters and streamline operational process.

This bill will help modernise many aspects of our electoral process. Although the individual technical changes are modest, together they will help the AEC run a more efficient and responsive service for the public.

In conclusion, it is important that we remain committed to improving electoral legislation in a non-partisan manner which promotes public confidence, enables our electoral system to evolve in a modernising environment, and strengthens democracy.

I commend the bill to the House.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Mr KEOGH (Burt) (10:29): The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 seeks to make a number of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and Labor is happy to support this bill. The amendments are technical and varied. They were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its review of the 2016 federal election. These recommendations flowed from submissions by the independent regulator of our elections, the Australian Electoral Commission.

The amendments contained in this bill include amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to clarify the interaction between federal, state and territory electoral funding and disclosure regimes, following the High Court decision in Spence and Queensland. It makes technical amendments in relation to entity registration and public election funding rules, and allows a senior Australian Electoral Commission staff member, rather than a senior divisional returning officer, to be on the redistribution committee for the Australian Capital Territory. The bill also amends aspects of voting and scrutiny processes in both the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, including extending electronically assisted voting methods to Australians working in Antarctica.

The bill has been considered by JSCEM. The amendments that were the subject of most of the submissions to JSCEM's inquiry were the changes to sections 302CA and 314B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The amendments to 302CA seek to rectify drafting errors after the High Court's decision in Spence and Queensland found that section to be wholly invalid. That section provided that, if a donation was made to a federally registered party and that donation was required to be, or may be, used for federal purposes, then the relevant state or territory law would not apply. This provision allowed gifts to be made to a party which may not be permitted at a state level as long as the gift was used or might be used for federal purposes. Under the proposed amendment, for the Commonwealth law to apply, the donation must be used for federal purposes. It is not good enough that it might merely be used for federal purposes. The amendment in section 314B would mean that donations which are above a state's threshold for disclosure but below the federal threshold, which is currently $14,300, would not need to be disclosed to the state electoral commission if they are expressly given and used for a federal purpose.

These amendments clarify the Commonwealth's power to make laws in respect of Commonwealth elections. It is appropriate that the Commonwealth has the power and that the laws it makes are not overridden by state laws. State parliaments are still free to make laws in relation to state elections. This bill is not trying to interfere with that. This bill simply confirms the Commonwealth parliament as the legislature responsible for making laws in relation to Commonwealth elections. Labor therefore supports this bill, now that two important amendments have been made in the Senate, which I'll expand on shortly.

Labor believes in a uniform federal system that treats federal parties and candidates equally, regardless of which state or territory they come from. The rules that federal parties and candidates play by should all be contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, not the various electoral acts of the eight different states and territories of our nation. If that were the case, then we would have a US style of government, where the laws that govern a federal election would be different depending on which state we lived in. We're seeing those different laws playing out right now, with some states not allowing postal voting for the current US presidential election. We are fortunate in Australia to have a uniform federal system for federal elections, and, if we do not make the changes contained in this bill, then we will be undermining that system.

As many of the submissions to JSCEM noted, the Commonwealth laws on political donations lag behind those of some of the states. But, if we do not make these amendments and state laws continue to apply to federal actors, then it is entirely possible that a state government could implement a law that is actually worse than the Commonwealth's. A state government might try to restrict the role of third-party participants in elections, such as unions or charities. If we do not make these changes, then those regressive laws could apply to participants in federal elections. The argument that these amendments should be opposed because the state laws are better doesn't hold water. We wouldn't be trying to apply a state law if it were worse, so we shouldn't want to apply it just because it is better. What we should be aiming for is a better federal system.

We recognise the concerns raised by some of the submissions to the JSCEM inquiry. We are pleased that the government listened to Labor's concerns, and an amendment was passed in the Senate to require federal donations to be paid into dedicated federal campaign accounts. Several state jurisdictions already require that separate state campaign accounts be maintained. Separate federal accounts will provide an additional layer of transparency and accountability and ensure that actors in the electoral process cannot use the Commonwealth Electoral Act to circumvent state electoral laws.

Labor also successfully moved an amendment in the Senate to delay the bill's commencement date until 1 December this year. This will ensure that the AEC and parties have time to familiarise themselves with the new regime and ensure that they have their compliance systems properly in place. In addition, there are currently state jurisdictions that are undergoing state or local government elections. The starting date later in the year, particularly later from when this bill was first introduced, lessens the risk of confusion for voters and election participants.

Many of the submissions to JSCEM's inquiry also highlighted the need for comprehensive donations reform to improve the transparency of our electoral system. That is Labor's position, and we have a proud history in this area. It was Labor's amendments that secured a ban on foreign donations. It was Labor's amendments that linked public funding to campaign expenditure, preventing parties from profiting from the electoral system. And let's not forget that it was Labor, under Prime Minister Hawke, that was first to introduce a donations disclosure regime, back in 1983. Indeed, even in my university honours thesis, back in 2003, I wrote about these particular issues. According to a 21-year-old version of myself:

… the expenditure of funds—

in an election—

is a form of freedom of speech. However, the political equality of "the people" is eroded if the wealthy can determine the results of elections based on who they donate funds to and therefore provide the means to expend more money on an election campaign.

…   …   …

The Australian electoral campaign finance regulatory regime is one that was established to increase equality for electoral participants, provide a level of transparency and in doing so provide for a pluralistic society in Australia.

Now, as I stand in the House today, Labor are continuing with our reform agenda. We currently have two bills before the Senate to deliver on our commitments. The first of these bills seeks to lower the disclosure threshold from the current $14,300 to a fixed $1,000 and removing indexation which has resulted in a blowout of the current threshold. The other bill would require real-time disclosure, where donations would be disclosed within seven days. Interestingly, this was also a recommendation from my honours thesis.

Ms Madeleine King: Ahead of your time!

Mr KEOGH: I so was. Thank you, member for Brand. The Morrison government should be supporting these bills to protect the integrity of our democratic institutions, so today I move an amendment to the motion, in the terms circulated in my name, calling for reforms to increase transparency in our system by reducing the disclosure threshold to $1,000, removing indexation of the threshold to prevent the threshold increasing over time, and requiring recipients of political donations to disclose them within seven days so that the public can know whose money is in play in funding campaigns. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that Australia's electoral system would be strengthened by:

(1) lowering the disclosure threshold for political donations from the current threshold of $14,300 to $1,000;

(2) removing the indexation of the political donation disclosure threshold; and

(3) requiring recipients of political donations to disclose those donations within seven days".

To further reduce parties' reliance on fundraising and provide a relatively more level playing field to parties and candidates contesting elections, the rate of public election funding should be increased, and parties and elected Independents should be provided with administrative funding to help cover the increasing costs of compliance now being imposed by these and existing provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Finally, we note that there were some concerns raised in JSCEM's inquiry regarding the potential for a polling official to ask a voter for identification. The current provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act are extremely prescriptive regarding the wording and order of questions an official must ask a voter to ascertain their entitlement to vote. The amendments in the bill provide officials with some flexibility to rephrase some of those questions. As Labor's dissenting report from the JSCEM inquiry pointed out, Labor does not support so-called voter ID laws. We do not support anything that would undermine our compulsory system of voting by discouraging people from voting. However, the Australian Electoral Commission has said that the questions can cause difficulty in circumstances where a voter has English as a second language or where they have hearing disability. We believe the flexibility provided by the amendment is warranted and we are satisfied with assurances from the Electoral Commissioner that it will not result in polling officials asking for identification. On that basis, I commend the amendment that I moved and the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Madeleine King: The amendment is seconded, and I reserve the right to speak.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:39): [by video link] Isn't it amazing: the government doesn't have time to deal with a federal ICAC because, apparently, it's dealing with the COVID pandemic; but it does have time to bring legislation to the parliament to allow for the laundering of political donations, to allow for the weakening of our federal donations laws so that state rules which restrict donations from developers and other kinds of corporations can now be circumvented by making a donation directly to the federal parties. Apparently, we can't get around to having a national integrity commission which would put the blowtorch on politicians and make sure that there was no corrupt behaviour happening in Canberra; we can't do that because the legislative workload is too big. What the government has got on the table to pass instead is this bill which says we are going to make it easier for developers, big corporations and corporate money to influence politics. Surprise, surprise, the Liberals are doing it hand in glove with the Labor Party, who are rushing this through with some very short speeches to make sure this gets all done and ticked off with a limited amount of public scrutiny.

Let's be clear about what this bill does. This bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, is designed to make it easier for corporations to donate to big political parties where the state laws would make it harder for them to do it. In other words, this bill opens up a loophole that allows corporations to get around state laws which, for example, might say developers or other forms of corporations cannot donate or that might have more stringent requirements about when the public gets to find out who has donated. All of those things that state governments are starting to take some steps to rein in, because they are having an impact and because it's been bringing a bit of sunlight, transparency and integrity to politics the government now wants to open that up and make it easier for corporations to get around those state laws.

What does it say about the priorities of this government at a time when people are crying out for a national integrity commission where politicians would be held to the same standard in Canberra as they are in state parliaments. People want that because they have seen state ICACs send ministers of both Labor and Liberal persuasion to basically have them convicted. They have seen them convicted of criminal offences. Because those ICACs have been successful at the state level, the public knows, rightly, that corruption doesn't stop at the ACT border. The idea that politicians in Canberra are somehow of a different ilk than politicians in state parliaments is fanciful—and the public knows that. That's why the public is demanding that the federal government take action and legislate a national integrity commission.

What is crystal clear is that a big part of the reason politics has become so corrupt is the influence of corporate money. Corporations are able to make massive donations to big political parties—to Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals. Political parties take those donations and, in return, the corporations expect the politicians to do their bidding. That is why people are so fed up with politics. Politics increasingly works for the developers and for the big corporations, but it doesn't work for the people. We see it time after time after time. We see it with our climate change policy in this country. The gas and coal corporations donate millions of dollars to Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals and, as a result, climate policy in this country gets taken backwards. We had a successful carbon price when the Greens were sharing power; because of corporate power in politics, it got repealed.

We've seen it with the mining tax. A proper mining tax would mean people wouldn't have to pay as much to send their kids to school with so-called voluntary school fees. Or you might not have to pay as much for your electricity bill because it hadn't been privatised; instead, we had revenue coming into the public kitty that was available to be invested in public services. That mining tax got knocked off because of the influence of big corporations and mining billionaires. When these people and these corporations donate to Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals they expect something in return—and they get it. That is part of the reason people are fed up with politics. So not only do we need a national integrity commission—a national ICAC, which the government says it's too busy to do, because instead it's busy passing laws to weaken donation rules—but we also need to get the corporate money out of politics with donations reform.

When the government said, 'We're bringing a bill to parliament that is going to bring about donations reform,' for a moment some of us were a bit excited, because we thought that maybe the government and Labor had listened to the people who want to get the corporate money out of politics. But, no. What do we have? Instead, we have a bill that opens up new loopholes. Labor and Liberal are both defending this bill and both passing it through the parliament as quickly as they possibly can, with the minimum of scrutiny, because apparently it's more important that political parties are able to get big corporate donations than it is to pass a national integrity commission. In the arguments for this bill, they have said, 'We wouldn't want state efforts to somehow undermine federal laws.'

Do you know what? The states are doing what the federal parliament is refusing to do. Some states, under significant pressure from the public, have taken steps to rein in the role of corporate donations. They have done it in three ways. One way is that they have said there are certain kinds of corporations that can't donate. So in some places you have bans on developers donating, for example.

A second way is they've said there are going to be limits on how much you can donate. That is good, because sometimes that goes hand-in-hand with caps on how much political parties can spend. And that's something we have to do—we have to put caps on not only on how much can be donated but how much can be spent during elections, because if you turn off the ability to spend it at the end, you are going to also turn off the reason to start getting so much money in in the first place. That's something that some state parliaments have done, and it's starting to work. It's starting to get the money out of politics.

The third thing that some state parliaments have done is say, 'Voters have the right to know, quickly, who is donating to what political party.' This is important. This is critical, because, at the federal level, it can be years before you find out which corporations have donated to Labor or Liberal or the Nationals. It can be years before you find that out, and by that time the election has been and gone and you've cast your vote, thinking, 'Maybe, the politician I voted for will act independently', without knowing that they're actually a wholly-bought subsidiary of the corporation that paid for them. Some have suggested that it might be a good idea if politicians were forced to wear the logos of their donors on their suits when they come in, a bit like football players who wear their sponsors on them, so that at least you could have some insight that this particular politician was bought by Santos gas, or this politician was bought by a coal corporation. But, until that happens, the next best thing we've got is disclosure of the donations. So we need to restrict how much these corporations can donate and we need to limit how much can be spent, but, for so long as we have these donations, the public is entitled to know who is donating. These should be laws that apply across the board. Some states have started to do that, so that you know, in closer to real time, about the donations that have being made.

This bill, which Liberal and Labor are ramming through, will enable donors to get around it. How? How do you get around it? You donate to the federal party instead of donating to the state party that might be subject to the state laws, and then you're not subject to those stringent rules anymore. If, internally, the federal party wants to then slosh that corporate money back through to its state entity, well, this law doesn't deal with that. This law leaves that option to them. And won't find out about it for years.

That is why the Greens say that this weakening of our donations laws by Labor and Liberal and the Nationals working hand-in-hand to rush a bill through the House is another threat to democracy. It's another threat to democracy because it allows the big corporations to have a huge say over what happens in parliament. For so long as the money is able to come in and control what politicians do and how politicians vote, politics is going to be about putting the corporate interests ahead of the public interest for Labor and Liberal and the Nationals. So it's no surprise that the establishment parties are lining up to rush this bill through parliament ahead of having a federal integrity commission. They are doing it because they take corporate donations.

The Greens don't take the big corporate donations because we know that when you are taking in donations you have got to be crystal clear that it is not going to affect the position that you take in parliament. So we don't get the big corporate donations that the others do. But they do. They would much rather keep getting the money from corporations, so they are prepared to pass this bill—Labor, Liberal and Nationals—to circumvent state laws that shine a bit of light on political donations. They are passing this law to get around state governments who have taken steps to restrict political donations, and they are doing it ahead of having a federal integrity commission.

This law speaks volumes about the priorities of this government and this parliament. It is apparently more important to keep the door open and find a back door to allow political donations to flow through to state parties through the federal party than it is to tighten things up. It is time in this country to get—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Spence is seeking the call? Is this a point of order?

Mr Champion: I was wondering if I could ask Mr Bandt a question. Would he permit me to ask him a question about his contribution?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member accept the intervention of a question?

Mr BANDT: No. I have got the call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member doesn't accept the intervention. The member for Melbourne.

Mr BANDT: I would love to see if anyone else from the Labor Party is going to get up and defend this bill or if they're just going to try and rush this through the House together with the Liberals. That's a been the history here: pass laws as quickly as you possibly can and hope the public doesn't know that what you're a doing is opening up loophole to allow corporate money to flow into politics.

It is time to get the big corporate money out of politics. It is time to have reform of our donations laws in this country. It is time to ensure that there is a limit as to how much people and corporations can donate and there is a limit on what can be spent during elections. It is time to say there is absolutely no role for the likes of tobacco or fossil fuel corporations to be donating to political parties. We need to know with absolute certainty that decisions that are made in this place are being done for the public interest, not for vested interests and not for the corporate interests. That is what will restore some trust in politics.

We need a federal ICAC, and that is much more important than this bill. The fact that the government thinks that this bill is more important than an ICAC tells you everything you need to know about how the Liberals are just a wholly owned subsidiary of big corporations. We need a federal ICAC, but we need reform to our donations laws as well, real reform that will get the big corporate money out of politics so that people across the country can be guaranteed that parliament is making decisions in the public interest, not for vested interests.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (10:53): I was taken aback, but not at all surprised, to watch the government prioritise this bill on the schedule this week, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. 'Miscellaneous' is the best descriptor of this bill. It's even in the title of the bill itself. The past two weeks of parliament have illustrated beyond doubt the blinding moment we have arrived at as a nation and as a parliament when it comes to the question of integrity in federal politics. Australians feel demoralised and angered by the unending revelations from Senate estimates and the reckless behaviour of some parliamentarians in this place. Australians are asking themselves how deep the culture of entitlement and disregard for the public good goes in our body politic. Australians are desperate to know where the threads lead to and how systemic corruption allegations are. How long is that piece of string, Mr Speaker? This bill and our current integrity laws give Australians no comfort, nor answers, to those questions.

Let me explain for the record what this bill does. This bill locks in the status quo when it comes to the current political donations culture at the federal level. In May last year the High Court upheld the validity of the anti-corruption measures in Queensland, which prohibit the making of political donations by property developers. Those measures in Queensland are decent and improve transparency and accountability in electoral funding. Of course, those measures don't exist at the federal level. Indeed, it's crystal clear that this government wants to minimise and tokenise discussion on transparency and accountability in federal politics as much as possible. When forced to reflect on the need for greater transparency and accountability in politics, through a High Court decision, this government has chosen to produce a superficial bill to lock in the status quo.

This government has turned around this miscellaneous bill in the same time it said it could not possibly pass any integrity reforms, because of the coronavirus response. This could have been a moment for the government to come with clean hands to this parliament and have a robust and principled discussion about integrity reform writ large. Instead, it's decided to back itself in. This is not the bill Australians wanted to see this week. At a moment when Australians want hope for the future of their democracy, this bill is disappointing and cannot be characterised in any way as noble electoral reform.

I have received overwhelming support this week for the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill that I introduced on Monday. I've received support from MPs across this parliament, on both sides, and from the vast majority of Australians across the political spectrum, imploring this parliament to debate and pass sophisticated integrity reforms as a matter of urgency. The Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill that I introduced on Monday includes a comprehensive, independent, statutory review of political finance, funding, donations, and campaign regulation at the federal level, within the next 18 months. The bill I introduced on Monday includes a specific clause that makes it abundantly clear that it is the intention of this parliament to revise federal laws on transparency, integrity and accountability in political campaign finance and campaign regulation so that it meets best practice and is streamlined within the objectives and operation of counterpart laws at state and territory level.

Now, I make no statement on what those final provisions should be. I'm here to work with my parliamentary colleagues in a constructive way to make those reforms as ambitious and as practical as they can be. What I will say is that the vision I and many others in the parliament have for our democracy goes well beyond minor tweaks to electoral laws in Antarctica, like we see in this bill. I cannot express how short this bill falls at a moment when Australians are desperate for honest reflection and a political culture that's pro integrity, not just anti corruption.

The parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have set a disclosure threshold on political donations at $1,000, but there's no equivalent law at the federal level. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia require near real-time disclosure of donations, yet the Commonwealth requires disclosure just once a year, and then seven months after the reporting period has ended. There are caps on expenditure in some jurisdictions, but not for those of us here. The New South Wales Electoral Commission actively pursues breaches, yet the Australian Electoral Commission rarely employs its coercive powers, as the Senate finance and public administration committee heard in 2017.

I have long been on record in this space. I was pleased to second a private member's bill from the member for Mayo in December last year that sought to usher in measured and evidence based political donation reforms. That bill would have extended the definition of 'reporting entities' to include political entities, campaigners and third parties; lowered the political donation disclosure threshold from $14,300 to $2,500; and required real-time disclosure by reporting entities within seven days of a reportable donation being made so that Australians could see and understand who was supporting who at what times, at the right time.

I've also been working with Senate crossbench colleagues, all of whom are enthusiastic to act in this space as well in lockstep with the wishes of the Australian public. This is not the bill Australians wanted to see this week. This is not the direction that Australians want the conversation on integrity in federal politics and campaign finance to go. This bill is exactly what it says it is: miscellaneous.

I call on all parliamentarians in this place to admit we can be more sophisticated and robust when it comes to integrity and when it comes to integrity reforms and to commit to working collaboratively with me and others in this place to have the right detailed conversation, to build a consensus vision and to write laws that reflect who we aspire to be and what the Australian people are crying out for. Let's get real about this. Let's stop talking about miscellaneous things. Let's talk about the real issue here and let's instil some values into this place.

(Quorum formed)

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (11:03): This Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 is simply unsupportable because it will have the effect of watering down the state and territory donation laws. So I will vote against the bill. Frankly, I am shocked that the government would seek to water down political donation laws at a time when the country is crying out for much stronger political donation laws. It is abundantly clear that, at the federal level, our political donation laws are unsatisfactory and need to be reformed deeply. For example, the disclosure threshold of $14,300 is ridiculously high. We are all doing okay in this place, but to the average member of the community that is an enormous amount of money and it is more than enough money to influence a candidate or political party. So why do we tolerate that? In fact, not only do we tolerate that $14,300; we agree that it should be indexed from time to time. It is way too high.

The fact that, currently, the disclosures can be made well after an election is ludicrous, because the fact is that, when a voter goes into the polling booth, he or she needs to know and often wants to know who has bankrolled the candidates and the parties that are on the ballot paper in front of them. Most donations in a political cycle come in very close to an election and so are not disclosed until maybe 18 months later, when the election is long forgotten and people have lost interest in that election. That is entirely unacceptable.

There is no limit on how much any one donor can donate. It is bizarre. In Australia, if you've got a hundred million dollars, you could donate the whole lot to the Liberal Party or the Labor Party or a candidate or whoever you want. That's an absurdity. What that ensures is that the richest donors, the richest people, effectively have more political power than other members of the community. What on earth happened to the idea of one person, one vote of equal value? It doesn't exist in this country, because we live in a country where, regrettably, money buys political power and the people with the most money have the most political power, and that's entirely unacceptable.

There are also no limits on who can donate. It's not unusual for some parties in particular, some candidates in particular, to be very happy to take money from the tobacco industry, certainly the gambling industry, and some other dubious industries. What we in this place should do is have a bill before the House that brings in some of the safeguards that exist in states and territories about exactly who can donate. The fact that the bill on the table will undercut those very safeguards I think is unconscionable.

Also, we don't have any restrictions at all on non-overtly political actors when it comes to what they're up to. I would have thought that if, say, an industry group or maybe an individual was to, say, run an advertising campaign that had clear political connotations and steered people towards one political point of view or another, surely the expenditure on that should be regarded as a political donation. Let's talk about the mining industry, back when the mining tax was a big issue. The behaviour of the mining industry at that point was to any reasonable person a political donation to the LNP because it had the material effect of benefiting the LNP.

We have all sorts of strife when it comes to political donations in this country, and it beggars belief that we're not in here talking about them and addressing them. The fact is we do live in a country where people buy political influence. Let's face it, when a person or a corporation, for example, donate a large sum of money it's not through altruism. It's because they want a return on that investment, and—heavens!—don't they often get a return on that investment. I'm reminded of a somewhat remarkable quote from a former senator—I won't say who it was—who once said that if someone donates $1,000 they support you and if someone donates $100,000 they've bought you. Regrettably, that senator ultimately did take a donation of over $100,000 and was in a very awkward situation, but the point he made is a very valid point. When you look at the returns that we do get from the Electoral Commission you see enormous donations are being made. For example, in 2011 James Packer donated $250,000 to the fledgling Katter's Australian Party at the very point in time when Bob Katter personally had a crucial vote with the poker machine reforms I was trying to push through the parliament. Why did James Packer give Bob Katter $250,000 at that point in time? Was it altruism? No. It was no better, quite frankly, than what happens in some of the countries we criticise for a bag of cash being handed over. The only thing that made it better than a bag of cash in some dodgy country was that, many, many months later, it was revealed to the public, too late to make a difference to the community.

While I'm talking about Crown, it's worth remembering a very interesting statistic. The member for Mayo just last week mentioned the revelation that Crown has donated almost $2 million to political parties in the last 10 years or so. Almost $2 million from Crown has gone to the major political parties over 10 years, and then we wonder why there's no interest in this place for a royal commission into the casino industry and Crown casino. Of course there won't be, because you're all on the take. The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party—you're all on the take. Someone is paying millions of dollars in political donations, and what a great return on that investment they're getting.

The solutions are very, very simple. Ideally we would have publicly funded elections. In other words, we would ban all political donations. Instead of any political donation, candidates and parties would get a modest and known amount of money, and that's all they would be allowed to spend at election time. That would be ideal. I know that would be something that some members of the community would not support, but a government with leadership, the opposition, the crossbench—if we all educated the public so they understood the benefits of publicly funded elections, I think we would have the vast majority of the people supporting it.

If we don't want to go that far, we could perhaps adopt the New Zealand model, where donations are allowed but the expenditure is capped in certain areas so that donations become much less important. For example, in New Zealand, the parties are limited in what they can spend on television advertising. If there was a limit on how much you could spend on television advertising here, heavens! Poor old Palmer United Party—they'd be reined in. It wouldn't matter that Clive Palmer is a very wealthy man and buys political influence. If there was a cap on how much TV advertising he could run then all of that wealth would become much less important.

If we're not going to have publicly funded elections and if we're not going to put caps on election expenditure, why don't we do the really easy stuff? Why not have, for example, a donation disclosure threshold of $1,000—not $14,300 but $1,000. That would makes sense. That would mean that anyone who's handing over $50 or $100—a small, modest donation from a regular member of the community—would not be disclosed. That would actually be agreeable to many of those donors. For example, if you're in the Public Service you might not want, for good reason, a $50 donation disclosed, for fear that it might be damaging to your career in some way. It's the same with a teacher or a police officer or even just someone in the workplace whose views are at odds with their boss's. So make those really small donations confidential, but donations over $1,000 should be disclosed.

Another solution, one that is so important, is real-time reporting. There is no technical reason why every single donation in this country can't be up on a website within perhaps 24 hours of the donation occurring, instead of 18 months after the election, when the information is next to useless. At the last federal election, I'm proud to say I had real-time reporting of donations over $1,000. They were up on my website, andrewwilkie.org, within 24 hours. I think Senator Jacqui Lambie did the same thing, and perhaps some of my crossbench colleagues as well. The feedback from my community was very positive. People really liked to see that, and they certainly would like to have seen it rolled out by the major political parties.

That's a very interesting point, actually. We don't need to change the law for candidates and parties to improve their behaviour. I note that the opposition is going to move an amendment to this bill, which I will support, to bring in changes like a $1 disclosure threshold. If the opposition is fair dinkum about that—and I hope they are—they don't need it to become more for them to do that themselves at the next election. If the government's got some bright ideas, they don't need the law changed either to change their behaviour at the next election. But again it's left to us crossbencherse to set the example and take the lead on this sort of thing.

We also need a prohibition on donations from problematic sectors. That is just self-evident. And the obvious one is the gambling lobby. Put an end to Crown casino donating a couple of hundred thousand dollars every year for a decade. Put an end to Jamie Packer giving a quarter of a million dollars to Bob Katter when his vote was crucial on poker machine reform. Put an end to all that. Say the gambling industry is out of bounds, as are other unethical industries, like the tobacco industry, for example. There are other industries we might consider in that list as well. Certainly the state and territory governments are very alert to property developers.

We could also put a cap on the gross amount of donations from any one source during an electoral cycle. I will leave it to experts to come up with the exact figure—maybe $10,000 maybe $100,000. I'm open-minded about what the exact figure is. But these donors that just trickle the donations out a bit at a time, under the threshold every time, need to be reined in. We need to say that no one company in this country and no one person in this country should have more political power than any other organisation or person. So we might make it that $10,000 is the maximum amount that Westpac, CommBank, BHP or someone down the road can donate to any one candidate.

We also need to be much more alert to the fact that, for anyone or any organisation that does anything that materially benefits a political party or a candidate, the value of what they do should be regarded as a political donation. If I start putting billboards up around Hobart supporting the policy of some other political party then the value of me doing that should be regarded as a donation to that political party. I think that's self-evident. Probably the most important thing we should do—and it's already been touched on by the crossbench many times, including before me this morning, is have an integrity commission. The Electoral Act is very narrow. The Electoral Commission has very limited powers—way too limited. If we're not going to bolster the act and the AEC then it is even more important that we have a federal integrity commission that can go to areas where the AEC and the Electoral Act don't go, because there are so many issues which really double up.

We've seen it in the recent times, where political donors mysteriously get a political favour after the election. Why did Foxtel get $30 million or $40 million? Where did that come from? Why did the Great Barrier Reef Foundation get all that dough? What was this land sale for Badgerys Creek the other day? Of course, the governments say there is nothing to see here, that it's just happenstance that a big, fat political donor gets a big, fat political pay-off after the election. It's corruption. And that's why we need an integrity commission of some kind.

Again it's left to the crossbench to take the lead. It's fascinating that it's pretty much only the crossbench that's speaking on this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I thank the member. I didn't interrupt the member during his presentation, but I remind members to be very careful they don't breach standing orders by casting aspersions on the motives of individual members of the parliament. I will just make a general reminder.

(Quorum formed)

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (11:20): The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 makes a collection of unrelated amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Hidden beneath the innocuous title of miscellaneous measures—well, really calling them miscellaneous says it all—is an effort to override something serious. It's an effort to override state and territory legislation to make political donations less transparent, directly against the wishes of the Australian people.

It's telling that after the minister introduced this—I can only describe it as a rubbish bill—and the shadow minister supported it, the only people speaking on this insulting legislation to the Australian people and to our democracy is the crossbench members. If you ever wonder why we are Independent, this issue and this type of legislation is exactly why.

In Australia, if you donate anything less than $14,300 there are almost no disclosure requirements at the federal level. This bill could have addressed that. Indeed, over time there have been numerous bills presented by the crossbench before the other place, and in this place, that have sought to do that. But, rather than address the lack of transparency of political donations, this bill seeks to override the more stringent state and territory legislation, seeking to do just that.

Let's be honest about what's going on here: the government and the opposition need this bill because the current clause, which the government introduced in the last sitting of parliament, section 302CA, was deemed unconstitutional by the High Court last year. The section relates to how federal political finance laws for political donations interact with state and territory laws. In 2019, the High Court in Spence v State of Queensland, ruled by majority, held that section 302CA of the Commonwealth Electoral Act was invalid for going beyond the limits of Commonwealth legislative power conferred by sections 51 of the Constitution. Clause 302CA had been worded carefully to ensure that it was up to parties—of course we would be trusting the parties—to determine whether a donation would be used for federal or state purposes; therefore, trying to get around the prohibitions that exist at state level. If deemed destined for federal level, then Commonwealth reporting requirements would apply. This meant that it's to the advantage of major parties, as Commonwealth legislation sets a much, much lower bar than the legislation in all state and territories bar Tasmania. This is deplorable.

In recent years, states and territories have moved to level the playing field and increase transparency around disclosure of political donations, especially from property developers, mining companies and liquor and gambling groups. But, since the High Court ruling last year, the law has operated such that both federal and state law operate at the same time. Therefore, where some donations may not be captured at a federal level, they are at state and territory level. This is a good thing, as they are then beholden to the state and territory reporting laws. This bill dangerously seeks to override that.

The bill is carefully worded in response to the ruling of the High Court to make sure that donations to federal parties will not be subject to the strict reporting requirements of states and territories. I would rather see the removal of the unconstitutional section 302CA and section 314B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act rather than rewarding that. That would have been if the government had been actually intent on improving transparency around donations. But, no, it is trying to get around any kind of accounting or transparency. What's interesting is that it's supported by the opposition, by Labor, because there are obviously also a lot of questions around transparency when it comes to union donations. What we desperately need is an even playing field.

If we had a scheme between state and federal donation regimes that operated together as one scheme, that would be common sense. So state branches of political parties would have to disclose their donations according to the rules in their jurisdiction. But, in the absence of strong donation laws at the Commonwealth level, the only way to ensure that state branches don't use technicalities and loopholes to hide their donations are the state disclosure regimes. We're not talking or advocating here on the crossbench for something that maybe stands outside of what's been recommended by most Australians or by the appropriate bodies. This is recommended by the integrity experts in submissions to the inquiry on this bill, including the Human Rights Law Centre and the Centre for Public Integrity. In their submission, the Centre for Public Integrity said:

The Commonwealth Government should be strengthening our electoral laws, not weakening them. The Commonwealth should look to the precedence set in Australian states on the regulation of money in politics.

The Human Rights Law Centre said:

The free flow of money into Australia’s political system threatens the integrity of our democracy. Major political donations are designed to have political influence. Big donations may give donors extra access to politicians or, as put by the High Court, establish the donor as a politician's "client".

These are the words of the High Court. Further:

Occasionally, political donations may lead to quid pro quo corruption.

Again, these are the words of the highest court in Australia.

What proposed new sections 302CA and 314B are trying to do is get around that ruling of High Court and destroy the efficiency of the state disclosure regimes. It's highly disappointing that this legislation has the support of both sides of the House. But it does not have the support of the crossbench. States are the only jurisdictions that are doing something about at least prohibiting donations and reforming political donations at this stage. The need for transparency and accountability in the funding of our political parties is imperative, but, because it goes to them, it's the very reason why they are united in supporting this. When we talk of political donations, we are talking of political donations from the private sector, from the unions, across the board.

Look at decisions made by parties when they are in government. I would have to say, under the current government, the decisions to build new coal-fired power stations and coalmines and to open up gas fields and spruik a gas-led recovery are decisions that don't make sense where commercial rates are not being paid. The Leppington land sale has to be an example that is so prominent in our mind. We need to know where the imperative for this is coming from. Is it ideology? Is it maybe to win seats? Or is it to line the pockets of those making the decisions or that will benefit from the decisions? The reality is that, without strong laws on disclosures of political donations, we won't know why the government continues to make uneconomic decisions that go against the interest of so many sectors.

States are doing their bit to clean up politics. We have certainly seen a lot of headlines from state politics over the years where corruption has been caught and there is an integrity commission to enable the proper investigation of corruption allegations. But, here, instead of trying to improve our status and increase the trust of the Australian people in our democracy, the government has gone around the Constitution to subvert those laws at the state level and is now sharpening its response and trying to get around the High Court decision.

It's clear that we desperately need an integrity commission to keep an eye on dodgy deals and dodgy spending of public money. The government in this place continues to delay implementing such a body. I thank the member for Indi for moving to establish an Australian federal integrity commission and a code of conduct for members in this place, and I urge the government and the opposition to bring that bill on for debate as soon as possible.

Regular surveys show that 80 per cent of the Australian people support the establishment of a federal corruption watchdog. The reality is that a federal integrity commission would provide a forum for investigation and inquiry, an opportunity for wrongdoers to be exposed and for those wrongly accused to be exonerated. All sides of politics claim to support the need for a federal integrity commission, but the Australian people have seen no action. The government promised to establish an integrity commission over two years ago but has repeatedly delayed and prioritised other legislation. If the opposition, Labor, are so strong on this commitment, I call on them to make very clear that they support the model put out by the member for Indi and supported by the crossbench or at the very least come up and explain what the elements are they don't like about that model. But let's be clear: you can't say you stand for anticorruption and integrity but not get behind the legislation that is before this House.

Of course we also need a bit of truth in political advertising. The Commonwealth Electoral Act that is amended by this legislation is also where the governance of political advertising is found. Amazingly, truth in political advertising is not protected under any Australian law. The Australian consumer law against misleading and deceptive conduct relates only to trade and commerce. The Electoral Act only makes it a crime to mislead or deceive an elector about how to mark their ballot paper. Not even the advertising standards board will review political advertising. Civil action can be taken only where the content is defamatory, and while it may be impractical to have every poster, social media post and broadcast ad reviewed for truth we must regulate for a minimum standard of truth in political advertising.

South Australia has had a prohibition on misleading or deceptive statements in electoral campaigns since 1985. This year, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed a very similar law. Polling by The Australia Institute shows that nine in 10 Australians support legislation for truth in political advertising. It is certainly time for the Commonwealth government to look seriously at the need for political honesty, and it is certainly time for the opposition to get behind it. But, instead of that type of legislation, we have this kind of miscellaneous legislation.

It so clear that, with the advent of technology that supports the creation of deep fakes and so much fake news, we absolutely need to have some legislation on truth in political advertising as well as so much more legislation around political donation laws. The ability to alter and distort images, videos or voices to portray a candidate as doing or saying something they have never done or said has already been used overseas by both domestic and foreign actors. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission considered the threat of deep fakes in their recent digital platform review. Similarly, the threat of deep fakes is a concern of the review of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of the 2019 election.

Australia has a chance to be a world leader in legislating against the use of deep fakes, so I urge the government to think about the real issues we have to protect democracy and to increase transparency, rather than putting up this kind of miscellaneous legislation that seeks to undermine democracy and get around rulings of the High Court. I won't be supporting this bill in its current form, as it seeks to weaken protections against undue influence at a time when Australians need those protections strengthened.

(Quorum formed)

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (11:36): This bill won't get media attention, but it should. I always say to my community, 'Pay careful attention to legislation when both the majors are pushing it through, and you have one person speaking from each side and you have the entire crossbench'—well, virtually the entire crossbench; all those who are present, including the member for Melbourne—'against it.'

This bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, will make donations easier for developers and big donors who may be restricted by individual states' donation laws. We have a system in Australia where most states have tighter donation laws than those at the federal level, and you see here a piece of legislation that is going to weaken that for some of those states. The majors have come together, saying, 'Let's get this through. We've got to get this through. This is important. It's going to make it easier for those big donors, easier for those developers. They're going to be able to go to expensive events and make donations at those state events, and it's going to go to the federal parties, because that's okay.' It actually makes a mockery of the work that many state legislators have done to rein in political donations and try to improve their standing in the community. There are lower disclosure rates in those states, but, of course, federally you can have someone donate $14,300 before anyone in Australia is any the wiser. You can have a family of five donate $70,000 at some glitzy affair, and nobody knows. Nobody knows, because it goes to the federal party.

The member for Clark mentioned money that Crown casino has generously donated to the major parties over recent years. I think $1.7 million is about the tally, if you have a look at the Australian Electoral Commission information. A member in here came up to me after we'd been talking about this, and he said, 'That's not a lot of money.' Who are we kidding in here? The Australian community does not want to see unions and big corporations give over millions of dollars to political parties.

In 2018, a report by the Museum of Australian Democracy found that trust in democracy was on the decline, with satisfaction in democracy having more than halved in a decade, and trust in key institutions and social leaders eroding. When the public has lost trust in politicians, when that is at an all-time low, political donation reform is one way that we can very easily restore trust in this place. What do we see? We don't see legislation to lower the threshold coming to this place, we don't see legislation to put in place a cap and we don't even see legislation for real-time disclosure; what we see is legislation to make it easier for shovelfuls of money to go into the major political parties.

We should be following Canada's rules. In Canada, no man, woman or child can donate more than Can$1,600 to a political party or, indeed, to an independent candidate. They don't accept money from the corporations— corporations can't donate. They don't accept money from unions. That's the kind of transparency, the kind of trust, the kind of system that we need to look at. Also, if a donation over $200 has been received the candidate needs to disclose it. In Canada they manage to run that quite effectively, yet here we don't seem to move. In fact if we do move, we move in the wrong direction. As I said, we can't even get a bill up in here to lower the threshold to a thousand dollars.

We need to get money out of this place, not create more loopholes that mean even more money flows from the big donors. If we in this place—all of us, individually and collectively—truly believe we want to improve the trust the Australian community has in us, we need to get money out of this place, not bring more in.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:41): I would like to thank all those in this chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. I echo the Minister for Finance's thanks to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their thorough review of the bill and their examination of the issues raised in submissions. The committee found that the reforms in the bill will deliver important enhancements to our electoral system.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Australia. This bill is a housekeeping piece of legislation that helps facilitate the proper functioning of our parliamentary democracy. The reforms in this bill are important to help modernise parts of the electoral system and to assist the AEC to deliver effective and timely electoral events. Many of the amendments in this bill were included in an earlier technical amendment bill in the last parliament. While those reforms were recognised at the time as necessary, they were carried across to the current parliament so the AEC could focus on the delivery of the most urgent machinery changes ahead of the 2019 federal election.

This bill contains numerous improvements. Key among these, it extends a confidential voting service to Australian voters working in Antarctica; removes the requirement to designate some divisional offices as prepoll centres where they are unfit for purpose, including lacking disability access; helps contain the width of the Senate ballot by allowing candidate names to be printed underneath preference boxes instead of only alongside boxes; clarifies the interaction between federal, state and territory funding and disclosure regimes; and allows flexibility in wording of questions to help find a voter on the roll, which will better assist people with a non-English-speaking background or those with a hearing disability.

In summary, these reforms will improve the operational efficiency of elections, remove overly prescriptive language in the act, improve services to particular disadvantaged or geographically remote voter groups, and strengthen electoral integrity and administration. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their contribution and commend this bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Burt has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes for this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I thank members for their cooperation with the division.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (11:51): I ask leave of the House to move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name together.

Leave not granted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The member understands she needs to go through one amendment at a time? I give the call to the member for Warringah.

Ms STEGGALL: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of federal purpose in subsection 287(1).

Amendment No. 1 is an amendment to schedule 1, item 2, to omit the definition of 'federal purpose' in subsection 287(1) which is in relation to gifts for federal purposes and is consequential to the bulk of the amendments that will be moved. Amendment (1) amends the definition of 'federal purpose' and 'regulated entity' in relation to the substantive legislation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who were in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (11:58): I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 31) to page 4 (line 4), omit the definition of regulated entity in subsection 287(1).

This is a consequential amendment to the bill and relates to some of the amendments that I will move later. It amends the definitions of 'federal purpose' and 'regulated entity' and makes it that they are no longer required.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:01): I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:

(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 5), after item 24, insert:

24A Section 302CA

Repeal the section.

24B Section 314B

Repeal the section.

The main focus of this amendment is that it repeals section 302CA and 314B from the act. Amendment No. 4 will omit the replacement provisions from this bill. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Centre for Public Integrity and the Human Rights Law Centre in their submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

The effect of this amendment is that donations to federal parties would need to be disclosed in accordance with state and territory regulations. These amendments moved by the government and supported by the opposition are a direct attempt to circumvent a ruling by the High Court and stronger state donation laws. This is contrary to what the Australian people want to see in this place, and we finally have people here to actually acknowledge what this is about.

The consequential amendments to the bill, in relation to amendments (3) and (4), are really important when it comes to definitions of 'federal purpose' and 'regulated entity' under the legislation. This goes to the intent of section 302CA, gifts made for federal purposes. The Commonwealth has the weakest political finance laws in Australia in relation to donations. The proposed amendments mean that stronger state bills would be overwritten by weaker Commonwealth laws, thereby limiting their effectiveness.

Professor Anne Twomey, in her submission, questioned the intent of the amendments. She asked:

Given that the provisions seem to be quite deliberately drafted to achieve this end, it does make one wonder why. Are political parties aware of the existence of large amounts of donations that are unlawful under State laws, which they want to ensure they can keep? Is this a means of also avoiding any State laws that would not only require the return of unlawfully received donations but also penalise the party that adopts them (such as the NSW provision that requires a party to return double the value of the donation if it knew the donation was unlawful)? Are political parties hoping to be able to attract and retain such donations in the future, despite the application of State law, perhaps gambling on a State failing properly to police or enforce its laws, while still protecting the recipient parties if the donors are caught?

Professor Twomey argues:

It is apparent that the drafters of this Bill were not only conscious of this problem, but also concerned that it might be unconstitutional, given that the purpose of the donation is not required to be ‘earmarked from the outset’.

These clauses show deliberate effort from the government and the opposition to work around state and territory electoral laws and any constitutional challenge. They clarify that a political party can still use a political donation for federal purposes, even though a state law has validly prohibited it. In addition to the ability to connive to get around state laws, there are also questions about the ability to launder political donations through this new regime, and concerns about additional administrative complexity in policing the law.

This amendment to the bill calls for the existing section 302CA of the act to be repealed, as it was deemed unconstitutional. This is important legislation, and it is only in the interests of obfuscating where donations are coming from—whether that be from private companies or unions—that people are supporting this rubbish.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The question is that the member for Warringah's amendment (3) be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:07): I move amendment (4) as circulated in my name:

(4) Schedule 1, items 25 to 27, page 8 (line 6) to page 13 (line 3), omit the items.

This is an amendment to schedule 1 items 25 to 27, page 8, and it moves the omission of the items. This is in relation to gifts for federal purposes, which, again, seek to diminish the effectiveness of state donation laws and circumvent the ruling by the High Court. Those supporting the bill are supporting the obfuscation of where political donations are coming from and standing against what 80 per cent of Australian people want, which is greater clarity and more accountability in political donations.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Warringah's amendment (4) be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:09): I move amendment (5) circulated in my name:

(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (line 27) to page 15 (line 6), omit subitems (2) and (3).

This is an amendment to schedule 1, item 34, and is in relation to gifts for federal purposes. This is consequential to the other amendments but clearly goes to the intent of this miscellaneous measures bill introduced by the government and supported by Labor. This seeks to undermine any kind of transparency in political donations and accountability that is at least introduced at state level but is simply non-existent at the federal level. The High Court has made it clear that the previous attempt by the government was unconstitutional, and this is simply an attempt to get around the High Court ruling. Members supporting this bill should be held accountable for the fact that they are going directly against the wishes of the Australian people. Eighty per cent want more transparency in political donations, and these amendments I have moved seek to do that, in contrast to the miscellaneous measures of the bill, which seek to obfuscate where donations are coming from.

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (12:11): Very briefly, can we be absolutely clear about what is going on in this place this afternoon? This is state-sanctioned money laundering.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr WILKIE: No, that's exactly what it is! This is state-sanctioned money laundering. It is the House of Representatives in the Australian parliament ensuring that banned donors in some jurisdictions can wash their money through the federal party. It is every bit as much money laundering as any other form of money laundering that goes on in this country. Frankly, if no-one else will look at it, AUSTRAC should have a look at it, because that's what it is. I can't believe the government and the opposition are conspiring—they're both party to this—to pass a law to have state-sanctioned money laundering.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The question is that the member for Warringah's amendment (5) be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those member who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The question is that this bill be agreed to. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Bill agreed to.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (12:16): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:18): I rise in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I recognise that the proposed additional economic support payments are necessary to support those on Centrelink payments such as the disability support pension and the age pension. As the member for the oldest electorate in South Australia, I am sure many of the constituents in Mayo who currently receive these payments will welcome these additional funds. I'm also supportive of the proposed retrospective changes to the youth allowance independent paid work concession. That will support young people who continue to work towards financial independence. This change acknowledges the impact that COVID-19 had on the employment status of many young people in our communities and ensures they're not penalised for an economic crisis that was by no means their fault.

A revision of the paid parental leave work test period is also welcomed as this measure openly acknowledges the impact COVID-19 has had on a parent's ability to remain employed during one of the toughest economic downturns in Australia's history. Providing working parents with more lenient requirements to access their payment has the potential to support many more parents to remain home with their newborns instead of being forced to return to work early so they can continue to pay their bills.

I am, however, disappointed to see that there is no mention of the fortnightly $250 corona supplement continuing past 31 December. If you have a look at the Centrelink website, it says, 'From 1 January 2021 your payment will change to the normal JobSeeker rate.' Just to inform the House exactly what that normal JobSeeker rate is, if you are single and you don't have children, it is $565.70 a fortnight. That's not a week; that's a fortnight. It works out to be $282.85 a week. If you are single and have dependent children, it's $612 a fortnight—so just over $300 a week.

It's worth noting that this supplement not only supports the 1.56 million people currently receiving JobKeeper and youth allowance payments across Australia; the additional supplement has also provided much-needed financial assistance to parents receiving the parenting payment, students receiving Austudy and ABSTUDY living allowance and farmers receiving the farm household allowance. Nearly two million Australians are having to remain vigilant, struggling to plan for their future or even budget for Christmas, and they do not know if their fortnightly $250 coronavirus supplement—that extra $125 a week—will continue past the end of this year.

This legislation provided the government with an opportunity to put millions of people's minds at rest and to provide them with certainty, acknowledging that this year has been one of the toughest yet. We are all aware that the cost of living has increased since COVID hit, and the additional coronavirus supplement has been necessary to ensure individuals and families are able to meet those increased expenses. For years now I have called on the government to raise the rate of Newstart, now named JobSeeker, as most recipients were living below the poverty line prior to the introduction of the coronavirus supplement. These additional funds have provided a much-needed reprieve for individuals and families who were previously struggling with rent, school fees and other essential items. Unlike many Newstart recipients, most of us in this place have never needed to make the choice between purchasing meals from the supermarket or paying rent to ensure that we have a roof over our head. We mustn't forget that that coronavirus supplement actually helps all of our local businesses, because it gives people who are on Centrelink that extra money and then they spend it locally. They are not spending it on overseas holidays. They are spending it in our local IGA. They are spending it in our local grocery stores.

So, in closing, I do support this legislation. I would urge the government to provide some certainty to people who are on Centrelink and currently receiving that coronavirus supplement, particularly people who are on JobSeeker, formerly known as Newstart, because no Australian can live on just over $250 a week. It really just is impossible.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:23): A lot of big figures have been thrown around in the last few months—billions of dollars of support and a trillion-dollar debt—but it is grave news indeed, and I want to let all of our fellow Australians who are listening this morning know, that as of yesterday we found out that there will be 1.8 million Australians on unemployment payments by Christmas. Under this coalition federal government, we've seen a situation whereby an extraordinary number of Australians will be unemployed and needing that social support. We have seen the new Department of Social Services' figures come out of Senate estimates that show the number of people on unemployment payments will increase by many hundreds of thousands and will indeed surge to about 1.8 million by December. My colleague Senator Katy Gallagher, the shadow minister for finance, confirmed this in a question to a DSS official in Senate estimates. At estimates, it was also confirmed that the number of people forced to get by on unemployment benefits will be higher in 2024 than it was before the recession. That is no nowhere near a snapback in terms of getting Australians back into jobs—and this is what we feared.

The member for Barton and shadow minister for social services said: 'These revised figures show this job crisis is getting worse and the government's planned Christmas JobSeeker cut will hurt 1.8 million Australians. Unemployment is painful and unfair. Hundreds of thousands of Australians will bear the impact of this recession for years to come. The Prime Minister needs to show compassion by announcing a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment.' I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Barton. The budget was a missed opportunity to permanently increase JobSeeker. With up to 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government missed a massive opportunity to deliver certainty for Australians doing it tough by delivering a permanent increase to JobSeeker in the budget. With more jobseekers for each job vacancy, there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. Unlike what the Prime Minister is fond of saying, it is not a case of 'if you're good at your job you'll get a job'; there simply aren't enough jobs. To not be able to see that is, unfortunately, a dereliction of duty and a failure of leadership.

It is particularly difficult in our regions, where the job market is worse than in the cities. In the major cities you have the benefit of large populations. As businesses and the economy open up, there will be employment. It will still be difficult for some cohorts, but there will be employment. In the regions we want to see more support. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an understanding of the correlation between cutting JobSeeker and the effect on small businesses. ACOSS have published a report that talks about the massive benefit to the economy of this indirect stimulus. As I've been saying for months now, as far as the Territory is concerned, the people that I represent from Darwin and Palmerston, the business owners as well as the employees—in particular, the unemployed; and those numbers continue to rise—it is exactly the wrong time to be cutting back on this indirect stimulus to our economy.

The fact that the government doesn't even know how many jobs will be lost when unemployment payments are cut at Christmas time is a concern. We cannot close our minds and our hearts to the suffering of those who are doing it tough. Also, it is going to be a massive benefit to businesses in our economy if we do this in a sensible way. What we need to be doing is giving a permanent increase to JobSeeker so that those who are unemployed, some for the first time in their lives, have some certainty going into Christmas. I certainly hope that is the case.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE ( Kingsford Smith ) ( 12:29 ): As we get closer to Christmas, Australians of all persuasions are relying on the coronavirus supplement for certainty. They need some form of certainty and support from the government, not a cruel cut. That's why Labor's seeking to amend this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, to ensure that the coronavirus supplement is extended until March next year, in line with JobKeeper, and to require the government to announce a permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment.

Many organisations have come out in support of a permanent increase in JobSeeker. Quite simply, you can't live off the old rate of JobSeeker, which roughly equated to about $40 a day. If you speak to someone that has had to try and survive on this measly payment, you find that it basically means that they find it extremely difficult to actually look for work, because most of their time is devoted to making ends meet and looking after family members, particularly if they're single parents. So it's the worst time for the government to be cutting support for people who've lost their jobs, whilst unemployment is still going up.

The Department of Social Services has told Senate estimates that the number of people on unemployment payments will surge to 1.8 million by December, an increase of 300,000 over previous projections. It was also confirmed that the number of people forced to get by on unemployment benefits will be higher in 2024 than it was before the recession, with DSS projecting the average number to be 1.3 million in 2021, a million in 2022 and 900,000 in 2023-24. We know that the increase in unemployment comes as the Morrison government's been caught out inflating jobs figures associated with budget measures by nearly one million jobs. The Prime Minister's big promise on jobs, the so-called JobMaker, hasn't even lasted until the end of budget month. We know from the Treasury department that, out of the claimed 450,000 places, the hiring credit is only expected to support and create 45,000 new jobs. Out of the claimed 130,000 jobs from its technology road map, none are included in the budget. And, out of the claimed 80,000 direct and 300,000 indirect jobs from its manufacturing announcement, none are included in the budget.

It's the deepest and most damaging recession in almost a century, and the Australian people deserve a government that creates jobs, not just headlines. This government has form when it comes to big announcements and all of the associated fanfare, but, 12 months after a program's been announced, we find out it hasn't delivered one job. There are a litany of programs across previous budgets delivered by this government where that is the case. They're all about the spin, all about the announcement, nothing about the follow-up.

The recent Anglicare Australian Jobs Availability Snapshot shows just how bleak the employment prospects are for many jobseekers, particularly with the government's underwhelming response to this recession. The report reveals more than 100 jobseekers are competing for every low skilled job vacancy across the nation. Many of the jobseekers in the jobs snapshot are older Australians, yet the government's Restart program, which it touts as its signature policy for the over-50s, has been an utter failure in getting older people back to work. Not only is it unsubscribed; 40 per cent of the workers under this program were out of work within three months.

If the Morrison government were serious about driving down the unemployment rate and kickstarting the recovery, it would not be excluding almost a million Australians over the age of 35 on unemployment payments from the new multibillion dollar Wage Subsidy Scheme. These Australians are rapidly approaching the JobSeeker Christmas cliff, with no certainty about the future of their support payments and how they'll find themselves competing with a subsidised younger workforce.

The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Labor Party, Anthony Albanese, has announced that a Labor government will train thousands of workers, and our next generation of tradies will come through our jobs and skills guarantee. We will build and manufacture in Australia through our National Rail Manufacturing Plan. We will cut childcare fees and put more money into the pockets of working families. We've called on the government to do more, right now, to create work for thousands of tradies in almost every suburb and town across the country by investing in projects that fast-track urgent repairs to social housing. I visited several social housing tenants in properties in the electorate that I represent, and many of those properties are in dire need of repair, and urgently. This is a program via which the government could provide support for tradies in every suburb and every town across the country. It could make sure they have the opportunity to work to provide much-needed upgrades to public assets—public infrastructure that provides people with a roof over their head and helps deal with problems in our society such as homelessness and couch surfing.

In the depths of this crisis, when the country needs a jobs plan, when the private sector is withdrawing investment and support for projects, when the country needs the support of government to fix some of the social issues we have, this government is sadly lacking. We have another grab bag of announcements and spin without any follow up-through policy that provides real support for jobs for people in this country.

Decisions taken by the coalition mean that this recession will be deeper and longer than it has to be; that it will push more workers into the unemployment queues and jeopardise Australia's recovery. That, unfortunately, will be the hallmark of this government and a great shame for generations to come.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:36): I'm pleased to be able to stand up in this place and support this legislation but also, most importantly, to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton, the shadow minister. I'm referring now to the amendment which in substance wants us to look at the bill, understand the implications for people who are unemployed, and know that before Christmas we'll have 1.8 million people who will require income support because they're unemployed. We need to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement at least until March, in line with JobKeeper. Most importantly, as the shadow minister has said, we need to create an obligation on the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment.

I've heard most of the contributions to this debate, and they've been very eloquent, ranging across the issues and the impact upon those people on income support who require additional income support in this nation, as the previous speaker just said. But we in this place need to understand what it means to live in a rural or remote part of this country, where there is a small area labour market with virtually no jobs to speak of and where you are dependent—absolutely, totally—on income support from the government. We need to understand that the additional income people have received as a result of the supplement to JobSeeker has meant that in many remote communities people have food on the table. In remote communities, many people live well below the poverty line, and to have the additional income into communities has meant, among other things, a substantial increase in the amount of food—good food—being sold by shops. Food sales at a major store in Maningrida, which is on the north-east Arnhem Land coast and has a population of around 3½ thousand people, increased by 50 per cent. Other retailers in remote communities saw food purchases increase by as much as 200 per cent.

There's a message here. There were some disruptive elements in relation to the additional income in some quarters, but most importantly, if you actually want to close the gap, you've got to make sure that people are healthy, and for people to be healthy they've got to have a decent amount of nutrition and a proper diet. To have that, they need to be able to purchase it, or catch it, but most probably go to a store, lay the money on the counter and purchase items which are nutritious. Where you've got a population which is comparatively young—in fact, extremely young by comparison to the general population—it's really important, as I'm sure members would appreciate, to ensure that young children in particular are well nourished.

Closing the gap means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but to me it's very simple. It means giving people a healthy start in life to make sure they can live in a healthy and safe household, have the nutrition they require, get access to a good education and then to training and job opportunities thereafter and, importantly, live in save and secure housing. Of course, that doesn't happen for most people in the remote communities of this country. Housing is overcrowded, unemployment is chronic and income support prior to the COVID supplementary payment was not nearly enough for people to survive properly. We know that in parts of northern Australia, in one area in particular—I can talk about Arnhem Land—around a third of the people who should be eligible to be on income support through the CDP are not getting income support. They've been alienated by the system. What that means is that they rely on the support of their families not only for income but, most importantly, as I've just described, for food. So the supplement has been very important in ensuring that these people have access to decent food.

I have some understanding of it, but it is really difficult for those who have not visited these communities or who do not know how these communities work to understand why it is important, so absolutely important, to increase the JobSeeker payment. It's just absurd to be contemplating going back to $40 a day—how could that possibly be? Yet that's where we're heading. What we need to contemplate, and I've mentioned this in this chamber before, is the absurdity of the current Community Development Program. It needs to be replaced by something which is more workable and which is not a welfare scheme but a work scheme, such as the old CDEP, the Community Development Employment Program, about which I've spoken often, which is part-time work for part-time pay based on 15 hours of work a week.

We in this place have an obligation—I don't think we understand or appreciate how big that obligation is—to look after the most disadvantaged people in this country, the most disenfranchised people in this country, the people who are most on the margins in this country. We need to be able to fix it. We could fix it if we had a mind to fix it, but this government clearly does not have a mind to. There is a sense of frustration that exists in remote parts of this country because of the poor outcomes being accepted by this government. Instead of changing policy direction and understanding the importance of community based decision-making and community based control, they want to impose things. This sense of frustration is something which bedevils many people in this community.

I finally want to complete my contribution by saying I don't think there's any comprehension at all by most people in this place around what small area labour markets actually look like, what it is to understand how discrete they might be in various parts of this country and how the relationship between these small area labour markets and the broader labour market is so distant. There is a lot to be done in this space. The most important things that can be done in the first instance are as the member for Barton, the shadow minister, has described: provide an obligation on this minister to announce a permanent increase in the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. When they do that, when they are contemplating what that might look like, look at the special needs of those Australians who live in rural, regional and remote places in this country, but most particularly the most disadvantaged of all, Aboriginal people who live in remote communities in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in northern Australia.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (12:46): I want to thank the member for Lingiari for an excellent argument for looking after people in remote communities much better than we do and supporting them much better than we do. I want to thank the member for Barton for this amendment and all of her terrific work on behalf of unemployed Australians. She is a wonderful person to have on your side.

This amendment, proposed by the member for Barton, would extend the coronavirus supplement to March, in line with the JobKeeker payment, and it would legislate for a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker. I'm pretty sure we all agree in here that it's impossible to ask people to live on $40 a day again. I don't think there's anyone in this chamber who imagines that they could live on $40 a day and yet we are asking a million people to contemplate returning to living on $40 a day.

The case for the change proposed by the member for Barton is simple: it is not possible to live on $40 a day. The previous rate of Newstart is too low for people to live a dignified and healthy life. Of course, if someone can work they should work. If there is a job available and the person has the ability to do it of course they should do that work. But the simple reality at the moment is that we are in a recession. We have 13 people for every job vacancy. For entry-level jobs the competition is even harder. There are 106 people competing for every entry-level job in Australia. That tells you that despite the very best efforts of hundreds of thousands of people to look for work we will continue to see people locked out of the labour market. The government's own estimates are that 160,000 more people will be unemployed by Christmas and what are we saying to those people? That they can look forward to life on $40 a day. On $40 a day it's pretty hard to afford the rent, eat a decent healthy diet, buy a train fare to the job interviews that you're trying to do, maybe find a clean shirt to wear to that interview. All of these things become out of reach and work together to keep people locked out of the labour market.

I've had contact from many people in my own electorate saying that they are fearful. What keeps them awake at night is the fear of returning to life on $40 a day. The temporary increase has meant that they're finally eating a healthy diet, that they're able to put good food on the table for their kids, that they're able to buy the school shoes that they have been putting off buying for ages. A Glebe resident recently called my office worried sick about returning to that $40 a day. The same is true of people on disability support pensions, sole parents, age pensioners who are struggling with very low interest rates from banks.

We have too many Australians who are living below the poverty line, and the sad thing, the tragic thing—I'd say the immoral thing—about this is that the government is prepared to rack up well over a trillion dollars of debt. They're prepared to spend that borrowed money on subsidising Clive Palmer's private jet so he can fly around Queensland, campaigning. They're prepared to spend borrowed money subsidising Clive Palmer's private jet, but they're not prepared to reassure people who are sick, unemployed, looking after kids on their own, too old to work, or disabled that they've got their backs. They're prepared to spend money on JobKeeper payments for a company that pays an executive a bonus—not a salary, a bonus—of $2½ million, but they're not prepared to reassure poor, old, sick, isolated people that they've got their backs at a time like this—the worst recession that we've had since after the Second World War. They are not prepared to make sure that the most vulnerable Australians can live without the fear of poverty, but they are prepared to spend $30 million on a block of land worth less than $3 million. They are prepared to allow Australia Post executives to spend $20,000 on watches, but they're not prepared to make sure that the poorest people can put food on the table.

I will just finish with this. There is a moral reason to do this. Australia is a country that does not have to choose poverty for its most vulnerable people. There is a moral reason to do this. But there's also a really good economic reason to do this. We know that people on low or limited incomes, if they get an extra 10 bucks in their pocket, will spend it—putting food on the table for their kids, buying shoes, paying the rent, making sure the electricity bill is paid. They will reinvest that money in the community, creating jobs for other Australians. We know that confidence in our economy was low before COVID-19 hit. We can supercharge aggregate demand in our economy by making sure the people on the lowest incomes have a bit more in their pocket to spend each week. That little bit extra in their pocket to spend creates work for other Australians. This is an investment in economic growth, as well as being the right thing to do morally.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (12:53): This bill makes technical and administrative amendments to support service delivery and will update Social Services portfolio legislation to remove obsolete provisions and correct errors. The bill will amend portfolio secrecy provisions to require the Department of Social Services and Services Australia to comply with notices issued by royal commissions where the notices require the production of information protected by those secrecy provisions. The bill will update some offence provisions in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 so that it is clear that the offences apply in circumstances where a claim is processed by an automated system within Services Australia.

Lastly, the bill makes minor technical and administrative amendments to social security law and other social services portfolio legislation and related minor consequential amendments to other legislation. The amendments remove obsolete provisions, correct errors, update legislation and improve the operation of legislation to support service delivery. I commend this bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:04): Today Labor moved amendments to ensure greater support for those Australians who have been left behind by this government in its economic response to the recession. It is very disappointing that the government has voted against these very reasonable and responsible increases for support. These amendments are modest and provide the government with the flexibility it needs to deliver the appropriate support for those Australians in these times.

The Prime Minister says 'we are all in this together', but our pensioners, both aged and DSP, and carers have been left behind. He says we're all in this together, but 1.6 million Australians on unemployment support—including over 300,000 Australians aged over 55, who experience the greatest difficulty in finding work—have been left uncertain as to what kind of support will be available to them beyond Christmas. If we're all in this together, why are almost one million Australians on unemployment benefits being excluded from the wage hire subsidy. If we're all in this together, the government should put its money where its rhetoric is and support these amendments moved by Labor.

During these difficult and uncertain times, pensioners and carers have experienced increased costs in ensuring they remain safe and healthy. Yesterday, the Minister for Families and Social Services insisted to Senate estimates that healthcare costs have not increased. Well, let me say that I have been contacted—many people on this side have been—by many people who have said otherwise, with disability pensioners and carers very much a part of that. They do not need be lectured by this government about the very real challenges they are facing.

Unlike the government, Labor acknowledge that older Australians, people with disability and carers have experienced increased costs as a result of coronavirus. In June, we saw the release of a survey for People with Disability Australia, which found that nine in 10 people with disability experienced increased expenses due to the ongoing pandemic; 31 per cent reported increased spending on health care; and one in five reported increased spending on sanitising and hygiene products. Some have contacted me about the additional costs of having to get food delivered, especially during the height of the pandemic. Pensioners have been facing rising health, dental, energy and grocery bills for years. Average GP out-of-pocket costs alone have gone up 11 per cent under this government. Cruelly, the government froze the pension in September, which impacted on 2.5 million age pensioners. Labor's amendments will create an obligation on the minister to better support pensioners, including age pension, disability support pension and carer payer recipients.

This Christmas is going to be a very anxious and uncertain one for Australians on unemployment support. On 31 December, the coronavirus supplement is scheduled to come to an end. There are 1.6 million Australians on unemployment support, and yesterday we learnt through Senate estimates that that figure will rise to 1.8 million by the end of the year. Cruelly, this government is going to make them wait, excruciatingly, until a matter of weeks out from Christmas before they know what level of support will be available to them. It will simply leave many households without the ability to plan their budgets, which have become very strict and tight for rent, for food, for gas and for electricity, as the member for Sydney just said. It will be at a time when all Australians simply want to be able to spend quality time with loved ones, after what has been a tough year for so many. Many Australians on unemployment support are wondering why the government has extended JobKeeper to the end of March, but plans to finish JobSeeker at the end of December.

This amendment simply rectifies that inequity. In the midst of this recession, and in the budget, the government has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver lasting structural change. We urge the government—we absolutely urge the government—to grasp this opportunity and support this amendment. It is reasonable, it is fair and no-one can possibly disagree with it. I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 5—Consideration of further additional economic support payments and a permanent increase to jobseeker payments

Social Security Act 1991

37 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.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (13:09): I second the amendment moved by the member for Barton. I do so as it is a practical initiative to make a difference to the lives of people who are doing it tough. There are many amendments, and sometimes in this place we move amendments just to make a point, to show a difference of values. This isn't one of those. This is the only way that you can get a real change in the income support for people, whether they be age pensioners, disability support pensioners, carers or, indeed, people who are on Newstart.

What the amendment moved by the member for Barton does, given the constraints that are there on money bills in this parliament and how you can move amendments that would have a fiscal impact, is say that the minister must consider what additional payments may be required by extending the COVID-19 supplement until 28 March 2021 at the amount of $250 a fortnight, in line with extensions to JobKeeper payments. Then it lists the potential recipients of this support: age pensioners, disability support pensioners and people who receive carer payment. Those measures are practical ones, because we know that if you are on one of those payments then you are currently subject to additional costs just to get by from day to day. You have to have in your budget, in your fortnightly payment—and I grew up in a household with a mother; our only income was the invalid pension every fortnight. My mum would go to Grace Bros and would have everything budgeted down to literally the last cent as a way of getting by.

I've got to say that, when I was growing up, this wonderful hand sanitiser that has made a difference to people's lives wasn't something that was in the budget. I suspect it wasn't in age pensioners' budgets, but they have to get it because we know that elderly people are particularly susceptible to this virus. So this is put forward by the member for Barton in good faith. Because we're not able to instruct the Treasurer on what to do on a money bill, it's asking him to give consideration to it. For the life of me, I can't understand why this government doesn't embrace the amendment and just give it support.

The second element, of course, is the issue of JobSeeker. I've been asked as leader of the Labor Party what I think the amount should be. One of the things that I have done is try to give the government space to move, not to put it in a position of having argy-bargy and playing politics with it but to say that we all know that $40 a day is not enough to survive on. They acknowledged that when they brought in the JobSeeker payments that effectively doubled the rate of Newstart allowance. I haven't said that it should remain at double the amount. That's not our position, and I wouldn't expect it to be the government's position. But we are saying to give people certainty and provide for an increase. The idea that you're going to announce in December what money people will have at the end of December, during Christmas and during that period—there are families that will be thinking now about whether they can afford to take their kids to the beach holiday that they might get to go on once a year for a week or so. There will be families who will be making that decision. We wouldn't ask any of us to be put in a position whereby we don't know at the beginning of December what income we are going to have at the end of December. We wouldn't ask people to be in that position, and the government shouldn't be putting people in that position either. We need a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker payments. I commend the amendment to the House.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:15): I rise to voice my support for this amendment. This amendment is critical. If we allow people to go back to the original Newstart rate, the original JobSeeker rate, we are indeed condemning people to poverty and hunger in this nation. I just had a quick look on realestate.com at rentals in my electorate. The cheapest two-bedroom unit available is $280 a week. If on 1 January we allow people to go back to the original Jobseeker rate, that's $282.85 a week. We just can't do that in Australia. We just shouldn't do that in Australia. And food has gone up immeasurably during the COVID crisis. Where you used to be able to perhaps spend $100 on food, people are spending at least $120 or $130 for that same shopping basket.

The $240-a-week coronavirus supplement is critical for individuals who are on JobSeeker and it's critical for families who are on a range of payments, but it's also really critical for small businesses in our electorates. If we want money in the economy, this is a very easy way to ensure that the whole payment goes directly into the hands of small businesses in our communities. People aren't spending their money on overseas holidays. They aren't spending their money on frivolous items. They are buying food. They are shopping locally, at the greengrocer, the butcher and the supermarket. I think that this amendment is incredibly important.

I meet too many pensioners and disability support pensioners in my electorate who are struggling. I would urge the government to look at the pension. When I have a pensioner that comes to me and they have broken dentures—their dentures are held together with superglue and they have ulcers in their mouth—there is something seriously wrong in this nation. We must ensure that older Australians are cared for better than is currently happening. I really urge the government to consider this amendment earnestly and to support the amendment in this place.

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (13:17): I will support this amendment and I applaud the opposition for moving it. Could I suggest that this country needs a different approach to government pensions and payments. Rather than talking about the age pension, the disability support pension and unemployment benefits, I think we need to start talking about a living income, and our starting point needs to be: how much does someone need to live with dignity in this country? It clearly needs to be above the poverty line. There's no logical reason why someone who's unemployed, who may well be younger, with a family, should be getting paid less than someone on the age pension or the disability support pension. I think that all people who are relying on the government for income support should be paid a comparable amount and it should be above the poverty line.

I support the idea of maintaining the COVID-19 supplement, but I think we should go further. In fact, subparagraph (b) actually goes to that point. Everyone needs a fairer go at the moment. You can't live with dignity and pay market rent on the age pension, you can't live with dignity and pay market rent if you're on the disability support pension, and you certainly can't live with dignity and go about your life, maybe bring up a family, if you're unemployed and getting anything less than a similar amount of money. I encourage the government to start looking at pensions and payments in that light and to turn its mind to the whole idea of a living income that all people who need income support in this country receive and benefit from. I think that's a much better approach.

If the government won't do that then—for heaven's sake—at least make sure that people who are unemployed get a fair deal, and not only that they get a fair deal eventually but that they have some certainty between now and then. I think it's quite cruel for the government to be saying, 'Well, yes, we do have an intention for unemployment benefits to be above $40 a day after 31 December.' That doesn't give enough comfort to someone who is two months out from that. They don't know whether they are going to get $41, $42, $60 or $80 a day. They don't know. They are planning now. I think it is not intentional cruelty by the government, but it is cruelty nonetheless that people just don't know what the future holds. I think we have got a good enough sense of the economic situation now and what it will be over the next couple of months that the government can give more certainty.

It would a very big thing for the government to do—to actually come in and support this amendment. I believe the opposition have moved it in good faith. It would give great comfort to people who are bearing down on 31 December and the prospect of a big cut in their household income. It would give some comfort to people on the age pension and the disability pension. As the Leader of the Opposition so beautifully put, when he was a child, his mum didn't have to worry about buying hand sanitiser. Well, someone who is on a pension these days does have to buy hand sanitiser and all sorts of other things, and the rate of bulk-billing has gone down in real terms. So I will support the amendment, I encourage the government to support the amendment and I applaud the opposition for moving it.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (13:21): I thank the member for Barton for moving this amendment to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, and I echo some of the sentiments that have been made in this place. I do believe this is an amendment moved in good faith. We as parliamentarians do have a duty to offer as much security or reassurance to those more vulnerable in our society as we possibly can. This has been an incredible year. 2020 has been incredibly challenging for so many people in the population. These support payments and measures—and I have congratulated the government on having done JobKeeper and JobSeeker—have made such a difference for those more vulnerable and for people who have found themselves without employment.

But we need to be very focused. Those on JobSeeker are incredibly vulnerable. We can't have a situation of going back to the previous rate. During the 2019 election, I supported the Raise the Rate campaign. It was supported by many in this place. I feel that it is really an obstinate reluctance to acknowledge the inevitable to not give security and some reassurance to those who desperately need to hear it by extending JobSeeker and the supplement and having a permanent recognition of where that rate needs to be so people can meaningfully bridge the gap between employment opportunities.

If we want people to go from having lost their employment to new employment, they need to be in a position where they actually can get themselves on transport to job interviews. They need to be able to be dressed for job interviews. They need to have a home to live in before going to job interviews. You can't have a situation where they are pushed into such levels of desperation and of not being able to make ends meet that they have no ability to get to job interviews and find employment. That has to be the ideal and the goal that we have in this place—assisting people in our community needing to find employment.

We have to be very real about the people we are talking about. It's often misrepresented, I would say. We used to have, I believe, under Prime Minister Howard, a whole campaign around 'dole bludgers'. This is not at all what we are talking about. It is insulting to those people. We know women over 55 have the highest rate of homelessness. They are the people in our population who have the highest rate of needing to rely on support—JobSeeker or Newstart, as it was—to get from one situation of employment to the next. Unfortunately, that period is not just a matter of a couple of months. It is sadly a longer period than that. They need to have support that is actually liveable in the meantime. If not, what we are doing and what we are condoning is pushing people into poverty and homelessness, and that is surely not the Australia that we all want to stand for.

So I thank the member for this amendment. I urge the government to hear it. You have taken the right steps during this pandemic. It is time to give some reassurance to those who are desperate to know how they are going to make ends meet. Please consider extending the additional economic support payments in relation to the JobSeeker and coronavirus payments. As is indicated in this amendment, those vulnerable people need our support. I urge the government to do this. It is the right thing to do. Put political games aside and focus on the more-vulnerable.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

The SPEAKER (13:31): We now need to move to 90-second statements, because we've passed 1.30.

The SPEAKER (16:30): I table a document outlining the member for Melbourne's voting intentions throughout the course of this week.