Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (09:31): I continue my speech from yesterday, when I was quoting the coalition's dissenting report. That report reads as though there are many, many unions acting improperly with members' funds but not one employer group, and that members of employer groups have nothing to gain from this legislation. The final sentences highlight that this bill is solely about trashing unions and about seeking to destroy collective bargaining.

I turn to substantive parts of the references committee report—a report that was necessary because of the shortcomings of the recommendation from the legislation committee's report. Many submitters—both employer groups and trade unions—said that even if the recommendations were accepted by the government the legislation would still cause great disruption and harm to the operations and effectiveness of the administration of registered organisations in Australia. This is due to the significant unintended consequences of the bill, and the training and financial burdens imposed by the bill.

The references committee report went to great lengths to incorporate arguments both for and against the bill, and to include arguments from both employer groups and trade unions. It is a report that I believe clearly crushes the arguments for the bill. The report highlights how, in drafting and conceptualising the bill, the Liberal government has fundamentally missed the point about the nature of officials and officers of many registered organisations.

Far from being commercial, for-profit companies, these are membership organisations that survive on the work of volunteers. I highlight comments from the Australian Industry Group regarding the proposed material personal interest requirements of the bill. They said:

The provisions of the Bill in this area will operate very unfairly on registered employer organisations and their officer, and it is essential that the Bill is amended. The Bill would impose a far more onerous regime for officers of registered organisations than what applies to directors of public companies. The regime, if enacted, would undoubtedly deter persons from standing for office in employer organisations. In practice the provisions of the Bill would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

The ACTU reiterated this concern, from the perspective of trade unions, in its submission. It said that the committee should be cognisant of the fact that the burden of this regulation falls not just on the full-time salaried leadership of unions but on many rank-and-file members who are elected as unpaid delegates to governing bodies, which may meet as infrequently as once a year or once every two years.

If registered organisations cannot get members to fill the various office and delegate roles required for their organisations to function appropriately, then what happens to these organisations? They will die a slow death, and the Australian community will be worse off.

The report also highlighted evidence from the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation that the minute-keeping requirements of this bill were too onerous. The evidence was:

While organisations do keep extensive records of their meetings, it is often the case that they deal with sensitive and confidential issues and do so under an agreement that such matters remain “in house”. Examples of this are in dealing with an organisation’s employees, industrial strategy and commercial issues.

A blanket requirement to record minutes, and for such records to be made public, will only foster and encourage a lack of transparency as organisations respond to this requirement with more “off the record” discussions and more informality and consequently reduced accountability when dealing with issues that are considered sensitive or confidential.

I felt that the ANMF hit the nail on the head with this evidence.

The requirements in this bill around the management of registered organisations are too rigid and impractical. With regard to the training of officials, this bill would impose upon registered organisations a requirement to have their training recertified by the new commissioner, even if their training has been approved by the current Fair Work Commission. The Ai Group raised that they had already spent significant resources on developing a training program required under the 2012 changes. They submitted:

For example, there are four organisations—us, the ACTU, the AWU and one other organisation which I cannot recall—that put huge resources into having their officer training programs developed and approved. There is nothing in this legislation that grants automatic approval for those training courses. We have got to again run the gauntlet with the Registered Organisations Commission.

Talk about increasing red tape for business.

Of course, there are always loopholes available, and it was interesting that the ACTU said:

… that the passage of the bill could result in many employer organisations deregistering as registered organisations and instead, adopting corporate structures. By forming companies limited by guarantees, the organisations could then avoid the disclosure, training and oversight provisions of the bill.

So on one hand this bill will severely damage the effectiveness of trade unions but on the other hand provide an out for employer groups to actually become more secretive and more exclusive than they already are. Maybe that is the real reason for this bill.

The report also highlights that the penalties under the Registered Organisations Act were tripled in 2012, and that these penalties are sufficient to act as a disincentive. The report notes that the bill has been drafted in such a way that the new serious contravention category actually has a circular definition—that is, the definition of 'serious contravention' includes a contravention of the act that is 'serious'. Of course, no definition of 'serious' is provided, creating an ambiguous definition to allow the commissioner to apply a serious contravention whenever he or she chooses.

Further, given the different functions of corporations from registered organisations, the attempt to copy the serious contravention provision from the Corporations Act is totally flawed. As evidenced in recent months, criminal law is able to prosecute wrongdoing. The actions of the few should not be used as an excuse to enact draconian measures for registered organisations and their membership.

I repeat that I do not condone officers of registered organisations, or anyone in a position of trust, acting inappropriately, misusing trusted funds or taking benefits when they are not entitled to. The reforms by the previous government are sufficient to improve accountability of trade unions and employer groups, and this has been clearly demonstrated over recent times. I urge senators to vote against this bill.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (09:38): In rising to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 I would like to make one thing quite clear: this is a bill designed to silence unions. It is a bill designed to impose so many bureaucratic reporting requirements on unions that they have barely enough time to focus on their core business, and that is representing and defending the rights of workers.

When John Howard was Prime Minister, savage dogs and security people were on the docks. This government has decided to employ more subtle means of breaking the unions. But make no mistake about it: when the Liberal-National coalition is in government they will do all they can to attack the union movement. They will attack unions because the union movement is standing in the way of their ultimate ideological goal: stripping the rights and conditions of Australian workers.

This is a government led by an ideological Prime Minister with an historical grudge. He is continuing to fight a workplace relations battle that was comprehensively won in 2007, and this time he is fighting it by stealth and subterfuge. Instead of taking the union's head-on he is going to do it under the guise of tackling misconduct and corruption. And if you think Mr Abbott has abandoned WorkChoices, let us recall that in 2008 he said:

… it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let’s never forget that.

That is his quote.

In 2009 he said:

… workplace reform was one of the greatest achievements of the Howard government.

That is what this bill is really all about. It is about crippling the union movement with burdensome regulation so they lack the ability to fight against the Abbott government's ideologically-driven workplace reform.

The bill that is now before the Senate is a broken promise. Once again, we see a coalition that says one thing in opposition and does another in government. The Abbott government promised to regulate registered organisations in the same way as corporations, and now they have broken that promise. This bill places more onerous reporting requirements and higher penalties on officers of registered organisations than those imposed on company directors.

For example, corporations face a late fee from ASIC of $299 if their annual reports are lodged more than a month late. Yet this bill seeks to impose penalties of up to $85,000 if a registered organisation fails to lodge their annual report within the required time. The bill sets higher penalties for officers of registered organisations for a number of other breaches, such as noncriminal breach of good faith obligations, noncriminal misuse of position and noncriminal misuse of information.

For those who believed the Prime Minister when he said he would not touch workplace relations and when he said he would not reintroduce WorkChoices, just look at the trail of broken promises he has left behind so far. And just look at the ideological campaign that is being waged against unions right now, with this bill as a weapon, and you will see where the Abbott government stands on the interests of workers.

Those opposite like to pretend that this bill is about standing up for union members, but how can you stand up for union members if you mute the organisations that are supposed to represent them and fight for their rights? I want to make clear that this is not a debate about whether union corruption is acceptable. I and the rest of my colleagues in the Labor Party not only opposes corruption, we abhor it and have zero tolerance for it. Officers of registered organisations, just like directors of companies, are placed in a positions of trust and responsibility, to provide for the interests of their members—just as company directors are to act in the interests of their shareholders. Anyone who engages in corrupt behaviour, who is put in a position of responsibility and authority and abuses that authority for their own personal benefit, must be prosecuted with the full force of the law. I hope that the government is fervently opposed to all corruption, despite the fact that they seem to have an obsession with focussing on corruption in one particular sector—that is, the union movement.

But let us not pretend either, as those opposite would have us believe, that this is a debate about who is serious about tackling corruption. If the government cannot get this bill—this ideological instrument—through this place, then they will, at the very least, use it as some kind of political tool to claim that those of us on this side are not serious about tackling corruption in the union movement. We are serious about tackling corruption and misconduct, and we have demonstrated our seriousness through the legislation we passed in government in 2012.

In fact, Labor introduced stronger accountability measures and tougher penalties for misconduct in registered organisations than those introduced by the current Prime Minister when he was Minister for Workplace Relations in 2002. And do not forget, it was Labor in government that forced the Health Services Union into administration.

The conduct that those opposite claim they are targeting is already prohibited in the Registered Organisations Act. The act already prohibits members' money from being used to favour candidates in internal elections. It allows for criminal proceedings when funds are stolen or obtained by fraud, and ensures the Fair Work Commission can share information with police. There are statutory civil penalties in the act for parties who knowingly or recklessly contravene an order or direction made by the Fair Work Commission or Federal Court. Officers of registered organisations have fiduciary duties similar to those of company directors, and are required to disclose their personal interests. In trying to justify this bill, the government point to instances of alleged corruption that are being dealt with effectively by the current provisions.

If those opposite were really serious about tackling corruption and misconduct, then they would do so across the board. Despite the hundreds of prosecutions brought by ASIC each year against company directors, despite all the material that has been dealt with by ICAC in New South Wales, we do not hear a peep out of this government about corruption and misconduct in the corporate sector. Yet if you listened to the rhetoric of the coalition over the past several years, you would think that corruption and misconduct is entirely confined to unions.

The challenge for the government in prosecuting the case for the bill is this: explain to the Senate how and why the system that is in place already is not working; explain to the Senate how this bill will improve the system in any meaningful way; and explain to the Senate how you justify the enormous regulatory cost that you are seeking to impose on the very organisations whose members you claim to be protecting. They have failed to do this in the House, and I doubt they will succeed here. This is a poorly constructed piece of legislation. Not only is it poorly constructed, but its sole purpose is the pursuit of an ideological crusade—although I would consider it is more like the stuff of the sheriff of Nottingham than of Robin Hood.

As I said before, this bill imposes more onerous requirements on the officers of registered organisations than those which company directors are subject to. Why won't the government support the same onerous reporting requirements, the same steep penalties, for corporations and their directors as they do for registered organisations? If they are going to claim that by opposing this bill we are not serious about tackling union corruption then, surely, by their own standards they are not serious about tackling corruption in the corporate sector.

Of course, this is the government that apparently is all about cutting red tape and letting businesses get on with business. But they are not interested in letting unions get on with their business. Instead, they want to drown them in regulatory requirements so they cannot get on with their core business—representing workers. That is what the coalition's mates in big business want them to do. If they cannot bring Work Choices back, then they will at least have a go at breaking the back of the union movement.

Business is often regarded by those opposite as their natural friends, but has the Abbott government considered how employer organisations feel about this regulatory approach? Employer organisations are, after all, registered organisations who would be subject to the same requirements as employee organisations under this bill. Perhaps the Abbott government is so hell-bent on this ideological crusade that they are happy to sacrifice employer organisations in the process. Perhaps they consider weighing down employer organisations with the same regulatory burden to be worth the collateral damage. Perhaps to them this is the cost of winning their ideological war against unions.

Well, these organisations obviously do not like it any more than employee organisations do. The Australian Industry Group made the point that directors of companies are typically small in number and well-remunerated for their role in returning a value on shareholders' investments, whereas registered organisations, being not-for-profit entities, typically have many elected officials and committee members who are unpaid. The Ai Group, for example, has 78 volunteer councillors deemed officers under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, who give up a great deal of their time working on the policy and financial management of the group while also trying to run their own companies. I know this is also the case for many other registered organisations including unions and yet the bill imposes excessive reporting requirements on these unpaid volunteers.

One such requirement is the obligation to disclose their material personal interests, including those of relatives, to every member of the organisation and the penalty for breaching this requirement is over $1 million—I think that in fact it is $1,020,000. By contrast, under the Corporations Act, company directors only have to disclose their material interests to the other directors and only those interests that relate to the affairs of the company. Let me just reiterate that. One requirement is the obligation on one group to disclose material personal interests including those of relatives to every member of the organisation and the penalty for breaching that requirement is around $1 million. By contrast, under the Corporations Act, company directors only have to disclose their material interests to other directors and only those interests that relate to the affairs of the company. Here is what the Australian Industry Group said in their submission in relation to the disclosure of material personal interest:

The provisions of this Bill in this area will operate very unfairly on registered employer organisations and their officers, and it is essential that the Bill is amended. The Bill would impose a far more onerous regime for officers of registered organisations than what applies to directors of public companies. The regime, if enacted, would undoubtedly deter persons from standing for office in employer organisations. In practice the provisions of the Bill would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

That was from the Australian Industry Group in their submission to the Senate inquiry.

Will just drop this year and then I can work on I would like to compliment the Ai Group on what is a very comprehensive and well-thought-out submission, which points out the many flaws in this bill. Concerns about the regulatory burden this bill will place on registered organisations have been echoed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and several other employer organisations, including the Master Builders Australia and the Pharmacy Guild.

By introducing these onerous reporting requirements, the government is not just imposing costs on unions but is imposing costs on the whole workplace relations system. Of course, the government must have known that these concerns were going to be brought up. Maybe that is why they were in such a hurry to rush this bill through.

Many employer organisations, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, have raised concerns about the lack of time they have had to review the legislation and lodge a considered submission. Surely it would send a clear message to this government, when both employer and employee organisations are united in their stance on this bill, that something is seriously wrong with it?

While looking through the second reading speeches to this bill in the other place, I think the member for Moreton made an interesting point—that the increased compliance costs resulting from this bill could be passed on to the members of registered organisations. In the case of unions these could include low-paid employees, such as retail workers, or cleaners, or childcare workers or aged care workers. Far be it from those opposite to care about low-paid workers, but many employer organisations that represent small businesses may also be forced to pass these costs onto their members, resulting in increased costs for small business. Of course, we know that if that happens that cost will be passed on to consumers.

I doubt the government, on the other side of this chamber, who trumpet their business credentials and their war on red tape, have considered the cost burden this legislation could potentially have on small businesses. You would think this is exactly the kind of legislation that the government would include in one of their 'red tape repeal days'. But then this government really only pays lip service to repealing red tape. Not only are they not serious about reducing red tape they are intent on using red tape as a weapon.

Labor will oppose this legislation, and we have many good reasons to do so. We already have a very good regime in place for ensuring the accountability of officers of registered organisations, including reasonable penalties for failing to meet their duties to their members As a number of submitters have pointed out, it is this rushed legislation that is causing problems. The government's royal commission into the trade union movement will be making recommendations about the regulation and governance of registered organisations, so why not wait for those findings? Is it because this bill is a stunt?

This is the same stunt the government pulled in opposition when Senator Abetz introduced a similar bill. I remember when I spoke on that bill: I described it as a 'solution looking for a problem'. The bill that is currently before the Senate is no different.

This is not just Labor's view, or the view of the union movement, and I point again to the Australian Industry Group's submission which said:

It is a transparently political Bill in an area where there is no extant public policy problem.

Unfortunately, what the government has demonstrated with their royal commission is that they are willing to spend millions of dollars in pursuit of their political witch hunt. They will spend millions of dollars in taxpayers funds while also imposing millions of dollars of costs on registered organisations, including employee and employer associations.

Why does this government insist on attacking unions? Because they want to silence the voices of those opposed to their real agenda, which is bringing back WorkChoices. If the government wants to introduce serious, adult, measures to combat misconduct and corruption, Labor will support them. However, Labor will not support childish stunts, we will not support a political witch-hunt and we will not support unnecessary regulation and red tape. And we will not support actions designed to cripple and silence the union movement.

For these reasons, Labor opposes this bill.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (09:54): It is deja vu. It is Groundhog Day. Here we are again, and yet again we are pulling out our speeches—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Senator McKENZIE: Senator Bilyk, I am glad you referred to an earlier speech you made on very similar legislation. Anyway, I rise to speak to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and for related purposes. This was the coalition election policy. We were very clear. Senator Bilyk, you made comments about rushed pieces of legislation. This piece of legislation was like a train coming across—through you, Chair—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator McKenzie, you cannot address senators directly—do so through the chair—and interjections are disorderly, Senator Bilyk.

Senator McKENZIE: Like a freight train across the Nullarbor, you could have seen this particular piece of legislation coming for miles—for days, for weeks, for months, for nigh on a year. This was part of our agenda to ensure accountability and transparency with registered organisations. It is not an ideological attack on the union movement, as those opposite would like us to believe. It is actually for all of us—for the community—to be assured that employer organisations, workers' organisations and indeed any registered organisations ensure that the dues paid by the members to those organisations are used in a responsible matter and that the governing arrangements for those organisations give confidence to those members that they are being taken care of in an appropriate manner.

Briefly, the policy applies the same rules to unions and officials as for companies and their directors. Given the amount of money that some of these organisations are in charge of, and given the importance of a lot of the advocacy work that they are involved in, that should be the least of the regulations that they should be subject to. It ensures penalties for breaking the rules are the same for everyone, as are disclosure requirements. In addition, the policy calls for a new body, the Registered Organisations Commission, to take on the enforcement and investigation roles currently held by the Fair Work Commission. The new commission would also provide information and advice to registered organisations about their rights and obligations under the law.

We have a clear mandate for this legislation. Specifically, the bill responds to a number of outstanding recommendations from the June 2012 review into the operation of the Fair Work Act by the Fair Work Review Panel. I speak on this bill as a member—and, at the time of the inquiry, acting chair—of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which inquired into the bill and reported to the Senate in 2013. In the legislation committee report, the committee supported the bill subject to four minor amendments. Firstly:

The Committee recommends that, consistent with the Corporations Act 2001, material personal interest disclosures should only be required to be made to those officers whose duties relate to the financial management of the organisation. Such disclosures should be recorded in the minutes of the meetings of those officers and should be made available to members on request.

I am surprised that the opposition is not supporting this amendment, given that it ensures that the shareholdings of husbands and wives of union representatives are not open for disclosure. It ensures that only those who are dealing directly with the financial management of the organisation are subject to the same disclosure rules as under the Corporations Act. Secondly:

The Committee recommends that a list of exclusions from the obligations to disclose material personal interests based on section 191(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 be inserted into the bill. This would narrow the obligation to disclose material personal interests …

Thirdly:

The Committee recommends that the obligation placed on officers to disclose every payment should be reduced with certain exclusions …

Fourthly and finally:

The Committee recommends the bill be amended to allow the Commissioner to grant exemptions from the training requirements if an individual can demonstrate significant knowledge of the financial obligations specified in the bill.

This is because, despite the policies of various Labor state governments and the TAFE regime, there is no point training people for the sake of training people. I know the training obligations and the money they can raise from training their members are a great money-spinner for many of the registered organisations, but if you already have the training there is no reason for you to undergo that again.

Predictably, for a bill which would make unions more accountable, Labor senators produced a dissenting report opposing the bill in its entirety. I think that was in December 2013. What was less predictable was Labor's decision to refer the bill to the Education and Employment References Committee, which of course they control.

Referring the bill for a second inquiry was a highly unusual tactic. In fact, it has not been used since August 1996 when, again, Labor referred another piece industrial relations legislation, the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 to the Senate Economics Reference Committee. So much for the bleating about ideology. Politics is the battle of ideas; on this side, ideas centred around freedom, transparency and accountability. And on the other side, as Senator Cameron made reference to in his contribution on this piece of legislation yesterday: 'There is nothing wrong with it—leave it as it is. There is no problem.' Clearly, that is not what we found in our inquiry. That was not the evidence given to the committee and it was not the evidence given to the coalition during the construction of our policy around this matter. It just shows how desperate Labor is to appease its union mates and masters.

The reference committee essentially replicated the work of the legislative committee. The only difference is that this time it was a Labor majority report, with a dissenting report from coalition senators. Our dissenting report flatly rejected the need for a second inquiry. The new inquiry held just one hearing for which just three unions and one employer organisation turned up. What a waste of time, paper, energy, Senate resources and money! But how typical of Labor.

Senators on this side of the chamber firmly support the government taking strong action to ensure all registered organisations are accountable. Has Labor learnt nothing from the HSU scandal? The fact that it took Fair Work Australia four long years to complete its investigation into the HSU demonstrates the need for a separate Registered Organisations Commission, as set out in this bill.

It is now very clear that HSU was just the tip of the iceberg. The Fair Work Commission has recently launched proceedings against the Musicians Union of Australia, and currently has inquiries or investigations into the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia, the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, Australian Nursing Federation and the Australian Childcare Centres Association.

We have also just seen the start of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. I would encourage Labor Senators who think that all is well with the union movement and that this bit of legislation is not required to please log on to www.trade union royal commission.gov.au, and tor those Twitter aficionados amongst as it is #turc, if they want to follow what is actually going on at the royal commission into the trade union movement and governance. Find some evidence of why this bit of legislation is required now.

The bill before the Senate is not about union bashing. It is about protecting workers from union officials who do the wrong thing—and they do exist. Not all; not the majority. But they do exist. The majority of union officials are honest and dedicated to the welfare of their members, and thus have nothing to fear from this bill. In fact, by clearing up the governance issues in registered organisations unions should become stronger as they regain the lost trust of workers and, indeed, the wider Australian public about their important role in our civic life. It is hard to understand why any Labor senator would have a problem with tackling corruption.

While current Labor politicians are more than shy about criticising unions, Labor figures of the past have been much more forthcoming. Former Labor powerbroker, Graham Richardson, wrote a column in The Australian of 31 January 2014, titled, 'Labor needs to re-examine its ties with the unions'.

Labor must assert the primacy of its own position over the trade unions. If it is seen again to slavishly follow the union line, it will give an already well-endowed Prime Minister even more grist for his mill.

Unfortunately for Labor, for workers and for the union movement more generally, that message is not getting through to Labor in this building.

Labor Senators cited as their main reason to oppose the bill, disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations. Yet these issues arise courtesy of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2012, introduced by the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten. When introducing the bill, Mr Shorten said:

Under the amendments proposed by the government—

the then government—

registered organisations will be required to amend their rules to provide for the disclosure of transactions between the organisation and related parties, which may include the family members of officials.

Labor was happy to support disclosure when it was in government, but now it is against it now it is in opposition. What hypocrisy. Labor senators should really be more supportive of their leader. Mr Shorten was very close to the top of the Gillard government. He not only helped install Ms Gillard, he was so close to her that he agreed with everything she said even when he had no idea what she had said. Mr Shorten had the Prime Minister's back—that is, until he stabbed her in the back.

Edmund Burke said:

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.

Labor's hypocrisy on this bill is similar to Labor now voting against budget saving measures that Labor brought to parliament and took to the last election. Last year Labor proposed $2.3 billion of savings. These came from an efficiency dividend on universities, a cut to scholarships and other higher education changes. In February last year the Gillard government announced savings of $1.1 billion as a result of research and development tax changes. But now Labor is blocking both of these pieces of legislation—both previous Labor plans. Labor sees no conflict in voting against its own policies, none at all. Indeed, it expects us to vote against our own policies, policies that we were very, very clear on prior to the election, that were part of the mandate that Australian people gave the Abbott government.

So why are Labor senators so reluctant to hold trade unions to account? I think that is a very, very good question. I have done a bit of homework; I have a few stats I would like to share with the chamber. Maybe one of the reasons could be that 19 out of the 31 ALP senators are former union officials or union bosses. Nine of them were union bosses, 10 of them were union officials. Senator Bilyk, who we just heard from before, the Australian Services Union; Senator Bishop, Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees union boss; Senator Cameron, passionate defence of the union movement yesterday, AMWU union boss; Senator Collins, SDA union official; Senator Conroy, Transport Workers Union official; Senator Dastyari, ALP boss right there; Senator Farrell, another shoppie union boss; Senator Furner, the National Union of Workers union boss; Senator Gallagher, Transport Workers Union boss; Senator Hogg, our President, a Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees union official; Senator Lines, United Voice, and what a voice it is, union boss; Senator Ludwig, Australian Workers Union union official; Senator Lundy, CFMEU union official; Senator Marshall, the ETU union official; Senator McEwen, the Australian Services Union boss; Senator Moore, CPSU union boss; Senator Singh, Australian Education Union official; Senator Sterle, Transport Workers Union official; Senator Urquhart, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union boss; Senator Wong, CFMEU union official. But wait, there is more! Come 1 July these senators will be joined by Senator Joe Bullock, SDA union boss, and Senator Chris Ketter, SDA union boss.

And what do they all have to hide? The community expectation is that these unions must operate to the highest of standards. These organisations are given special legislated rights, and with rights come responsibilities. The Craig Thomson affair showed that these responsibilities are not being met under the current arrangements. Mr Thomson was arrested in respect of more than 154 fraud related criminal charges and is facing allegations that his 2007 federal election campaign was partly funded by siphoning union money without authorisation. The union that Mr Thomson was ripping off represents some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, and it is outrageous that the union contributions of these low-paid workers were used to fund the seedy high life of a man who was supposed to be fighting on their behalf. It is outrageous that it took four years for justice to be done. It is outrageous that Labor senators think it is okay to maintain the status quo.

To improve oversight of registered organisations, the bill will establish a dedicated independent watchdog, the registered organisations commission, and provide it with enhanced investigation and information-gathering powers to monitor and regulate registered organisations. The new commission will have the necessary independence and the powers it needs to regulate registered organisations effectively, efficiently and transparently. The commission will have stronger investigation and information-gathering powers than those that currently apply. They will be modelled on those available to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The commission will also educate, assist and advise registered organisations and their members in relation to the new obligations, and ensure members are aware of their rights. The activities of the commission will also be subject to the same oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as Commonwealth agencies. This will ensure the appropriate level of transparency and public accountability.

As well as establishing a strong, independent regulator, the bill introduces reporting and disclosure requirements, and enhanced penalties for wrongdoing. Many unions control assets worth millions of dollars. In financial terms they operate in a similar way to a large business, so it is appropriate for them to have similar reporting requirements. And I note that in his contribution yesterday, Senator Cameron was very keen to use the word 'volunteer', as if somehow we were talking kindergarten committees or football/netball clubs in the way that unions were being run. But I am very, very confident about this, having actually presided over a student association many years ago which had a turnover of $17 million. I know that many of the people involved in that organisation were not solely volunteers, and I know that throughout the unions there are some very significant salaries within the government structure of the union movement. They should be subject to more stringent accountability measures. Than the local kindergarten committee is.

The only people who have anything to fear are those who are doing the wrong thing. The overwhelming number of officers who are already doing the right thing should be comforted in knowing that unlawful behaviour will be dealt with, thus ensuring ongoing member confidence in registered organisations as a whole. There should be no difference between the penalties levied against a company director who misuses shareholders' funds and a union boss who misuses members' money. I do not know why that is a point of contention.

Any political party that refuses to support this greater accountability and transparency for registered organisations is voting to give the green light to more of the same behaviour that we have seen from some executives of the HSU. It is time for Labor senators to choose which side they are on. Are you on the side of Craig Thomson or are you on the side of the workers? I think the misuse of the committee process by Labor, particularly around this and the other amendment to the Fair Work Act is a disgrace, because all they are doing is using the very limited resources of the Senate basically to prosecute what is an ideological argument.

It will ever be thus, and when Senator Bilyk wants to talk about 'ideological crusades', the Labor Party and Greens, their partners in crime, have been on an ideological crusade for six years. And whenever you want to call them out on their ideological crusade; whenever you actually want to inject some accountability and transparency into workplace relations; and whenever you want to talk about the reality of operating a small business in regional areas and of penalty rates for young people, they pull out the Work Choices wildcard. It is the 'press button in case of emergency/smash glass'; it is as if this spectre of Work Choices will actually make up for the negligence that those opposite have wreaked upon the Australian economy and upon the potential job prospects of young Australians and the stability of our budgetary position over coming decades.

I am very proud of our government in that whilst it was not of our making, we have actually taken strong steps this week to address the inherent issues of the Labor malaise.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (10:14): Senator McKenzie, I could not let you go without thinking to myself, quietly, 'I hear the social agrarian that you in fact are when you talk about trade unions with such distaste.' I find the juxtaposition of where you sit in the social agrarian National Party and where I sit in trade unions somewhat novel to look at. But, nonetheless, you are entitled to have your views.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. The Australian people were promised a mature, responsible government. We were promised a government that would be run by adults under the coalition. That promise has proved to be just one of the many broken promises that litter the corridors of the Ministerial Wing of this building today. The Abbott government's pre-election promises have all gone up in a puff of cigar smoke and the way this legislation has been handled, quite frankly, is no different. Just as Mr Tony Abbott's budget is a budget of broken promises, this legislation is completely full of hypocrisy. The legislation before the chamber can only be described as being politically motivated in the extreme. It is unnecessary, and I will not be supporting it or the way government has managed this bill in this place. It is in fact a piece of scrambled legislation that they have cobbled together as, you could only say, an extreme attack on trade unions per se. The legislation is a thinly-veiled attack on trade unions and, by extension, their members. Unions work incredibly hard to represent the best interests of their members. They have a role to play in the modern Australian economy and workforce, and I think that in itself is what the Liberal Party and the Liberals on the other side find almost impossible to accept.

The government has not properly explained the case for change for this legislation. They have failed to make the case that the existing legislation should be changed in this extreme way. Registered organisations should be responsibly regulated, and I do not think that anyone would cavil at that statement. Labor supports the act in its current state. Why? Because it gets the balance right. It strikes the right balance between good legislation, how you properly regulate registered organisations and how you should ensure that you do not take it to the extreme to punish registered organisations.

The law at present already does the following: registered organisations already prohibit members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns; the Registered Organisations Act already allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or are obtained by fraud; the Registered Organisations Act already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police, as is appropriate; and the Registered Organisations Act already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the Fair Work Commission under the Registered Organisations Act or the Fair Work Act. The current legislation is pretty tough, can I say, in the way that it currently works.

Under the Fair Work Act officers of registered organisations already have a fiduciary duty akin to that for directors under the Corporations Law. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties. And it does not stop there. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence and act with good faith. All of these put an incredible onus and responsibility on trade unions to act appropriately and conduct their affairs in an open and transparent way on behalf of their members.

As the dissenting report of the committee's inquiry into the bill noted, the current Registered Organisations Act already addresses the proposals of the bill to the appropriate extent. It prohibits money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections and gives priority to the determination of criminal proceedings, for example, where it is alleged that funds have been stolen or obtained by fraud, and ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police, as appropriate.

As has already been noted by the speakers on this side on this bill, these changes are aimed solely at hindering the efforts of trade unions to effectively represent their members in the workplace. When you look at the present legislation and at where these changes want to go, you can be left in no doubt that it is all about simply making it almost impossible for unions to operate effectively in the workplace and an unveiled attack on trade unions by this government. Why? Those on the other side have a long hatred of unions, and it manifests itself whenever they get their head. When they had the ability to pass legislation in this place from 2004 onwards, what did they do? They attacked unions and their members through Work Choices. Unfettered, they then went to the extreme, as is always the case. In this instance, they took a piece of legislation that was suitable and matched to fit registered organisations, and they have taken it to the extreme again. Why? As I said, the only reason left is their unbridled hatred of trade unions.

When you look at one particular aspect of the bill that represents significant overreach by a government full of twisted priorities and full of surprises, you can see it come through. The expansion of coercive investigatory powers is hidden within this bill. The legislation as it stands provides coercive powers in relation to current and former officers, employees or auditors of an organisation. The amendment legislation extends the powers in such a way as to reach any person the commission identifies as potentially holding information or evidence of relation. This will give the commissioner significant new powers to compel evidence, execute warrants and seize documents from any person. This can only be described as a significant overreach.

It was not something the coalition canvassed with the public before the last election. What they want to be able to do is give powers to the commissioners which are unprecedented in a broad sense—more than what you would expect for a body that is there to ensure registered organisations act within the law. Why? They want to have unfettered access to be able to attack trade unions using this piece of legislation shamelessly. Of course, the overreach is not hidden in that sense. They do put it in their legislation and they do encourage the commission to use all of the powers that are available to it to attack trade unions—and I suspect it would.

One of the novelties, if there is a novelty within this piece of legislation, is the extraordinary hypocrisy about red tape. We all know that this government is about removing red tape. They have set up—I do not know what they call it—a red tape task force to go around in departments, find red tape and destroy it where they can. This is one of the hypocritical issues that have come forward, which can also be described as a broken promise.

Mr Daniel Mammone, the workplace policy and legal affairs director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, gave this evidence in the Senate inquiry in response to a searching question from Senator Tillem:

Senator TILLEM: Would you agree with the statement that, further, the requirements of this bill add another layer of red tape for those organisations that you deal with and got feedback from? Is that a fair statement?

Mr Mammone: There are elements that compound the existing problems, yes.

This is clear evidence that the government's only plans are for twisted priorities and broken promises, because in this instance they want to add red tape and ensure that they surround trade unions with a substantial amount of red tape. Why? Because of their unbridled hatred of the operation of trade unions, the way they look after their members and the way they operate within the industrial sphere. The government are willing, in this instance, to breach and break one of their promises of removing red tape for what can only be described as a political end. It is simply a twisted priority when you juxtapose it. As Senator Bilyk noted, they would happily sacrifice a business to put impediments on the operation of trade unions. They are even willing to go that little extra step and say: 'We won't worry too much about business in this instance. Businesses are in the way of our target. They might be called collateral damage—too bad, so sad. We are willing to sacrifice those principles and sacrifice small business to achieve our aim of attacking trade unions.'

The Liberals have proved themselves to be the poorest managers of this chamber since I have been here. I cannot speak for before then, but when you look at the way this bill has been dealt with, the incompetence has not been limited to the operation of government business and the programs of this place. It really has extended across the entirety of this government when you look at how they are managing this legislative program.

The budget is a betrayal of working people and it truly is a slap in the face to the people who voted for this government, because what are we dealing with today? We are dealing with one of their twisted priorities. We are dealing with registered industrial organisations. It is not about the budget, it is not about issues that go to the budget; what they really want to talk about are their twisted priorities around how to attack trade unions. The budget process to date has been farcical, and the extraordinary damage they are now inflicting on families is quite unbelievable. We witnessed the most chaotically mishandled and sieve-like budget since John Howard's 1980 budget, which was leaked in full to Laurie Oakes.

I suspect we have already got a government in revolt, with a backbench treated like mushrooms and a Prime Minister and Treasurer breaking election promise after election promise. Above all, I think this budget has been—as Dr Chalmers from the other place called it—an ambush on the Australian people, particularly on working people, and this piece of legislation is just another attack on working people. It attacks industrial organisations which represent their members—Australian working people—in the workplace. It highlights their priorities around who they have in their target: working people and trade unions who represent working people.

This is a budget written by the cigar chompers and borne by hardworking Australians. While lower- and middle-income earners are being sent to the wall, the big end of town are getting off scot-free. Their attack on working people contained in this bill is replicated in their attacks in the budget, and you do not have to go far into it to hear it. A GP tax, increasing the petrol tax, cuts to the pension, education, students with disabilities and young apprentice support—all broken promises, all attacks on hardworking Australians, and it is reflected here.

I would go so far as to say that this registered industrial organisation bill today has at its heart the way the Liberal Party addresses working people. They do not like trade unions, they do not like working people and they do not like those who need support in the electorate. Labor does not support a tax on working people or their representatives. Unions work hard for their members' interests in the workplace, and you do not have to go far to find how bad this piece of legislation is.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions, in its submission to the Senate committee inquiry, expressed the view that this bill is 'poorly conceived, badly motivated, entirely unnecessary and transparently political in an area where there is no extant public policy problem.' I think they have said it all in one sentence, quite frankly. The ACTU's analysis and conclusions about many of the requirements and penalties in this bill are similar to the AIG's.

In the workplace we have a confluence of interests—industrial organisations, trade unions and employer organisations—who all think this legislation is bad. It is atrocious in the extreme. It even goes to areas which I think make you wonder about their priorities. If you look at the coercive powers in the investigatory area, they have given greater powers and taken away use and derivative use immunity. You could juxtapose that with what a former senator of this place, Senator Cooney, said. I hope I have got this right; I am happy to correct it. He once said that what you are doing is giving more power to people to look into, in this instance, trade unions or registered industrial organisations, than you give to the police to look at people who have been murderers, people who have done some heinous deeds in the criminal sphere. Why is that? To be able to justify it you do need to put down quite clearly what those justifications are and why we should accept them. I do not think, in this instance, the case has been made for this extreme use of powers plus the removal of the privilege against self-incrimination for use and derivative use immunities. In fact, derivative use immunity is, as I understand it, gone.

Turning to other provisions in this legislation, of course they will have to fund it. I think it highlights their twisted priorities where they are going to fund an attack on registered industrial organisations whilst at the same time, for companies, it is quite interesting. The argument goes something like this: registered industrial organisations should be treated like companies. I think that is a poor argument and does not reflect the truth of how industrial organisations work and how they are comprised. But whilst you are strengthening these powers to attack trade unions, today we find out from the budget that you are removing approximately $120 million from ASIC so that they will not be able to perform their tasks in pursuing companies and the like for the work that they do—which has been and always is good work. But that is where you find their priorities. 'We'll ensure that ASIC cannot do its job. We'll take $120 million out of them over four years to make sure they cannot do their proper functions of keeping big corporations in check, making sure that companies do have a good investigative arm on their case. In this instance, though, we're going to support a tough piece of legislation to attack trade unions but ultimately we are going to say that companies and trade unions from your perspective should be treated the same.' How hypocritical. You are entirely hypocritical in that argument. It falls flat when you look at how you are going to pull the rug out from under ASIC and bolster your attack on trade unions. I commend the submission to the Senate. (Time expired)

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (10:34): I too rise to make my contribution to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. I think it is amazing to sit here when we go on a union-bashing exercise. It is absolutely gobsmacking to hear some of the contributions from those opposite. I did not hear it but I am told that, to use up some of the Senate's valuable time, Senator McKenzie went on a tirade about those of us on this side of the chamber—our backgrounds or what union affiliation we have. As I said, I did not hear it; I was sorting out my sock drawer when she was making her contribution.

I just want to clarify a few things. Do I have a conflict of interest with this ridiculous amendment that is before the chamber? If I can be accused of being a lifelong member of the Transport Workers Union and having been awarded life membership of the Transport Workers Union, yes, I have a conflict of interest. If I am accused of being a truck driver, not a university-graduated person who just wanted to get into politics and went to work for a member of parliament or a Liberal law firm—

Senator Jacinta Collins: Apparatchik.

Senator STERLE: I am not one of those, I can tell you. I can be accused of a lot of things but that is not one of them. I have actually been a blue-collar worker. I joined the Transport Workers Union in 1980 when I was 20 years of age because I wanted to join the Transport Workers Union. Do I have a lot of friends in the union movement? Yes, I do. There are a lot of good people in the union movement, both office holders and rank and file members—my oath. But when I am told that an opposition senator thinks it is clever to wrap us all up as—my words, not hers—'operatives for unions', they really need to do their homework. I am proud to say that my wife and I were self-employed. We had our own small family business; so, gosh, forgive me. I actually worked for myself.

Senator Edwards: You'd be the only ones!

Opposition senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Mark Bishop ): Order! We'll have a little bit of order, please.

Senator STERLE: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do appreciate that coverage. I shake in my boots when Senator Edwards from South Australia attacks me! But you see, I know the value of dirt under the fingernails. I know the value of leaving school and thinking, 'What am I doing to do with myself, because I do not want to go to university?'

I also understand the value of putting up your life savings. I think I had about $1,200 in the bank when my dad said to me, 'If you want to buy a truck, mate, you're using your own money.' I understand signing up to a loan and thinking, 'Now I've got pay it off.' I also understand the value of putting in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. I also understand feeling that if I did not have—like hundreds of thousands of other Australian workers have—the safety net of union membership behind me should I need it, what the heck would I do? How would I service my loans if I were, one day, unfairly treated, if the company I worked for decided that they did not need me, through no fault of my own? I worked for one of the largest transport companies in Australia, TNT. At the time, we were the Ansett division, Ansett Transport Industries, so I came through the Ansett sector. They were a very good company until things started going bad. My union membership came in very, very handy, and I am proud to have had that. I am also proud—and I will get to the bill but I just want to let some of those boofheads over there understand that they are not the gatekeepers to all intelligence, let alone good business practice—

Senator Edwards: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order.

Senator STERLE: I withdraw the 'boofheads'.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Senator STERLE: Only because Senator Edwards just reminded me, as soon as he stood up, that I might have used the wrong word there.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, you might address the question before the chair.

Senator STERLE: Yes. I have withdrawn. Through the chair, I withdraw.

I go back to this ridiculous position we have in front of us, where those on that side think that they are so clever because they go and bash a few unions because it suits the top end of town. I came off the road when I had two young children. It was time to come home and try to be more than a part-time father. It was time to stop running between Perth and Darwin and try to be home every night. I was employed as an organiser with the Transport Workers Union. I was employed as an organiser with the Transport Workers Union not because I was an apparatchik and not because they wanted to put me in parliament—nothing could be further from the truth. It was because I was a truck driver. It was because I valued a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Fourteen years later, I left and entered the Senate. But it really irks me when smartypants on that side make ridiculous statements and they have got no idea of our backgrounds. I dismiss the ridiculous contribution from Senator McKenzie. I do not think she would be the only one.

This bill is a nonsense. I could waffle on about what it is all supposed to do. This is ideology as its craziest. This is the Liberal Party, with the help of the Nats, paying back the top end of town. But they are also throwing out a blanket, because they want to talk about some unfortunate misdemeanours we have seen from a couple of people who were employed in union leadership roles. Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, I know your background too. Apart from being a father of two and a hardworking senator for 18 years, you have been a very successful union secretary. You served a massive membership. The majority of your membership respected not only your intelligence but your thoughts and your wisdom. You represented mainly women, a lot of people who had English as a second language and those working in stores and shops.

This bill is the government delivering to the top end of town. Employers who do the right thing have absolutely nothing to fear in dealing with unions. Employers who are doing the right thing—and there are many, many employers out there that do the right thing; unfortunately it is a few ratbags that bring the rest of them down—have nothing to fear with collective bargaining. But what they have got to fear is when the opposition come out to deliver their thankyous to the top end of town.

If we are talking about the corrupt few, I say: throw the buggers in jail and throw the key away. I am not just making that up. I would have full support from the union movement. They are not the sort of people that we want in the movement. But they are not the only ones, unfortunately, who may be corrupt or who are doing the wrong thing. I have got some statistics I wish to share with you, Mr Acting Deputy President. They are about ASIC. For a bit of background, for those who may not know: ASIC is Australia's corporate market and financial services regulator. ASIC is an independent Commonwealth government body. ASIC is set up under and administered under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act and carries out most of its work under the Corporations Act. ASIC currently comes under the portfolio responsibilities of the Assistant Treasurer. Who does ASIC regulate? It regulates Australian companies, financial markets, financial services, organisations and professions who deal and advise in investments, superannuation, insurance, deposit taking and credit. Why am I telling you that? Because I want to tell you of some of the fine work that ASIC has done. In the last three financial years, there have been 79 criminal proceedings completed, 74 people convicted and 45 people jailed—not union secretaries but businesspeople. There have been 30 non-custodial sentences or fines, 73 civil proceedings completed and 70 illegal schemes shut down or other action taken—and I have not even started on that scenario in Western Australia with the Vietnamese market gardeners. There have been 228 people disqualified or removed from directing companies. ASIC also publish enforcement reports. The most recent one is for July to December 2013, for which the media statement says:

ASIC achieved 340 enforcement outcomes. This included criminal as well as civil and administrative (e.g. a banning or disqualification) actions, and negotiated outcomes, including enforceable undertakings (EU).

What I am saying is, if you want to look where all the crooks are, it is not how to work out where most of them are. They are in the boardrooms. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, it is absolutely ridiculous, the contribution from the other side.

I want to allude to Senator Back's contribution. I have the greatest respect for Senator Back. We do a lot of work together in our RRAT committee. RRAT—for those who are listening—is not what you might think it is; it is rural and regional affairs and transport. Senator Back is very well regarded in agricultural industry, but he is way off track in this debate. I will tell you why he is way off track. In the closing couple of minutes that were available to him yesterday, Senator Back wanted to attack the Maritime Union of Australia. Before that mob over there get all excited and get their undies in a twist, I am just going to make it very clear that I am a personal friend of Christy Cain, the state secretary of the MUA in Perth, and I know you are too, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop. Christy is a fantastic representative of maritime workers and waterside workers on the waterfronts throughout Western Australia.

But Senator Back had a whack at 50 employees—I think there are about 50, but I will stand corrected—offshore in Port Hedland. I believe they work in the port for Teekay Shipping. Some background: I would hope that every Western Australian would know this, but in Port Hedland every day there are about 30 or 40 ships waiting offshore to get in and load predominantly iron ore out of Port Hedland and get it to the Asian Markets, the Chinese markets, the Indian markets or wherever it needs to go. We have about 50 of these guys, who followed John Howard's dream of actually having to have secret ballots for whether they wanted to take industrial action. They followed John Howard's dream, they had the vote for the Fair Work Commission and they voted to take industrial action on a secret ballot basis. But it does not suit those on that side that there was a secret ballot and workers actually made up their minds that they wanted to take industrial action.

What do they want to take industrial action about? With Senator Back and the Libs it is all about going out there—in my words, not theirs—to try to destroy the iron ore industry or however they put it. They put their case forward: how dare these maritime workers or seamen go out there and want to take action because of safety issues that may cost—and I am using Senator Back's figures here, but I think I did read them in one of the journals to The Australian, which is not to say I like reading The Australian, but obviously I had nothing better to do for that three minutes—the industry about $100 million a day, and the action that was supported could last for seven days. So we have an industry that could lose $100 million a day. You think to yourself: 'A hundred million dollars a day? Crikey, that's a lot of money.' But then you think to yourself, 'Why the hell do these workers want to take industrial action?'

I will tell you what I did. I rang Christy Cain and spoke to Christy. What it is is that, in the trucking industry, aviation, the mines and everywhere, we have fatigue management policies. It is enshrined in legislation, and workers are protected through occupational health and safety laws to be able to have certain hours of rest and certain hours of work. It is done for a very good reason: to protect not only workers on the site but other workers, particularly in the transport industry—which this mob want to steal from us too in terms of getting remunerated for it. We want our drivers safe. The miners want their miners safe. We want other workers safe. And the seamen, waterside workers and maritime workers want to be safe too.

Christy told me about the BHP shipping operations out of Port Hedland. I was told very clearly—and I know this for a fact anyway—that BHP has fatigue management systems. They have safety procedures everywhere you go. Any of us who have visited a BHP site knows the rules and knows that occupational health and safety is foremost in their mind, and so it should be. And the mining industry does too. It is great, because it is a dangerous industry. But these rules that govern miners and truck drivers are not enforced for the maritime operation. Through Teekay Shipping, who contract to BHP in Port Hedland, whose maritime workers' job every day is to get these ships in nice and quick, get them loaded and push them out, I am told very clearly that these guys are working 12- to 14-hour shifts per day. You think that is a long stretch, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. These guys and girls are actually working these 12- to 14-hour days 28 days in a row. With the greatest of respect, it is all very well for BHP—and if I am off the Christmas list for BHP, stiff—to have rules that govern workers on mines. It is all right for BHP to have rules that govern truck drivers' hours when they are on their sites or come into their sites, which we support. But it does not have to affect workers or cover workers on the ocean. I say to the MUA and their 50 members: good on you, boys. Stick it up them. You want to get home safely.

I do not want to sound alarmist, but what would happen if one of those ships ended up on the beach or, worse still, some other terrible accident happened in the port of Port Hedland because these guys are fatigued? I am backing them. Good on you, fellas. These ships can weigh up to 250,000 tonnes. It alarms me that senators from that side—and I am talking about the Libs and the Nats—cannot get their thoughts past the poor company that may have some financial penalties imposed upon them because workers want to be safe. You guys have got to get real, seriously. You have to save your whips and your ministers. I am too embarrassed to make stupid contributions like that; but, unfortunately, some of them have.

While I am on that, there is another fear there too. Trust me, there is always another angle. Not only did the MUA have to be condemned by Liberals—particularly Liberals from WA, which makes it worse—because how dare they want to be safe; there is another game being played. As Christy Cain informed me earlier, there is a mob—you would be aware of this, Bob—called Saipan. I believe they are an Italian company. I remember Saipan because, when I was out there trucking through the eighties and early nineties in the Pilbara, they were the mob that built the gas pipeline from Karratha to Bunbury. They are working for Inpex, who are building the underwater pipeline through the Ichthys field to Darwin. Saipan are now saying that they have 33 barge loads. I cannot tell you the tonnage—I wish I could—but it is significant. That is 33 trips from Kupang, where these pipes are being made, to come down to be laid as part of their project out there on the ocean to take the pipeline to Darwin. That in itself is good, no worries; it is tremendous and good for Australia. But I will tell you want is not good for Australia: that work has always been performed by Australian workers.

I come from WA, and some on that side may attack me and say I have this thing against foreign workers, but I do not. We welcome foreign workers. This country was built on foreign workers. I am first-generation Australian. But I really have a problem when foreign workers are used when Australian workers are sitting around with their hands in their pockets. They are used because—and I will take my 32 steps and say it outside publicly—they will be paid a heck of a lot less than Australian workers.

Senator Edwards: Why have they got their hands in their pockets?

Senator STERLE: Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Edwards from South Australia really has no idea what is going on with working people. Their work has been taken because they are losing their work to foreign workers. In WA a classic example this week was the disgraceful uncovering of the Vietnamese market-gardening operation. I think we are up to about 120-odd. I know that Senator Abetz as the Minister for Employment might be able to tell me how many foreign workers are treated like absolute animals, caged in rooms of 30 people with, I believe, one toilet. They are being absolutely exploited. I do not support this bill; I reckon it is a load of bull. But I do support the maritime union's members—I support Christy Cain—and I wish them all the very best in their pursuit of safe working practices.

BHP are welcome to ring me and tell me that this is not the case. How can you have safety procedures, how can you espouse to be the king of all safety in looking after your workers if they are on a mine or in a trucking operation coming to your mine, and how can you absolutely keep a straight face and say that that does not affect you with the maritime workers and with the shipping because they are employed by a contractor? Do not be fooled by the crocodile tears coming from BHP. Christy, all the best brother, and to your members, the brothers and sisters out there on the Port Hedland port, I wish you well in your procedures for a safe working environment.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I will not be supporting the bill.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (10:53): I thank those senators that have partaken in this debate for their contribution. Let us remember what this bill is about. It is, in fact, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill. It is seeking to implement the policy that we as a coalition announced well in advance of the last election; in fact, 12 months in advance. It was out there for all to see. I thought we had won the election but, no, the Labor Party and the Greens are going to keep using and abusing their majority in this place to frustrate the will of the Australian people. If I recall Senator Wong correctly, this morning in the media, she said that she and the Labor Party were elected to oppose. They were elected to oppose the government. I think that says it all. It indicates the mindset; it is their negativity; it is their resentment of the Australian people voting for a change of management on 7 September last year.

What is this registered organisations commission bill all about? It is very simply this: under corporate law, if a company director rips off his or her shareholders, they potentially face a period of imprisonment of five years, or a fine of, I think, $320,000. Now, if you go to a union official or, indeed, an employer organisation official that rips off his or her members, do you know what the penalty is? It is $10,000. Those opposite in all their ranting and raving and contributions in this debate were not able to indicate in any way, shape or form what the material or moral difference is between a company director ripping off shareholders or a union official ripping off members. What is the difference, morally or materially? Absolutely nothing.

What we are seeking to do in this legislation is to make the penalty regime for ripping off shareholders the same as for ripping off members. Why did we think that that was necessary? Because of the former Labor member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, because of the former National President of the Australian Labor Party, Michael Williamson, because of Mr Blewitt and Mr Bruce Wilson of the Australian Workers Union scandal of some 20 years ago, we believe there was the need for a regime that put in place penalties that would ensure, or hope to ensure, that if you do the crime you would actually do the time and pay a penalty.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Senator ABETZ: My goodness, we have the former union official from the other side. They are all the same from over there. They are here courtesy of the unions, by the unions and, regrettably, for the unions. Keep in mind that the Australian workforce has determined for themselves, now that the coalition has given workers the opportunity to decide whether or not to join a union, and 83 per cent have decided not to belong to trade unions. I just ask the simple question: I wonder why? Indeed, there have been some decent trade union officials who have come to me and said, 'Whatever you do, don't quote my name or where I'm from but, Eric, you are doing a great thing for the trade union movement in this country with this legislation. Because you know what, all I want to be is a shop steward. I want to be a person that looks after the interests of the workers. I have no desire to become a Labor senator, therefore I don't need slush funds, therefore I don't need to have slush funds to boost membership.'

Senator Bilyk: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Abetz is alluding to the fact that he believes all Labor union officials who become senators have been involved in slush funds, and I find that completely and utterly offensive.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ): There is no point of order.

Senator ABETZ: Well, the former Labor leader that Senator Bilyk helped knife, Ms Gillard, in her exit interview with Slater and Gordon admitted that every union has a slush fund. So, Senator Bilyk, I either take your word or Ms Gillard's, your former celebrated Prime Minister. One or the other must be right or wrong. I will let the public of Australia determine as to whether Senator Bilyk or Ms Gillard was correct, but I am not going to get involved in that debate.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator ABETZ: Senator Collins, another former union official. They come into this place thick and fast. The simple fact is this: Ms Gillard said it in her exit interview with Slater and Gordon, 'Every union has a slush fund.' She is either right or wrong. We believe that there should not be this sort of mechanism that is now being shown with the Australian Workers Union and its Victorian 2020 fund that collected $250,000. A union official, using the union's name, collected hundreds of thousands of dollars but never put it through the union books—exactly the trick of Ralph Blewett and Bruce Wilson 20 years earlier. The CFMEU started off a drug and alcohol fund—a very worthy cause. There was $1 million allegedly raised for it from employers and elsewhere. The sad fact is it appears that not one cent has actually been spent on that. But it will be revealed in the royal commission in due course whether or not that has occurred. We then hear about the Electrical Trades Union waterfront mansion for one of their officials and so the list goes on. It seems to us as a government, having taken these issues to the Australian people, that this is the sort of legislation that nearly every union member actually wants because it protects their money.

I have got news for those sitting opposite. As I go around factory floors and other workplaces in Australia, the vast majority of the workers that are actually union members—so it is a majority of a very clear minority—say that they are members of a union not because they want to hold hands and sing Solidarity Forever but because they see their membership as an insurance policy for their own protection. So the relationship is a bit like house insurance: it is a payment they make in the hope they will never have to use it. But you know what? Union members want a proper guarantee that their money will be used for the purposes for which they give it. And that is why insurance companies have robust reporting mechanisms required of them as should registered organisations.

It is passing strange that having announced this legislation as we did before the election, which Labor says is completely unnecessary, Mr Shorten, in one of the most clumsy, flat-footed approaches and indeed panicked by our policy, raced into this place with some legislation which Labor and the Greens rammed through this place without proper consideration, which has now left the reporting requirements in an absolute shambles. Indeed, the trade union movement has been to me requesting that we amend Mr Shorten's legislation because it was so hopeless. The Senate committee looking into our bill suggested we make amendment to the existing legislation to undo the mess Mr Shorten created with the help of those Labor and Green senators sitting opposite. Yet again, it is another example where Labor, in its dying days and in cahoots with the Greens in this place, forced through legislation that was not thought out, that tied people up in red tape serving no useful purpose and then tried to window-dress to overcome the need for what everybody understands is necessary—that is, a more robust supporting system and stronger penalties.

Now we have before this place, as part of this legislation, some amendment to fix up Mr Shorten's mess. Labor and the Greens, I suspect, will be voting down this legislation, which will mean we do not even get the opportunity to clean up Mr Shorten's mess, which, the trade union movement in agreement with the employer organisations believe should be cleaned up. They are on a unity ticket on this but Labor senators opposite, so absolutely committed to ensuring that no robust reporting conditions be applied to unions, will say, 'Bad luck brother and sister'—to use Senator Sterle's language in the union movement. You will have to cop these reporting conditions that will regrettably see shop stewards having to report what their spouse might be earning or what assets they have.

We as a coalition did not ventilate the activities of the Craig Thomsons of this world and the Michael Williamsons of this world or the other activities that are slowly being ventilated but—I have said this before and I will repeat it—the Fairfax Media and the ABC, surprisingly, exposed some of the scams that were operating. They simply asked the question: why shouldn't the honest trade union members, the honest trade union men and women of Australia be protected from all these scams that have now been uncovered and disclosed? Why should they not be protected?

It is interesting that, in all this, we do in fact have the support of such people as Paul Howes of the Australian Workers Union and of Chris Brown. Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson, who are both former presidents of the ACTU, who are both former ministers in a Labor government and who both have had a lifetime of commitment to their service to the trade union movement, see the need for the act of the trade union movement to be cleaned up. If they can see it, why cannot those that are currently holding office, courtesy of the trade union movement in this place, see it as well? If ever there was a conflict of interest writ large it is in relation to those Labor senators in this place, who are, I understand, going to vote down this legislation.

It will be a matter of great regret if this legislation does not get carried. It is legislation that we put out there in lights before the election. We said it was important legislation. We therefore said it would be introduced within the first week of the parliament sitting because it was so important. Can I thank the departmental officials and the parliamentary draftspeople that worked so hard to make sure it was ready for the first week. And here we are in the Senate with Labor and Green senators denying the will of the Australian people, still in full resentment mode of what the Australian people decided on 7 September and in denial of that which their own party elders like Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean have said to them: 'This is basically good legislation. Let it go through and clean up the trade union movement.' Then in relation to the amendments that we are moving to the existing legislation, you do know, those sitting opposite, that those amendments are fundamentally required for the benefit of the trade union movement itself and employer organisations and you are wilfully blocking that and as a result making life exceptionally difficult for the administration of the trade union movement.

We can hear about the terrible things that occurred in a market garden in Western Australia. I simply say to Senator Sterle that the workplace relations legislation and framework in Australia has not changed over the past seven years. These things have happened under Labor's Fair Work regime. You cannot blame the coalition for the atrocities. If what Senator Sterle says is right, and I am willing to accept that, I just remind those opposite that it has all occurred under their watch, under their legislation, under their regime. Bad as it is, condemned as it should be, I ask: how does that relate to getting rid of corruption out of the trade union movement? It is completely and utterly unrelated but a desire to use up the time, because there is no argument against that fundamental proposition, which is, what is the moral difference, what is the material difference, between a company director ripping off shareholders and a union official ripping off members? Why shouldn't the penalty be the same? None of the Labor senators in their contributions have dealt with that issue in any way, shape or form.

We know we have got argument on our side, we know we have got right on our side, we know we have got the people of Australia on our side. The regrettable fact is, and we recognise this, that the Labor Party and the Greens are not on the side of the people of Australia, on the moral side of this debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (11:18): The opposition will be supporting this legislation, the Migration Amendment Bill 2013. I must put on the record at the very start that one of the key reasons that we are supporting this legislation is in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, which has been publicly made available, which goes into great detail about the reasons that this bill actually does confirm our international obligations. Consistently in the argument over many years the important element has been where Australia's decisions fit within the international area of decision making. So, whilst we have concerns about elements of the bill—and I have to put on record that I have had those concerns and have raised them—on the basis of the explanation in the explanatory memorandum, the ALP has determined that it does meet the obligations.

It is a technical bill. The intent of the bill is to give certainty—and that is very important. Whether or not people are happy with the policy, it is absolutely critical that everybody has certainty about the decision-making process, where they stand and what options they have.

The bill before us has three schedules. Just for the record, I will go through the schedules—because that is what we do in this place; we read out what is in the schedules even though everybody has the information. Schedule 1 of the bill allows that a decision on review of a refusal, cancellation or revocation decision by the minister or his delegate is deemed to be made on that day and at the time when a record of it is made, not when the decision is notified to the applicant. It removes any doubt as to when the ministerial or delegate decision is made and when an application is finally determined and no longer able to be reviewed. The amendment clarifies that an oral decision by the RRT or MRT is taken to be made and becomes final when it is given and it removes the necessity to notify the applicant and the secretary of the department, as was previously the case for RRT reviewed decisions.

As with many of the clarification aspects in this legislation, this particular schedule has been a reaction to a court decision. When the courts bring down a decision which indicates any lack of clarity or uncertainty, it is important that the government of the day takes action to ensure that certainty is entrenched. So we are saying that, in terms of this process, we are responding to the concerns of the Federal Court and acknowledging that the government has put a process in place. We also want to put on record that it is absolutely essential that the person about whom a decision had been made is made fully aware of the decision and the basis of the decision and is given full consideration so that they understand what is happening to them. That is actually a position of natural justice. We believe that, no matter what legislation we are dealing with, in any form, the principles of natural justice must be maintained.

Schedule 2 of the bill would prevent a non-citizen who has been refused a protection visa or had a protection visa cancelled from making a further protection visa application whilst in the migration zone. Again, it is very important that we ensure that people are certain of their situation and their responsibilities, but the process cannot go on endlessly in terms of the action. Once a decision has been made with the full understanding and engagement of the person who is involved, it cannot then go on as has seemed to have occurred in some cases through concerns that have been raised through various reviews, inquiries and the court system.

Schedule 3 deals with the sensitive issue of persons who have a negative ASIO assessment. This has been a longstanding issue of concern. The schedule that we now have makes it completely clear that persons who have a negative assessment from ASIO will be unable to gain a protection visa, and that fact will not be reviewable by any tribunal or, indeed, ultimately, the minister. It is a significant step to take, and the decision we come to must be very cautiously and carefully determined.

As you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner, in the whole area of ministerial discretion—of the minister being called upon to make, individually, these decisions—this issue has been of genuine concern, to many people in this place and in the wider community. We understand the history of that. Certainly, when you are not the minister, it seems to be a particularly attractive process—that there is always, for the minister, the ability to step in, reconsider and make a decision. But I have talked to a number of people who have had the onus of responsibility on them—who have been the minister in this field—and this has been a very difficult area.

So the intent of the legislation put forward by the government is for the process to be clear, to ensure that there is no grey area which leads to more concern and stress, and for the ASIO determination—as was the original intent when the legislation came in—to be based on a range of things: health, identity and security. From the very start, the issue of security was most important.

We do acknowledge that any ASIO decision must be done in a timely way. And I know that sounds very easy to say. But when there is any decision which determines someone's future the expectation, quite rightly, is that the decision is made in a timely and respectful way. So if someone is under scrutiny—if there is concern about issues to do with security—there must be an understanding within the system of the need to make decisions carefully and also in a timely way. But the intent of this schedule is to determine that, whilst the ASIO determination is unresolved, there is no ability to change the decision or to have ministerial discretion in the process.

The shadow minister in his contribution in the other place made it very clear that our support was on the basis of clarity, so that people understand their position. We have raised and will continue to raise concerns about delays or uncertainties, or behaviour to or treatment of individuals which seems to be unfair or unreasonable. However, on the basis of the information, the recommendation is that the ALP will be supporting the legislation.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:25): I rise to speak to the Migration Amendment Bill 2013 and to make the Greens' position on this piece of legislation very clear. We do not support this piece of legislation, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, this legislation enacts changes that circumvent a number of rulings of the courts, thus thumbing our nose at the rule of law, and locking people—people who have already been found to be in genuine need of Australia's refugee protection—into indefinite detention, possibly for the rest of their lives. This bill also enacts changes to the Migration Act that go against recommendations that have come before this chamber a number of times over the last few years.

There was a report by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network. Its recommendations, which were supported by both the Greens and the Labor Party, said that those refugees who had adverse ASIO assessments needed to have periodic reviews—needed to be able to access some form of fairness within the system. This bill does the exact opposite.

This bill says that any refugee—anyone who has arrived in Australia and been found to be in genuine need of protection, who has fled war or torture, whose family has had to scrabble together enough to get out of a scene of brutality, and who has arrived in Australia and been acknowledged, through all of the checks and balances, to be a refugee—on whom there is a little red flag from ASIO—keeping in mind that, when that happens, unlike Australian citizens, refugees are not able to access the reasons why that little flag from ASIO has popped up—is condemned under this piece of legislation to never being given a refugee protection visa, despite the fact, putting everything else aside, that they are entitled to that protection. Rather than finding a way of managing the needs of that particular group—and there are not many of them; there are currently only 50 refugees who have this adverse security assessment flag against them, not knowing what the claims are, never being able to have their case heard in a court, effectively being sentenced without trial—they are going to have to remain in immigration detention for the rest of their lives if they are to remain in Australia. That is effectively what this piece of legislation is doing.

It is inhumane. It is in stark contrast to international law, and it has been condemned by international organisations, including the United Nations, time and time and time again. It is an affront to basic fairness and justice under the law.

I just want to take some time in this chamber today to tell you about one of the people that this bill will affect. Her name is Ranjini. She is a young mother. She and her three children are currently in immigration detention at the Villawood detention centre in Sydney. She has been there for a number of years. Her youngest child was born in immigration detention; that child has never seen the reality of freedom in the outside world. Her oldest son is suffering severe developmental issues because of being kept in immigration detention indefinitely. This young mother and her three children do not know why it is that ASIO has a red flag against them. They have not been able to put forward their case. They have not been able to defend any of the accusations. None of this incarceration has been before a court, yet this young woman and her three children remain incarcerated indefinitely and, under this bill, this young woman may be there for the rest of her life.

Ranjini and her two young children arrived in Australia after fleeing torture and brutality in Sri Lanka. After being found to be a genuine refugee she thought that she would be able to start to rebuild her life and provide a fresh start, a secure start, for her and her young boys. She was living in the community, having been found to be in genuine need of protection. But, after a call from the immigration department asking her to come back to see her case officer—after already living in the community, safely, and starting to rebuild her life; her boyshad started going to the local school—she realised that she had received a negative ASIO assessment. She was ripped out of the Australian community. Her boys were taken out of school. They were flown from Melbourne and locked up as prisoners in the Villawood detention centre—that was three years ago—where they remain today.

At that time Ranjini had already met a new partner in Australia, had got married and had fallen pregnant with her third child. That third child, a baby boy, was born in immigration detention. He has never seen the outside world and the real meaning of freedom. Ranjini and her three children have been in detention for three years. She has been told that, despite having the assessment by ASIO reviewed, she will have to remain there. This chamber has had recommendation after recommendation, calling on the government of the day to come up with a better way of managing cases such as Rajini's.

If somebody is found to be in genuine need of protection and a young family is incarcerated, then surely there is a better system than keeping them locked up forever just because there has been a flag from ASIO. There was no degree of seriousness stated—and I think this is really important to understand—when the assessment was made. We do not know whether Ranjini is a high risk, a medium risk, a low risk, a somewhat risk or a maybe risk. The flag is one size fits all. No appropriate management of that response is carried by this government. It is a policy decision; it is not the law. There is nothing in law that says that Ranjini and her three children need to remain in immigration detention. If Ranjini were an Australian citizen, she would have had her case heard before a court, she would have been able to have somebody advocate and defend her, and she would have had a fair trial. This young mother and her three children have been sentenced to life without having any access to a trial, let alone a fair one.

Ranjini has no right of appeal. She is now, effectively, left in immigration detention to rot. Her children suffer every day and she has been given no information as to why she is deserving of such treatment. It is all under the lock and key of ASIO and the minister.

Not for one moment are the Greens arguing that we do not need these checks and balances. Of course we do. We need to know who people are, where they come from and what possible threats they may or may not bring with them. But you cannot just lock up somebody and throw away the key and not give them the chance to access a fair go under the law. But yet that is exactly what the current law does and what this piece of legislation enshrines even further.

As I said, this bill is about circumventing a number of decisions made by both the High Court and the Federal Court. It has been a regular practice in this place over the last couple of years—it was under the previous government and, sadly, it seems as though it will continue under this government—that whenever a court makes a decision that does not suit the government of the day, bang, before we know it legislation is drafted, it is on the table and we are changing laws to suit the government rather than those who take on board the warning signs of the highest courts in the land.

What makes Australia a great country is our adherence to the rule of law and the fact that we pride ourselves in having a fair go before the law—everyone taking responsibility, everyone understanding that consequences occur, but having a fair go before the law. But not if you happen to be an asylum seeker who comes from Sri Lanka, caught up in the horrors of the brutal civil war or a young Hazara boy who has had to flee the Taliban in Afghanistan! Australia prides itself on the rule of law but not for those who actually fall within the definition of 'a refugee'.

As I said, there are currently 50 refugees, including five children, who remain in immigration indefinitely. If this bill passes they will remain there for the rest of their lives, unless they can be deported to another country somewhere else, which of course will not happen because, if Australia thinks they are a good enough threat to keep locked up for ever and a day, then how on earth would it convince another country to take these people? It is an absolute affront to the basic rules of law and justice for some of the world's most vulnerable people.

In other countries, the balance between ensuring that there are proper assessments of people and how to work out what is the appropriate management of them is taken very seriously. Countries like Canada and our cousins over the ditch in New Zealand have a special clause in their law that understands the need to accept that refugees who have fled war, torture, persecution and brutality need the opportunity to be able to argue their case and appeal this type of incarceration, just like an Australian citizen does. Why is it that, if ASIO says Joe Bloggs who lives down the street from me is a risk, we accept that he can argue his case in a court of law? He does not have to be put in immigration detention. If ASIO thinks he is just as much risk as anybody else who has an adverse assessment, he can argue his case. Yet, if you are a young mother who has fled the brutality of civil war in Sri Lanka, you do not have the same right. It is an abuse of the vulnerabilities of these people, it is an abuse of human rights, it is an affront to basic justice and it is a breach of international law.

In August last year the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia had committed 143 human rights violations by indefinitely detaining the group of 50 refugees, including children. We had violated 143 times, and yet here in this place we see the Labor Party and the coalition saying, 'We'll just ignore that. We'll just ignore what this means in the international context and what this means to the UN bodies that we have signed up to. We'll ignore the warning signs from the highest court in the land and we'll change the law to suit ourselves.' What makes this country great is that we have a fair go before the law and we treat people equally. It seems not, of course, if you happen to be a refugee.

We should be addressing these violations, we should be finding practical, responsible and secure ways to manage the needs of these people, but it seems that for the government of the day it is all too hard. It is easier to just condemn a young mother and her three children to incarceration for the rest of their lives. Who is going to care anyway? That is pretty much the attitude from the major parties on this front. We are damaging these children, knowingly and deliberately, for the rest of their lives. The young baby born in immigration detention has never seen the outside world has not broken any laws. Who is the young mother who fled the brutality in Sri Lanka—desperate to put her life back together and desperate to give her kids freedom and protection—really a threat to? What threat is her son—who goes to one of the schools near the Villawood detention centre—to the other seven-year-olds he sits in class with, whom he is desperate to build friendships with? I will tell you a story. This young boy, because of these harsh laws and this abhorrent attitude, was banned from participating in his school class photograph because the immigration department thought that it would be a threat if he was in the school class photos. He came back to the immigration detention centre at the end of the school day and asked his mum, 'Mum, why wasn't I allowed to have a school photo like my friends?' That is what we are doing to these children. That seven-year-old deserves a fair go. His mother deserves a fair go.

Yes, let's come up with ways of managing potential threats, whether people are born in Australia or not, but do just condemn somebody to indefinite incarceration because it is the easy way out. We all know what this is about. This is because it is easier to play the fear card in relation to asylum seekers and refugees than it is to stand up for what is right, to stand up for a fair go before the law. It is absolutely abhorrent that, despite everything that has happened in the last six months—in particular, the chest-pumping of this government and the brutality of the Abbott government's approach to refugees and asylum seekers—the Labor Party could even sit here and vote for legislation that condemns a mother and her children to a life of imprisonment, with no trial, no appeal and no-one to advocate for them.

It is only 50 people at the moment, but they deserve a fair go and the children deserve a childhood, and they are not being given that. If this bill passes, they never will have that. How would it make Mr Morrison, Mr Abbott or Mr Shorten feel if they were their children? Parents who flee the brutality of war to get their children out of there and to give them safety and protection deserve as much protection under the law as if their children had been born here. How arrogant of us as a nation to say, 'We believe in the rule of law and fairness, but only for those we choose.' It undermines the very values of a fair go: justice, the rule of law and protection for the most vulnerable.

The Greens condemn this bill and will not be supporting it.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:44): I support this bill and think that it is another step by the minister in trying to bring some sense and certainty to the whole refugee and migration program. I congratulate the minister on what he has done. I have long been an adversary of those supporting the illegal arrival of people into our country, on the basis that every person who arrives illegally further pushes out someone who is doing the right thing by waiting in a squalid refugee camp somewhere around the world for their turn to get to Utopia—Australia. I congratulate the minister on the work he has done on border control. It is a fantastic record and it will help regularise our refugee and migrant intake. In the budget, something like $2½ billion will be saved because detention centres can be shut down. The sheer cost of dealing with people arriving illegally in our country has been addressed by the fact that no-one now is illegally arriving, so all congratulations to the minister for that.

I want to speak on some comments and recommendations by a couple of Senate committees of which I am a member. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee made three recommendations on this bill, the third of which was that the bill be supported. But the third recommendation also contained a plea, a request, a recommendation that the government seriously consider recommendations 1 and 2. Recommendation 1 related to hearings of the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Migration Review Tribunal. When a matter is brought before one of those tribunals by an applicant a decision is made but, as I understand it, the decision is only communicated by mail, or by some transmission process, but not in a court. I accept that these tribunals are not courts and they fulfil a different role from courts, and I do understand that they do need a degree offered stability. But we did here evidence from applicants who have been before the tribunal. What I understand happens in most cases is that the tribunal reserves its decision and then at some time the tribunal registry writes out to the applicant and tells them the decision. That is fine if they get the advice. But for any number of reasons, some of which were mentioned to the committee—applicants move, the addresses are not valid or something else has happened—some persons never actually receive advice of the decision.

I and the committee understand that the department need some certainty as to when decisions are finally determined. I and the committee agree that there has to be that certainty—and some of the provisions put in place by this bill help with that. But it concerns me that there are instances where people, through no fault of their own, do not actually receive advice of the outcome—and the appeal provisions are then in some difficulty. I hope the minister might refer to this in her final address, but I understand there is a suggestion that, if someone does not actually receive advice, then it is a defective advice and the appeal times do not run until the person is advised. That was not, as I recall, the evidence before the committee. I thought some of the evidence given before us did relate some instances where, through no fault of the applicant, the applicant was not aware of the outcome until somebody turned up at the door and said, 'You're being deported.' As a lawyer and a politician, I find it unfortunate that there is not any certain way that applicants can be advised of the final decision.

Recommendation 1 was that the committee recommend to the department that it put in place policies and procedures, consistent with the act, which would support applicants to seek leave to apply out of time or apply for alternative forms of review in the rare situations where the department or tribunal fails to correctly notify the applicant and the applicant has been directly disadvantaged. If there is an answer, I would have hoped that the minister may have responded before this time. As everyone knows, this is my government and it is my minister. But that does not absolve anyone on the executive, in my view, who ignores recommendations and reports of this parliament, of this Senate committee.

I have a vague suspicion that I read somewhere that an explanation was given for why you could not reconvene the tribunal to actually deliver the judgement in person—which is what I and others suggested at the committee hearing. We suggested that, if it was 12 months later—and in some instances I understand that it is—that the decision was about to be delivered, the applicant should be advised. They could appear in the tribunal by themselves or via counsel and actually hear the decision and would then know straightaway what the decision was. And then, if there were appeal processes, they could start straightaway. I hope I am not misjudging the minister—perhaps he has written to me and I have lost it in my paperwork—but I would hope that any minister would respond seriously to recommendations of Senate committees.

Recommendation 2 was dealt with not only by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but also by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which met this morning and—unbeknown to me, I must confess—had raised the same issue. The minister did give a response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which I will relate. Again, it was not a particularly useful response, but at least it was a response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Recommendation 2 was:

… that the … Government consider putting in place a regulatory framework to underpin the powers, authority and role of the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments.

I think most Australians would expect that under Australian law it is a criterion for a grant of a protection visa that an individual does not have an adverse security assessment by ASIO. I think we would all accept that. If ASIO have some real problems with an applicant then we as Australians do not want that person in our country. I think that is in order.

But ASIO, as they admitted in evidence before the committee, are not always perfect. Sometimes they do make a mistake. They gave, as I recall, evidence saying that on one occasion they had given an adverse security assessment. They then, some months down the track, realised that they had got it wrong, that the information they had been working on was not valid, and they withdrew their assessment. So it does happen, on the admission of ASIO themselves, and I am sure that, human nature being what it is, there are at times mistakes made.

To address that, governments in the past have arranged for what is called the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments to have a role not in rehearing or completely reassessing the work that ASIO has done but in cases of people who feel that they have been judged on the wrong basis, on the basis of the wrong facts. They can approach the independent reviewer, as I understand it, and have the matter looked at. The situation, I understand, works well.

We noted in our report that the committee supported 'the excellent work undertaken by the Hon. Margaret Stone in her role' as the independent reviewer and that this system does work. That is good. We all support that. Unfortunately, though, the position is not a statutory or a regulatory position; it is a policy position of the government of the day. Accordingly, while it seems to work well and everyone seems to be happy with that, tomorrow a government could say, 'Sorry, that position is abolished; it's gone.'

This is a very important issue. I am a great supporter of ASIO. I know they do a very, very difficult job. I am not one of those who would in any way want to diminish their powers, because they do a fabulous job in protecting and supporting our country and my fellow Australians. But, as I say, given the instance—and there are many others, I understand—where mistakes have been made or a decision has been made on wrong facts, this process of the independent reviewer does give confidence to me and everyone else in a democracy like Australia that, if decisions have been made on the basis of completely wrong facts or maliciously or in any other improper way, there is someone you can go to and say, 'Hey, can you have a look at this because I think they got it wrong?' So it works. It is good. Everybody supports it. But it is only a policy decision.

Recommendation 2 of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee was that the government look at putting some more certainty into that position. As I say, as far as I am aware, there has been no response by the government to that recommendation. Perhaps the minister may be able to address that in her final summation. But the same issue was raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The issue there was that, while there is a process for independent review of adverse ASIO security assessments, in the light of concerns particularly that the process is fully administrative, independence is not guaranteed by the law and the whole scheme is 'subject to administrative alteration or abolition at any time'. That is from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report.

The report goes on to say that the committee sought advice from the minister on whether the independent review process should be placed on a statutory basis. The minister responded to the scrutiny committee and did not answer the question—which mildly annoys me as well—so the committee wrote again to the minister. The minister did then say that placing the independent review process on a statutory basis is beyond the policy intent of the bill. The minister also noted the role of the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments but stated that the government does not consider it appropriate or necessary that an independent reviewer be established on a statutory basis. I am reading from the digest. I am not sure that the government gave any reasons why they did not consider that the additional scrutiny needed to be subject to regulatory or legislative attention, so I again ask the government. The minister has just mentioned to me privately, and no doubt she will put this on the record, that this independent reviewer of adverse security assessment is not a matter for the immigration minister but rather the Attorney-General. I accept that that would be the case, but the recommendation of the committee was not a recommendation to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; it was a recommendation to the Australian government, of which the Attorney is a member, about that issue.

The fact that these amendments have not been followed does not cause me to suggest that the Senate should not support this bill. I certainly will be supporting the bill. But I would hope that those two issues do receive the attention of the government sometime in the future. There may be a very good reason why the independent reviewer of adverse security assessments is just there as a policy decision. But if that is the case then I would not mind hearing it. It would seem to me that this process of assessments and then those assessments having very dramatic results in what happens to applicants in the future is something that perhaps governments could look at making more secure. Like the appeals court, like the High Court, perhaps we should do that. I look forward to the minister responding to those two things and putting on record what the government's decision is.

With those concerns about the process, this is a bill that does take Australia forward. I think it is a very worthy bill and I certainly will be supporting it.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (12:01): I thank senators for their contributions to this important debate. The Migration Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Migration Act 1958 to remedy three distinct issues resulting from recent court and tribunal decisions that significantly affect the operations of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, particularly its capacity to process visa applications and to be clear when a person is available for removal from Australia. The bread and butter of the department's work is facilitating the movement of people across our borders for commerce, tourism, trade and study, and one of the department's most important roles is nation building through a targeted immigration program.

The role is also rooted in a matter of national security and the protection of that national security, and the decisions that are made carry important consequences and an important responsibility for those who have to make decisions in government in this country. One important responsibility is to enable legitimate visa holders with a genuine purpose to travel and conduct business here whilst ensuring that those persons who are a threat to national security or are seeking to abuse the system are prevented from entry or removed from Australia, where they have no permission to remain. It is critical that Australian legislation supports the work and decisions made by the Immigration and Customs and Border Protection officials on our front line and enforces the integrity of these processes. We are committed to restoring integrity and confidence in our immigration program. That is fundamental to having a successful immigration program that Australians have confidence in and Australians support and that enables us to continue to run an immigration program which is the cornerstone to so much of both economic and social success in what I describe as an immigration nation.

The measures contained in this bill before the Senate today go towards achieving that purpose by clarifying and remedying matters that have arisen in a series of recent court decisions. The first schedule to the bill will put beyond doubt that the decision on review or visa refusal, cancellation or revocation decision by the minister or his delegate is taken to be made on the day and at the time when a record of it is made and not when the decision is notified or communicated to the applicant or the former visa holder. The amendments address the decision of the full Federal Court in the case of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQOY of 2012 that the RRT's decision-making power in respect of review is not exercised or spent until the review decision is notified irrevocably and externally. The amendment also addresses the full Federal Court's decision in the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship v SZRNY of 2013 in which the full Federal Court extended the judgement in SZQOY and found that an application is finally determined that is no longer subject to a form of merits review only when the review decision of the RRT is notified to both the review applicant and the secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection according to law. It was immaterial that the review decision had been notified externally and that the review applicant has actually been notified of the review decision despite any error in the notification itself. These findings cause potential difficulties and risks in the administration of the act. For example, the concept of an application being finally determined is crucial to liability for removal under section 198 of the act. These amendments are critical, as they will remove any doubt as to when the decision by the minister, delegate or tribunal is taken to be finally made and when an application is finally determined.

The second schedule of the bill clarifies that a person in the migration zone who has previously been refused a protection visa or who held a protection visa that was cancelled is prohibited from making a further protection visa application. This applies regardless of the basis on which the earlier protection visa application was made or granted and regardless of the basis upon which the further protection visa application purportedly relies. The amendment addresses the decision of the full Federal Court on 3 July 2013 in SZGIZ v the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. In that case the full Federal Court found that section 48A of the Migration Act only prohibited the making of a further protection visa application that relied on the same ground or criterion as the previously refused protection visa application. That means that, for example, if a noncitizen previously made a protection visa application raising claims under the refugee convention, section 48A of the Migration Act would not prohibit a new protection visa application based on complementary protection claims. By restoring the intended operation of the statutory bar in section 48A of the act, the amendment will preserve the integrity of Australia's protection visa program and avoid its abuse, by preventing noncitizens without meritorious claims for protection from delaying their departure from Australia by making protection visa applications on different grounds each time.

The third schedule of the bill addresses the decision by the High Court in Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director-General of Security & Ors [2012] HCA 46. In October 2012 the High Court of Australia found that the use of public interest criterion 4002 in the Migration Regulations 1994 was not a valid criterion for the purposes of a protection visa application. Public interest criterion 4002 states that the applicant is not to be assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, to be directly or indirectly a risk to security within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act. In the absence of public interest criterion 4002, the protection visa assessment process for persons with an adverse security assessment is currently problematic, as each case requires individual consideration as to whether the person does or does not pass the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act. This bill will amend section 36 of the Migration Act to insert a new specific criterion for a protection visa that the applicant is not assessed by ASIO to be directly or indirectly a risk to security within the meaning of section 4 of the ASIO Act. The new criterion in section 36 reflects the terms of public interest criterion 4002.

Additionally, the amendments introduced by the bill will put beyond doubt that the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will not have the powers to review a decision to refuse to grant or to cancel a protection visa on the basis of an adverse security assessment by ASIO that the applicant for, or holder of, a protection visa is directly or indirectly a risk to security within the meaning of section 4 of the ASIO Act. The amendments will also reflect current paragraph 500(4)(c) of the Migration Act by confirming that the Refugee Review Tribunal does not have the power to review a decision to refuse to grant or to cancel a protection visa made on the basis of one or more of articles 1F, 32 or 33(2) of the refugee convention, or paragraphs 36(2C)(a) or 36(2C) (b) of the Migration Act. Paragraph 500(1)(c) provides that only the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has the jurisdiction to conduct a merits review of those decisions.

To meet community expectations, the government must have the ability to act decisively and effectively, wherever necessary, to protect the Australian community. The government must also have the legislative basis to refuse a protection visa, or to cancel a protection visa, for those noncitizens who are a security risk. We must prevent and deter any threats posed by those who are a risk to the security of our nation and must implement legislative amendments such as those proposed in this bill to ensure the security and safety of the Australian community. The best thing a government can do to support our agencies that work on the front line in immigration and border protection and who make these decisions is to equip them with the resources that they need and provide clarity through legislation so that they can do their jobs to the best of their ability, in Australia's interests. In that regard, I welcome the support of the opposition for this bill.

I will now briefly address the points raised by Senator Macdonald in relation to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee into the Migration Amendment Bill 2013. In relation to recommendation 2, Senator Macdonald is correct. The minister has provided a response to the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee in relation to their queries on the Migration Amendment Bill 2013. The position of the government is as stated in that letter to Senator Polley. The minister stated as follows:

The adequacy of review mechanisms for adverse security assessments from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and whether it would be more appropriate for an independent review process to be placed on a statutory basis are issues that are not appropriate to address within the Migration Act 1958. Placing the independent review process on a statutory basis is beyond the policy intent of the bill, which is to address the number of recent court and tribunal decisions that significantly affect the operations of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, including the processing of visa applications made by asylum seekers and other noncitizens.

In my summing-up speech, I have referred to those decisions, which this bill is seeking to address. The minister goes on to further say in his response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee:

The Australian government respects the professional judgement of ASIO. At the same time, the government supports appropriate oversight arrangement of our intelligence and security agencies. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, an independent statutory office holder, plays a primary and comprehensive oversight role, complementing parliamentary committees such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. As the committee is aware, there is also the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments, who examines all the materials relied on by ASIO, including classified material, and provides her opinion and any recommendation to the Director-General of Security.

In answer, ultimately, to Senator Macdonald's query on what is the government's position at this point in time in relation to this bill, the minister states:

The government does not consider it appropriate or necessary that the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments be established on a statutory basis.

But, as I said, in any event, the minister is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to address that particular issue in this bill, because this bill itself seeks to remedy certain defects that have resulted from a number of High Court decisions that have been handed down and which I addressed in my summing up speech.

In relation to Senator Macdonald's comments on recommendation 1 of the committee report and in particular where it states 'the rare situations where the department or a tribunal fails to correctly notify the applicant': in that particular case I am advised that the time frame for seeking merits review does not begin to run if the notification is defective. But I would say to Senator Macdonald that I do acknowledge your comments that this bill is a way forward for the government in relation to ensuring that we have the appropriate tools to make decisions. These amendments themselves remove any doubt as to when the decision by the minister, delegate or tribunal is taken to be finally made and when an application is finally determined. That is the clear policy intent of this bill.

Finally, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection employs over 10,000 people. The people who work at the department have always demonstrated extraordinary passion and professionalism. There is no doubt that they have a deep care and a deep interest in the work that they do and that it is shared by many of the other agencies that serve our nation well, including, of course, ASIO, who have an extremely difficult job in making these decisions. But that is the job that we the government give them to do on our behalf in the national interest. Such commitment is an asset that has guided us through incredibly difficult times and will continue to do so in the future. In support of them and the work they do on our behalf we need to ensure that they have an immigration program and particularly a refugee and humanitarian program that has integrity and that maintains the support of the Australian community. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT (12:23): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (12:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:28): The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 is about helping young people find ongoing employment. It creates the Job Commitment Bonus for young Australians aged from 18 to 30 who have been receiving Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance for a period of at least 12 months. The bill provides a tax-free payment of $2,500 if a recipient remains in work and off income support for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Recipients will also qualify for a further tax-free bonus payment of $4,000 if they remain in continuous gainful work for a further 12 months. That is 24 months of continuous work.

The bill also replaces the current Move 2 Work program with what will be known as the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program. The program will provide financial assistance to long-term unemployed job seekers with participation requirements who have been receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance or parenting payment for at least the preceding 12 months to relocate and obtain ongoing employment. The program will provide up to $6,000 to support eligible job seekers who will relocate to a regional area or up to $3,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a metropolitan area either from a regional area or, in certain circumstances, another metropolitan area. Families with dependent children will be provided with up to an extra $3,000.

The bill also allows for non-payment periods for participants who leave their employment without good reason within six months after receiving a relocation payment to be 26 weeks rather than 12 weeks, which currently applies to relocation payments made under Labor's Move 2 Work program. This more than doubles the non-payment period that applies under Labor's Move 2 Work program. Labor opposes the increase in the non-payment period and we will be moving amendments in the committee of the whole that will retain the current 12-week non-payment period. Labor is very concerned about the doubling of the non-payment period for those recipients of the relocation assistance where unforeseen circumstances may prevent the recipient working. Twenty six weeks does seem particularly harsh.

I know that there is the hardship provision for people adversely affected by this and I trust that this will be used. According to the explanatory memorandum, affected persons will still have the benefit of the usual operation of existing hardship waiver provisions so that the non-payment period would not prevent a person from accessing essentials, for example, basic levels of health care, housing or sanitation. In particular, the current subsection 42S(4) provides that a person's unemployment non-payment period may be ended on the grounds of severe financial hardship if the person is within a class of persons specified in a legislative instrument made under subsection 42S(5), the ending unemployment non-payment period instrument. This will continue to apply. We do not believe that the hardship provision will provide sufficient protection to prevent the likelihood of young people from sliding into poverty under circumstances that are out of their control. Labor does not accept that a young person can receive no income support payment for six months and continue to be job ready.

In government, Labor focused on supporting young people to finish school to get the training and higher education they need for jobs. In government, we considered a whole range of different policies to address the issue of youth unemployment. It is one of the most important issues any government will face. Governments cannot expect young people to gain well paid jobs without providing good education, training and support for young people. Governments cannot expect young people to easily find work with the current unemployment rate. This bill seems to be based on the premise that young Australians do not want to work rather than the reality that many face—that is, difficulty in obtaining employment.

We have sadly seen the increase of youth unemployment in this country after many years of a downward trend. In my home state of New South Wales, youth unemployment has jumped alarmingly in the year to February 2014. Recent ABS data shows that youth unemployment has risen by 73 per cent in Baulkham Hills and in the Hawkesbury to 11.6 per cent. In the capital region, including Goulburn, Yass and Queanbeyan it has reached 10.2 per cent. In far west New South Wales and Orana, it has hit 15.1 per cent while in Parramatta and Blacktown it has hit scandalous levels of 17.6 per cent and 16.6 per cent respectively. If present trends continue, in many parts of New South Wales youth unemployment will exceed 20 per cent. In many parts of the state it will be approaching 30 per cent and in parts of Western Sydney we will reach 30 per cent by 2016.

Many other parts of the country are facing a crisis in youth unemployment. Youth unemployment rates of this order are a road to long-term intergenerational poverty and welfare reliance, sapping the hope and aspirations of everyone affected.

I know, from discussions I have had in the western suburbs of Sydney, it is not just the youth who face this sapping position; it is the family who are desperate to help their young boy or girl get access to a job. So it is a family issue, not just an individual issue, for some young people. These young people are the lucky ones who have got families to support them. Many young people do not have families to give them that support. For a prosperous nation like ours, this is totally unacceptable. We need to intervene and that is what Labor did when were in government. See there is a role for government and that role is to help those that cannot help themselves, to help those that find themselves in trouble and to help those that find themselves needing some support to get a job. To simply diminish the size of government on a continuous basis is to deny the role that government plays in assisting young people, pensioners and others to access a decent life in this country. We do, as Labor, see the need for the government to intervene.

We were investing in vocational training, we were investing in trades training centres in schools and we were intervening with youth connection programs. In our last budget we gave a commitment to continue to invest in the urgent task of job creation and assisting disadvantaged job seekers into work. Unlike the current government, Labor's last budget maintained funding for employment services, disability employment services and the working age payments program. Labor introduced a system with the flexibility to match services to individual job seekers and prioritise resources for those with the greatest need. As a result, we achieved significantly better outcomes and for the most disadvantaged job seekers outcomes have improved by 90 per cent. Across employment services Labor helped over 1.6 million people to secure jobs. Our employment services system was recognised by the OECD as playing a central role in keeping unemployment low in the wake of the global financial crisis. Remember that global financial crisis that no-one on the other side of the house seems to remember, that no-one on the other side of the house actually thought happened? We were told it was a North American problem, that it was not a problem for Australia. The economic incompetence of the then opposition on this issue is astounding. Yet what happened during that period is that government intervened, government supported jobs, government supported communities and government did the right thing.

One of the most disturbing targets of the budget that we had last night is the attack on our young people. The new rules announced last night will deny income support to young people under 30 for six months of every year and then force them onto Work for the Dole. It will deny them Newstart allowance until 24. That is a loss of $48 a week. It will move more young people on disability support pension to Newstart or Youth Allowance, a cut of at least $166 per week. The budget will mean spiralling university fees for young people and demonstrates that the government has broken its promise not to increase fees or to cut funding to higher education.

In his budget of twisted priorities, Tony Abbott is telling young people, 'You're on your own.' Promises prior to an election mean nothing to the coalition. Promises from the coalition mean nothing to any group in this country. The message that you are on your own, the message that the Abbott government has sent young Australians looking for work with its savage cut of $1.2 billion to income support for people under 30, will create huge hardship for young people in this country. And young people under 24 will be shifted from Newstart onto the lower Youth Allowance, making them $48 a week worse off. As a result of the government's twisted priorities, this budget will see an unemployed 24-year-old lose almost $2,500 a year. At the same time they are providing $50,000 to wealthy families under their unaffordable, stupid Paid Parental Leave scheme. That is $50,000 to the rich and wealthy and $2,500 cut from those that can least afford cuts. If the government doesn't address the training and education deficiencies that lie behind youth unemployment, we are failing our kids and the cost will be huge. We are missing out on $1.5 billion a year when young people fall through the cracks between school and further education or work, and this is why the government must commit to jobs and training and education first and foremost.

Prior to last year's election, Mr Abbott promised he would create one million jobs in five years. That is 200,000 jobs a year. By now, total employment should have increased by 100,000 full-time jobs. The government is way off target, and the current figures do not include the many job losses that have been forecast with the downturn in the manufacturing industry, jobs that have basically been told to go away by the federal government in the manufacturing industry, cuts to the Public Service and the negative effect on economic activity the government's austerity budget will have. The government cannot continue to do nothing—it needs a detailed plan for jobs. The government should explain to the Australian people how it plans to create the one million jobs that it promised. Where is the industry and innovation plan for Australian businesses; where is any plan at all?

Australians need a government that will fight for jobs and support job seekers. While we support this legislation and the principle of encouraging young people to find employment, Labor does not want to see these payments to job seekers replace wage subsidies or support for employers to employ young people. Nor do we want it be at the expense of investments in training and higher education, particularly for young people. This government needs to fight for jobs for workers, but it won't. It needs to do more. It needs to intervene where necessary and support jobs, training and higher education. The government must address the decrease in full-time jobs in this country and ensure that workers affected by recent job announcements are supported, as is the economy in those regions that are more affected by these announcements.

There is a further provision of this bill that is of concern, and that is the exclusion of protected special category visa holders from access to the job commitment bonus proposed in this bill. The bill redefines what it means to be an Australian resident in an unprecedented and highly specific manner. It excludes from the meaning of 'Australian resident' those New Zealand born residents of Australia who are protected special category visa holders. New Zealanders enjoy the right to live and work indefinitely in Australia—a right that was formalised under the 1973 Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement—and for a long time they were essentially treated as permanent residents. That changed when the Howard government amended the definition of 'Australian resident' in social security laws to exclude New Zealanders. New Zealanders who arrived before the changes are deemed to hold a protected special category visa while their countrymen who arrived after the changes hold a non-protected visa.

Debate interrupted.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:40): by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Boyce, I move:

That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 15 May 2014, from 12.30 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:43): I move:

That there be laid on the table, no later than 23 May 2014, by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, all documents and correspondence relating to Livestock Shipping Services (LSS) between 1 November 2013 to the present day, including, but not limited to:

(a) all letters and emails;

(b) all briefing notes, including but not limited to all Ministerial briefing notes;

(c) all internal departmental emails and memos;

(d) all recorded or noted phone calls and meetings, including meeting minutes; and

(e) all records and other relevant documents.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:44): At the request of Senator Fawcett, I move :

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 15 May 2014, from 5 pm to 7 pm to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the review of administration and expenditure no. 11 and no. 12.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:44): At the request of Senator Wright, I move:

That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 15 May 2014, from 3.45 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:44): At the request of Senator Smith, I move:

That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate from 10.30 am, followed by public meetings, as follows:

(a) Thursday, 19 June 2014; and

(b) Thursday, 26 June 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:44): At the request of Senator Macdonald, I move:

That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 15 May 2014, from 4.45 pm to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:44): At the request of Senator Back, I move:

That the Education and Employment Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 from 7 pm to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:44): At the request of Senator Fawcett, I move:

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 16 June 2014, from 11.30 am.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:44): At the request of Senator Fawcett, I move:

That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, from 11 am to 1 pm, as follows:

(a) Monday, 16 June 2014; and

(b) Monday, 23 June 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:45): At the request of Senator Thorp, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on its inquiry into Great Barrier Reef be extended to 27 August 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:45): At the request of Senator Wright, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into Manus Island Detention Centre be extended to 16 July 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:46): At the request of Senator Wright, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into a comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be extended to 27 August 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (15:46): At the request of Senator Macdonald, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014 be extended to 5 June 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:49): At the request of Senator Lundy, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network be extended to the last day of sitting of the 44th Parliament.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Lundy be agreed to.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:55): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Acting Assistant Treasurer (Senator Cormann), no later than 5 pm on 16 June 2014, the report prepared by KPMG for the Reserve Bank of Australia, that inquired into the conduct of board members of Note Printing Australia in relation to allegations of foreign bribery.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Milne be agreed to.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:02): On behalf of Senator Polley, I present the 5th report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No 5, dated 2014.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (17:02): On behalf of Senator Edwards, I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 5 for 2014.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (17:03): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present report No. 3 of 2014—'Referral made December 2013'.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Government Whip) (17:03): On behalf of Senator Fawcett, I present the 139th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—'Treaties tabled on 11 December 2013; referred on 15 January; and tabled on 11 February 2014'—and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (17:04): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 441—'Inquiry into the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 Rules Development'—and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The PGPA Act and its accompanying rules will establish a new resource management framework for all Commonwealth bodies, replacing the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, otherwise known as the FMA Act, and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, otherwise known as the CAC Act. The PGPA rules, as disallowable instruments, need to be developed and tabled in parliament before the substantive provisions of the PGPA Act come into effect on 1 July 2014. The terms of reference for the committee's inquiry were to consider the process for the development of the rules and the impact and purpose of the rules in the context of the broader public management reform agenda.

As set out in the report, the committee believes that stage 1 of the reform agenda, comprising the PGPA Act and the implementation of the first set of PGPA rules, establishes a solid foundation for efficiencies and the framework for cultural change in Commonwealth resource management in future years. The committee has made several recommendations in its report to assist implementation of the rules and further progress the public management reform agenda. Chapter 1 of the committee report provides an overview of the significance of the PGPA Act and associated rules in the context of the reform agenda. Chapter 2 of the report examines the consultation process for the rules development and the guidance and training being set in place to prepare agencies for the transition on 1 July 2014. The committee notes the initial consultation process undertaken by Finance for the development of the first set of PGPA rules and Finance's commitment to continue this process for the rules to be implemented post 1 July. However, the committee has recommended that Finance review the guidance material for the rules to improve consistency. In chapter 3 of the report, the committee noted general support from inquiry participants for the majority of the draft rules required for the 1 July 2014 commencement of the PGPA act. Some 19 rules were considered by the committee as part of this inquiry. However, the committee has made a number of recommendations in response to some specific issues raised by stakeholders. Noting the concerns raised by the Auditor-General regarding the PGPA rule on improving commitments of relevant money, the committee has recommended that this rule be amended to explicitly place an obligation on the individual officials to consider proper use of public resources before approving commitments of relevant money, with this issue to also be included in the first independent review of the PGPA Act in three years time. The committee further recommended that the draft guidance material supporting this rule be amended to include discussion of the risks involved in officials approving aggregate expenditure proposals.

The committee also noted concerns raised by a number of stakeholders about the draft rule on audit committees, in particular regarding the exclusion of an organisation's chair from being a member of its audit committee. On balance, the committee did not recommend any change to this rule but rather recommended that Finance amend the draft guidance supporting the rule to emphasise that the chair of a Commonwealth body can attend audit committee meetings as an observer.

In terms of more general issues concerning the PGPA rules development, the committee noted the concerns raised by the Australian Public Service Commission about dual coverage of the PGPA Act and the Public Service Act 1999. In response, the committee has recommended that Finance and the Public Service Commission work together to draft the necessary amendments to the PGPA Act and/or Public Service Act to reduce potential confusion from this dual coverage, with amendment proposals to be put to the parliament as soon as practicable.

In support of a proposal made by the Australian National Audit Office, the committee has also recommended that an additional guiding principle emphasising the parliament's role be applied in developing the remaining elements of the Public Management Reform Agenda. The committee further recommended that Finance work to ensure that any necessary amendments are made to the Auditor-General Act 1997 to ensure that the Australian National Audit Office retains the audit powers under the new arrangements that the parliament would expect, including the power to audit the full planning, performance and accountability framework under the PGPA Act.

Chapter 4 of the report focuses on post 1 July 2014 issues concerning the rules development of the PGPA Act. The committee has recommended that Finance continue its consultation process with stakeholders on the rules required for post July. It has also recommended that Finance prepare a plan clearly outlining the anticipated dates for development of all future rules to ensure that there is sufficient time for public consultation and a committee inquiry before tabling in parliament and implementation.

In terms of the development of future rules under the PGPA Act and other elements of the reform agenda, the committee has noted in the report that it intends to conduct inquiries into both stages 2 and 3 of these proposed reforms. Key priority areas for stages 2 and 3 include a new risk framework, better facilitation of joined up government and partnership arrangements, and an improved performance framework, with new PGPA rules for corporate plans, annual performance statements and annual reporting requirements. The rules relating to the performance framework are of particular interest, given the many recommendations of past Australian National Audit Office reports and committee inquiries concerning performance reporting by Commonwealth agencies.

In conclusion, if the benefits of this new framework are fully captured, this will modernise public sector financial management, making Australia once again world leading in this area and positioning us well for the decades ahead. I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (17:11): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I table a statement on the draft estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2014-15 and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT ON THE 2014-15 DRAFT ESTIMATES FOR THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE

As the committee responsible for parliamentary oversight of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider the draft budget estimates for each office, with the Chair making recommendations to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, on Budget day each year the Committee makes a statement on whether, in its opinion, these offices have been given sufficient funding to carry out their respective mandates.

In support of this process, both the PBO and the ANAO are empowered through their respective legislation to disclose their draft budget estimates to the JCPAA, which the Committee then considers in making any representations to Government and the two Houses.

Parliamentary Budget Office

In accordance with the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, the Committee received a copy of the PBO's draft budget estimates in February 2014 and subsequently received an update from the Parliamentary Budget Officer identifying revisions to his estimates.

The PBO has had a small level of additional savings allocated to it due to an increase in the annual efficiency dividend, reducing its appropriation over the Budget and forward estimates by $162,000. The PBO's total revenue from Government will be $7.263 million in 2014-15.

As a small agency, the PBO has developed an efficient operating model through necessity. The Committee will be interested in the outcome of the ANAO review into the operations of the PBO due to be released in June. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has advised the JCPAA that the cumulative impact of the base level efficiency dividend will present management challenges to the PBO in the future.

Notwithstanding this, the Committee endorses the proposed budget for the Parliamentary Budget Office in 2014-15.

Australian National Audit Office

In accordance with the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Auditor-General Act 1997, the Committee received a copy of the Australian National Audit Office draft budget estimates in January 2014 and has subsequently received updates from the Auditor-General identifying revisions to his estimates.

The Committee has been advised that, in today's Budget, an increase in the efficiency dividend from 2.25% to 2.5% will be applied over the next three financial years. This will result in a further $1.67 million reduction to the ANAO's annual appropriation over the budget and forward estimates.

The Audit Office's total revenue from Government is $73.412 million in 2014-15.

The Auditor-General has advised that the outlook over the forward estimates highlights a range of pressures as he seeks to maintain appropriately resourced financial statement and performance audit programs.

The increase in the efficiency dividend and other pressures noted in the ANAO's budget submission are expected to lead to a reduction in the ANAO's performance audit program in the forward years. It is expected that the number of performance audits conducted will reduce from 49 to 48 in 2015-16 and then down to 47 in 2016­17 and subsequent years.

The Committee remains strongly concerned about the level of funding uncertainty for the forward years. Last year, the Auditor-General foreshadowed the need to reduce his work program in the forward years if new funding was not provided in this year's budget, and this situation has now unfortunately come to pass.

Nevertheless, noting the continuing tight fiscal environment, the Committee endorses the proposed Budget for the Audit Office in 2014-15 and recommends its passage.

The Auditor-General and his office should be commended for managing to maintain their performance audit program over the last few years despite budget reductions. The ANAO is unable to reduce its financial statement audit work because of its mandatory nature and the need to adhere to professional standards. Further, proportional funding increases are also required as new entities are created.

The Committee notes that the Government's Commission of Audit has identified the ANAO's work in auditing agency Key Performance Indicators as playing an important role in focusing agencies' attention on measuring and improving the effectiveness of programs. The funding of this area remains an area of concern for the Committee. The ANAO has moved past the point of "doing more with less", to actively reducing the amount of scrutiny it provides to Parliament and the Australian people. Any further increase in (or expansion of) duties should be adequately funded by the Government.

The Committee recommends that steps be taken in next year's Budget to place the Audit Office on a more financially sustainable footing to ensure that its essential work in scrutinising Government processes and expenditure is properly resourced, and that funding be provided to ensure that there is no further reduction in the number of performance audits conducted.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Committee remains concerned about the increasing pressures being placed on the PBO and the ANAO. Additional savings measures have been applied that further reduce the available funding, and are now at the point where they are having an effect on the scope of the ANAO's work program.

As independent authorities, the PBO and the ANAO need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements and adequately support the Parliament.

The Committee appreciates the efforts of both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor-General in maintaining strong working relationships across the Parliament, and particularly with this Committee. They have made themselves available for regular briefings and have been responsive to requests for information on a variety of topics. The Committee looks forward to continuing these productive relationships.

Dr Andrew Southcott MP Committee Chair

13 May 2014

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:11): At the request of Senator Back, I present the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, together with submissions.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:12): On behalf of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Senator Eggleston, I present the report of the committee on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2014, together with submissions.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:12): On behalf of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senator Bernardi, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, together with submissions.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:13): I present additional information received by the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into Commonwealth funding and administration of mental health services.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (17:13): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the sixth report of the 44th Parliament of the committee on the examination of legislation in accordance with theHuman Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SMITH: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' sixth report of the 44th Parliament covers 18 bills introduced in the period 24 to 27 March, three of which have been deferred for further consideration, and 175 legislative instruments received during the period 8 March to 25 April. The report also includes the committee's consideration of 10 responses to matters raised in previous committee reports.

Of the bills considered in this report, I note that the following bills are scheduled for debate during this week: the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014, the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Bill 2014 and the Tax Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014. The report outlines the committee's assessment of the compatibility of these bills with human rights, and I encourage my fellow senators to look at the committee's report to inform your deliberations on the merits of the proposed legislation.

I would like to draw senators' attention to one bill in this report which raises an issue of particular interest and relevance to the committee's task of assessing legislation for compatibility with human rights. The G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 is intended to clarify the interaction between provisions of the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 (Queensland) and existing Commonwealth legislation at the Brisbane Airport during the G20 summit. The G20 summit is to be held in Brisbane in November this year. In simple terms, the bill will allow the provisions of the Queensland act to apply in certain areas of Brisbane Airport in the lead-up to and during the G20 summit. Commonwealth laws that would otherwise apply in Brisbane Airport, which is a Commonwealth place, will effectively be rolled back.

As noted in the report, the application of the provisions of the Queensland law to areas of Brisbane Airport amounts to the enactment of Commonwealth law in these places. Given this, to the extent that those laws may engage and limit human rights, the report notes that any such laws should be subject to a human rights assessment in accordance with the committee's usual expectations for new legislation. As the statement of compatibility for the G20 bill did not provide an assessment of the provisions of the Queensland act that will be applied in the Commonwealth areas of Brisbane Airport, the committee has requested further information from the minister on this particular matter.

More generally, the committee notes that the G20 bill is a specific instance of the application of state laws to Commonwealth places as provided for by the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. This raises the wider question of how state laws that apply to Commonwealth places can be systemically assessed for compatibility with human rights. The committee has therefore determined that it will undertake a human rights assessment of the Commonwealth places act and has requested that the Minister for Justice prepare a statement of compatibility to facilitate the committee's consideration of that act. I encourage senators to consult the full discussion of the G20 bill in the report, which provides a more detailed account of the issues raised and the interesting background to the practice of applying state laws to Commonwealth places.

Finally, in relation to responses to matters previously raised by the committee, the report contains consideration of 10 such responses and the committee's concluding remarks on these matters. With these comments, I commend the committee's sixth report of the 44th Parliament to the Senate.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (17:17): I would also like to comment on the report and acknowledge the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has done over the last period of time. One issue that Senator Smith has failed to report on to the chamber is one of the most important scrutinies that the committee undertook, and that was the scrutiny of the bill to re-establish the ABCC, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. That was, I think, a very good report, a report that was carried out on a non-partisan basis that clearly outlined all of the breaches of human rights under the proposed ABCC bill. I am just surprised that that was not noted in this report, because it was one of the clearest reports I have ever read by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which clearly said there are significant human rights problems in imposing these limitations on the rights of building and construction workers in this country.

I can understand why the coalition do not want to raise that in this report, but I just thought that while I was here I would raise the issues that were raised in the report. The report was quite clear and unequivocal about the fact that the bill as outlined in the explanatory memorandum and as outlined by Senator Abetz, the proponent of and minister responsible for the bill, clearly breached the human rights of building and construction workers in this country. It clearly breached those rights. Yet we will have coalition senator after coalition senator ignore that position when they get up to support removing the human rights of building and construction workers in this country.

Not only did we have the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in the Senate come to the conclusion that workers' human rights were breached by the ABCC bill; the joint human rights committee of the House of Representatives also raised significant issues about breaches of human rights in this bill. So the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the joint committee were as one on this—that the human rights of building and construction workers, ordinary Australians going out to do good work every day, day in, day out, were being breached by aspects of this bill. I am of the view that, given that these recommendations came up from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, they should be mentioned here. I again say it was one of the most important discussions and reports that that committee undertook.

I am aware that, when the committee looked at Senator Abetz's explanatory memorandum to the bill and the justification for taking human rights away from building and construction workers, they said it did not meet the test for removing rights from building and construction workers in this country. That is why the committee I was involved in formed the view that the arguments being put forward by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee should be given some weight in our report, and that we should be asking Senator Abetz to have a look at this critique—this very strong criticism—of the removal of human rights by the ABCC. Senator Abetz was dismissive in terms of his analysis of why workers' freedom of association should be removed—why their rights to act in the way that every worker around the rest of the country, in different industries, should be allowed to act under the appropriate legislation. I want to thank the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for treating the ABCC bill seriously—for going through, in a very professional and detailed manner, the issues involved in removing human rights from ordinary Australians via the ABCC bill.

I do not think it is appropriate that workers' rights should be removed in this country on some fallacious argument that there is illegality going on in the industry. When the references committee of the workplace relations committee looked at this issue, we received evidence from the Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and the Victorian police that they had no concerns of widespread corruption in the building and construction industry. That was one of the reasons that was being put forward: that there was widespread corruption in the building and construction industry. That was being used as an argument by Senator Abetz and those on the other side for why they should remove workers' rights in the building and construction industry; for why not just their industrial rights but their human rights—rights that we have signed on to through international conventions—should be removed.

It was an excellent report from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It was matched by the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the lower house saying: 'This should not happen; this should not be done.' It will be interesting to see the submissions of the senators who raised all these issues in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report, either in support of the bill or against the bill, when the ABCC bill comes to the Senate. When they sat down, they came to the conclusion that the bill does not meet the test for removing human rights; so the coalition senators on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee have, in my view, a responsibility to stand up for their findings. I would expect them in their contributions to the debate on a bill that takes away the rights of building workers in this country—not only their industrial rights but their human rights—to stand up and say what they found when they scrutinised that bill, because they scrutinised the bill and found it wanting. They found it wanting in a range of areas in relation to building workers' human rights.

I am very pleased to have been, fortunately, in the chamber when the report came forward from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Again, I am a bit disappointed that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report did not contain some, or at least a little, of the critique made about a major bill that affects the human rights of industrial workers in this country. I will be interested to see how those senators behave on the floor of the Senate when they are dealing with the ABCC bill, when it comes to the floor of the Senate, given they have said it removes human rights.

It is fortunate I was here to bring the chamber's attention to these terrible removals of human rights under the ABCC bill. I will certainly go through the views of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in detail, and I will also go through the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights when the bill comes before the parliament; but this is an important point and I could not miss the opportunity to raise the issue of the removal of human rights from Australian workers by the coalition.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (17:28): I could not let that contribution from Senator Cameron go. I assume that he just ran out of time making that contribution, because there is a list of breaches of human rights related to the construction sector that I have not heard from Senator Cameron.

I did not hear him complain about the breach of privacy, allegedly undertaken by an official from the CFMEU, relating to the release of the superannuation data of members of Cbus to the CFMEU so that they could have a little visit from CFMEU members and experience some of their rather unique recruiting strategies. I did not hear Senator Cameron talk about the right to privacy that those members of Cbus have. I did not hear Senator Cameron talk about the right to be free from physical harm—physical harm the workers at the Grocon construction site were put in danger of by the CFMEU and by the senator's famed friends in the construction union. I did not hear Senator Cameron talk about how people should be allowed to go about their legal course of business without the threats, intimidation, violence and criminality of the union movement—and particularly of the CFMEU—as occurred in Melbourne and as the Victorian Supreme Court found when it found the CFMEU guilty of criminal contempt.

Senator Cameron: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the issue of relevance here. The debate that is before the floor is the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the removal of human rights, and the Senator has gone nowhere near that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): There is no point of order.

Senator RYAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I just assumed Senator Cameron ran out of time. But then we do not hear, and we have not heard from Senator Cameron, about the rights of people to go to work, to look at a picket line, to hear from people why they should not cross that picket line, and to then cross the picket line and choose to go to work. Because a picket line, of course, is not legally a physical obstruction. It is a protest. And there is no power in law whatsoever for members of a union, or any assembly of people, to try and physically block access to and egress from part of this country. But Senator Cameron does not care about that.

We do not hear Senator Cameron's concerns about the human rights of people involved in the construction industry who have to have personal security guards at their homes and at their workplaces because of the threats of violence from members associated with the CFMEU. We do not hear about the human rights of those people who want to go about their business—running a small business, or happy employees—who are forced to pay and forced to sign up to CFMEU contracts, because Senator Cameron falls for that great Labor shibboleth: the idea that somehow, by associating with some other people and calling yourself a union, you have more rights than any other assembly of people in this country. Senator Cameron's plaintive cries for human rights, Madam Acting Deputy President, are nothing short of empty screeching for an interest group that funds and owns the Labor Party; the shareholders, the owners and the chief racketeers of the modern-day Labor Party. No-one should ever listen to a member of the party opposite, or indeed to a member of the Greens, talk about human rights until those senators stand in this place and condemn the violence that occurs in Victorian workplaces—violence that has been held by a court to be a criminal contempt by the CFMEU. But no, we do not hear about that—because both the Greens and the Labor Party are in hock to the union movement, who write them cheques. They have no concerns about the human rights of everyday Australians and no concerns about the rights of small-business owners to go about their business, and to be free from threats and violence. They are nothing but empty phrases.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (17:32): The last speaker has told us what he has not heard from Labor and the Greens; but let us remember what we have not heard from the coalition. They have again brought forward the ABCC, the building and construction commission, which they now want to resurrect—like a dead animal that smells and stinks—but which brings more problems to people who are just trying to go about their lives and get a decent standard of living—and return alive from work. That is what you will not hear from this government. The Australian Building and Construction Commission, which came in in 2005, has caused massive problems. Its intent was to outlaw unionism.

We know that union sites are safe sites. What you will never hear from the coalition, and what you will never hear from Senator Ryan, is them actually addressing this issue. Once that commission came into existence, there was about a 95 per cent increase in issues of injuries and deaths on building sites, which are incredibly dangerous. If Senator Ryan is serious about cleaning up the industry, why doesn't he address the issue of dodgy contractors; contractors that are avoiding so much—not just how they should be paying their taxes but also how they should be following occupational health and safety laws? You would never hear a mention about that issue of safety from Senator Ryan or his colleagues. Nor do they address what this building and construction commission did: making building workers come under a code of law that is harsher than the laws which murderers and a whole range of criminals face, in terms of the secrecy provisions and the operation of the laws.

The double standards that we have seen again from Senator Ryan here in this place really expose what those opposite are up to, and why they want to bring back in the ABCC: to de-unionise work sites. What their constituency wants is to de-unionise work sites. Why do they want it? So they can make more profits. When you have to abide by safety standards; when you have an organised workforce; when you have unions that have a right to go on the job; then you have to work to achieve a safer building site. For many of the companies that the coalition works with, they are companies who are getting all those developer donations that are causing them so much embarrassment in New South Wales—and it is starting to move into the federal coalition—and those are the links that we need to expose here. That is why the Australian Building and Construction Commission came about. It has got so much to do with those developer donations, and with the coalition delivering for their side of politics—and it results in people losing their lives. That is what you will not hear Senator Ryan speak about, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Question agreed to.

Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (17:35): I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on the implementation of the Defence Trade Controls legislation.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator EGGLESTON: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (17:37): On behalf of Senator Cormann, I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning dredging at Abbot Point.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (17:38): by leave—I move:

That Senator Boyce be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Question agreed to.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (17:40): I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (17:40): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

MAJOR SPORTING EVENTS (INDICIA AND IMAGES) PROTECTION BILL 2014

The purpose of the Bill is to protect major sporting event sponsorship and licensing revenue from being undermined by unauthorised commercial use of event indicia and images for the following events:

Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Asian Cup 2015;

International Cricket Council (ICC) Cricket World Cup 2015; and

Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games.

This Bill is consistent with the approach the Australian Government took when it legislated to protect the indicia and images for the Sydney Olympics and Melbourne Commonwealth Games through the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996 (Sydney Games Act) and the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2005 (Melbourne 2006 Act) respectively.

Australia has a reputation for, and track record in, hosting highly successful major sporting events, with the Australian Government playing a critical role in facilitating the appropriate environment that makes such success possible.

The three events that are the focus of this Bill will, between them, see over 60 countries participating on Australian shores with a much broader global reach due to their profile and nature. They represent the pinnacle of competition and include some of the world's best football players, cricketers and athletes.

For Australia, the profiles of these events present a great opportunity to showcase our country from a tourism, trade and event delivery perspective. For event owners and organisers this profile provides the opportunity to showcase their sports, build a legacy and attract commercial partners that will invest in the event and their sport into the future.

This latter point is particularly important as event owners and organisers rely heavily on revenue gleaned from television rights, ticket sales, sponsorship and licensing to ensure their event can be delivered and continues to be an attractive and viable financial proposition to future host countries.

It is this profile and these commercial realities that necessitate the sorts of protections that are proposed in this Bill. Major events have long been targets of those that would seek to create an impression of association with, or sponsorship of, the event in order to achieve commercial gain without having purchased the rights to claim that association. This act, known as "ambush marketing by association", has the capacity to diminish the value of sponsorship, reduce the incentive for organisations to enter into commercial arrangements with events, and reduce overall event revenue.

The Bill will protect the use of a range of words and expressions associated with each major sporting event such as "Asian Cup 2015", "Cricket World Cup 2015" and "Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games", from ambush marketing and unlicensed commercial use in the lead-up to and during the each major sporting event. Variants of the event names and known abbreviations will also be protected such as, "Asian Cup", "CWC 2015", "GC2018".

While it is important to protect sponsors from ambush marketing, the rights of the community to freedom of expression must also be respected, particularly in relation to words that have passed into common usage. A pragmatic approach has been taken with generic words and references such as "cricket", "football" and "Commonwealth" excluded from any list.

In addition to protecting particular words, numbers and expressions, the Bill also provides protection to certain images that suggest, or are likely to suggest, a connection with these events. The manner in which these indicia and images will be defined and protected by the Bill is consistent with the approach used under the Sydney Games Act and Melbourne 2006 Act.

An important feature of this Bill is a 'commercial benefit' test that applies to the use of material. Restrictions will apply only to unlicensed commercial use of the protected indicia and images. The aim is to prevent an unauthorised user from applying the protected indicia and images to suggest a formal association with the events.

The Australian Government supports state, territory and local governments engaging their local communities, including the local business community, in the festival and city dressing that will surround these events which may involve the use of indicia and images.

The Bill also recognises arrangements that may already be in place between host jurisdictions and the respective organising committees in relation to the use of indicia and images. The intention is for such arrangements to continue and not be affected by the proposed legislation. Further, it is intended to be complementary to existing or proposed legislation in states and territories that may be put in place in relation to these events.

The Bill also contains a number of exceptions allowing:

for the continued operation of rights and liabilities under the Trade Marks Act 1995, Design Act 2003 and Copyright Act 1968;

the provision of information, criticism and review of the events, such as in newspapers, magazines and broadcasts; and

use for the reasonable needs of sporting bodies in relation to fundraising and promotion.

In line with the Australian Government's deregulation agenda, it is made clear in the Bill that the legislation is not intended to increase the burden on business or affect their everyday operations. It is recognised that some individuals and corporations, such as the event owners and sponsors already use the indicia prescribed in the legislation in conjunction with their goods and services. The Bill fully protects the rights of the existing holders to use indicia to carry out their business functions.

Just as the Melbourne 2006 Act permitted the use of Melbourne 2006 indicia or images solely for the purposes of providing information, or for the purposes of criticism or review, so too does this Bill. The Bill therefore permits the provision of information for the purposes of reporting news and presentation of current affairs, the factual description of goods or services provided by a business (such as stating that accommodation is available at a hotel that is located near an event venue), or factual statements by an athlete to promote their own achievements.

The Government also recognises that the reasonable needs of sporting bodies in relation to fundraising for and promotion of their preparation of athletes and teams for these events should be allowed to continue. Those reasonable needs could involve use of the indicia or images for the purposes of providing factual information. The Bill is not intended to affect this type of use.

Another feature of the Bill establishes a Register to outline the authorised users of each event's indicia and images. These Registers will be published and provides consumers with confidence that goods and services purchased are official. Authorising bodies, the owners of the intellectual property are responsible for keeping account of authorised persons and entering and updating relevant details into the Register. A person whose name appears on the Register constitutes an authorised person of indicia and images for the event specified.

Similar to provisions contained in the Melbourne 2006 Act, this Bill also provides various remedies to the authorising bodies and authorised persons to enforce their rights in relation to the protected indicia and images. It will be the authorising body or an authorised person who may bring an action against an unauthorised user, this will not be the responsibility of the Government. The remedies available under the Bill include injunctions, damages and corrective advertising. The courts also have the discretion to provide remedies under any law (either State, Territory or Commonwealth) and most notably, Trade Marks Act 1995, Copyright Act 1968 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in relation to engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive.

The Bill also includes appropriate measures to limit the possibility of the importation of goods which seek to ambush each event's marketing. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) will be able to carry out the measures of this legislation relating to the monitoring of imported goods at Australia's borders. This Bill allows Customs to perform functions similar to those it undertook at the time of the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games by seizing goods marked with unauthorised indicia and images at Australia's borders. The border protection component of this bill is consistent with the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Copyright Act 1968 as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 to ensure powers for Customs officers are aligned in relation to the seizure of unauthorised goods at the border, thus avoiding confusion for business, consumers and those administering the measures.

Each schedule of the Bill will cease to have effect within one year after the completion of each major sporting event as prescribed in the Bill.

TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2014 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2014

This Bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.

Schedule 1 will improve the Farm Management Deposit scheme by amending the Banking Act 1959 and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

Farm Management Deposits allow farmers to save some of their income in good years without it being taxed, and then withdraw it in leaner years and pay tax on it when their marginal tax rate is lower. They are a financial risk management tool to help farmers protect themselves against the large income fluctuations that are often typical of primary production.

This legislation will make several improvements to the scheme to make it easier for farmers to use Farm Management Deposits.

First, farmers will be able to earn more income from non primary production sources before they are prevented from creating new Farm Management Deposits. The non primary production income ceiling will be raised from $65,000 to $100,000.

Second, individuals will be able to consolidate Farm Management Deposits across financial institutions without adverse tax consequences. If a farmer chooses to combine multiple Farm Management Deposits that they have held for at least 12 months into a single account, the amounts will not be included in their assessable income for that year, nor affect their entitlement to make new Farm Management Deposits in that year.

Finally, Farm Management Deposits will be excluded from the unclaimed money provisions in the Banking Act 1959, to ensure that these accounts, which are intended to facilitate long term savings, are not inadvertently paid to the Commonwealth as a result of a period of inactivity.

Schedule 2 to this Bill amends the GST law to allow taxpayers to determine whether they are entitled to a refund by reference to objective conditions, rather than having to rely on the Commissioner to exercise the discretion to refund an excess amount of GST.

The measure provides additional clarity for entities which may have overpaid GST and are seeking to claim refunds. The measure also aims to prevent taxpayers from receiving a windfall gain of overpaid GST and encourages suppliers to refund their customers any overpaid GST.

Schedule 2 also addresses a gap in the existing law relating to refunds associated with miscalculations of GST payable on a supply. Recently the Federal Court found that the restriction on paying a refund does not apply where GST is overpaid because of a miscalculation. The amendments provide that the refund provisions apply to overpayments of GST, irrespective of whether the overpayment arises as a result of a mischaracterisation or miscalculation of the GST payable.

The amendments apply only on a prospective basis from the date of commencement in order to minimise the uncertainty and compliance costs involved in the application of the amendments on a retrospective basis.

Schedule 2 also amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to give taxpayers review rights, both in relation to the Commissioner’s discretion to refund in exceptional circumstances, as well as to restore these rights under the existing refund provisions as a consequence of a recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:41): Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Education and Employment References Committee, I present the report on the technical and further education system, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BILYK: by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator BACK (Western Australia—Second Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:42): As the deputy chair of the committee. I wish to advise the chamber that the coalition senators have dissented from elements of the TAFE funding inquiry and express my appreciation to all those who were involved, including the secretariat and my colleague Senator McKenzie who so ably worked with us on this.

There is no doubt at all that there needs to be an improvement in the overall recognition of standards in the technical and further education of vocational education sector across Australia. I think there would be general acceptance of a move towards standards that are accepted and equivalent across state and territory boundaries. They would be beneficial to employers, employees and, of course, the students, because we have such a freedom of movement now and we are going to see that far more into the future as we try to bring this economy back to a level of acceptability to the Australian and wider community.

That will definitely require a circumstance in the vocational education and training area where we are going to ensure that standards remain high, from a student's point of view, including—but not exclusively—international students, who increasingly see value in coming to our country.

Where the coalition senators dissent from the majority report is in a number of sectors, and I wish to highlight them. The first is that whilst the Commonwealth government does provide and has a great interest in the vocational education sector, it is a fact and will remain the fact that the actual delivery of VET-type training is and should remain the province of the states and the territories.

We actually saw evidence of that in our hearings in the different areas of Australia. In Victoria we saw a heavy emphasis in the manufacturing sector because it is heavily a manufacturing state. In Western Australia we saw emphasis reflecting the industries which are active in that state. In Wollongong we saw a slight change of emphasis to students with disabilities. How interesting that particular hearing was to all of us.

The coalition senators, in presenting our dissenting report, wish to make very clear the fact that TAFE delivery, vocational education and training, is a state and territory responsibility. There should not be a role for the federal government to want to take control over that. Those states who wish to participate more fully should be encouraged to do so. But at the same time we do believe there needs to be a consistency of standards and transferability of qualifications across state and territory boundaries.

Vocational education is education with the purpose of equipping a person with the necessary skills to do a job. Coalition senators—and I have said this in the report—support a strong, vibrant, dynamic, financially sustainable vocational education system. Again, this is where the coalition senators dissent from the majority report. The majority report tends to emphasise that those most capable and most competent to deliver vocational education and training are exclusively in the TAFE sector, the government controlled sector. It is the case that it was the decision of the states to move well beyond the TAFE system of delivery towards a competitive system involving the private sector. That has achieved enormous gains for students, particularly, and into the future it will for employers. So that is an area of difference between the majority report and the dissenting report as delivered by Senator McKenzie and me.

We were disappointed the majority report did not give adequate air time or space to the essential role of industry. It is industry, in the main, that will provide the career opportunities for VET students on completion of their training. I believe Senator McKenzie will want to expand further on that involvement by industry in the provision of services. If industry, having the role that it does, wants that choice of a private sector service provider as well as a TAFE based service provider, all to the good. We heard some very interesting evidence around Australia on the need for liaison with industry in that context.

The issue of who drives skills development is crucial to the future role of TAFE, and we recognise it as the pre-eminent provider of vocational education and training in this country. Employers have told us that, as we all know, they rely on TAFE to provide consistent high-quality training and to ensure that trainees enter the workplace—particularly importantly—work ready. There are three areas that we identified in this report for this to happen, the first being skills development driven by employers and industries that will employee the graduates at the end of their training. The second is that TAFEs must respond to and liaise with employers and industry to ensure that the training provided is of the type and standard required by employers. Third, and most importantly, TAFEs have to be financially viable and sustainable in that competitive environment. We must never lose sight of the fact that each of those three criteria are driving towards one objective: the competence and capacity of students to come into the workplace work ready, safety ready, and willing and competent to go to the next stage of their careers.

The majority report concentrated on funding being reduced to TAFEs or making public funding for the VET sector contestable. The coalition senators are of the view that the system needs to involve a mix of contributors, including government, industry and students. That was certainly highlighted by the Victorian government's Vocational education and training market 2013 highlights report. To quote:

Over the past year, we’ve seen 10,000 more enrolments in construction, nearly 10,000 more people training in healthcare and 8,000 more in transport—all critical areas to the Victorian economy.

I wish to emphasise that point again. In the few moments left to me I make reference to the recommendation by the coalition senators that the states and territories take steps to each ensure their TAFEs are given the capacity to negotiate industrial agreements, to ensure that TAFEs operate on an equal footing with other vocational education providers. They must not be left behind. They must not be shackled in this new world of vocational education and training.

We amend a recommendation from the majority report that the Commonwealth work through its COAG partners on the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform to ensure that all states and territories do provide clear statements of policy direction on the role of TAFE in their jurisdiction, in consultation with effective industries to ensure a quality education for students—coming back to that point of emphasis. Again, we recommend the amendment of a majority report recommendation that the committee recommends that COAG work collaboratively to develop a national workforce strategy for TAFE that addresses the level and quality of the teaching qualifications, an area that certainly was the subject of abundant discussion. We reject the recommendations that point to TAFE, pretty well exclusively, returning to being the only provider, and we certainly recommend that for quality vocational education outcomes a mix of contributors is required, that being government, industry and students.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (17:52): This was a most important inquiry with significant findings. I would like to thank the chair of the Education and Employment References Committee, all the senators who worked on this inquiry and certainly all the staff that did such outstanding work in organising our many visits across the country and assisting with the report in all its detail. I also want to thank all colleagues in the Senate, because there was unanimous agreement when I put this up last November that this inquiry should go ahead.

I remember at the time, because we were coming into the end of the year, meeting and talking with a number of young people who are thinking about their future and their plans for 2014. Many of them were looking towards courses at TAFE. But equally they spoke of their concerns and their uncertainty because of what they could see was happening to TAFE in many jurisdictions. It certainly underlined again the need for this inquiry.

It is clear from the evidence presented to the committee that the TAFE sector has been under enormous pressure following decisions to open up government funding to competition from private providers. This was certainly a theme that came through in so many of the hearings. These themes of concern were around continuing cuts in government funding to the TAFE sector, and that has occurred both under successive Labor and coalition governments. Unfortunately, the contestability model that Labor pushed through in those COAG reforms has really allowed so many of the destructive developments that we are seeing play out at a state level.

Other concerns were to do with the diversion of substantial public funding from TAFE to private for-profit RTOs under the contestability model. This has resulted in underfunding TAFE institute in many states, with major losses of staff, resources and infrastructure. The issue of casualisation was something that I found very disturbing in terms of the impact it has on the individuals, because of their uncertainty in terms of their future employment and their workplace conditions but also the quality of the education. I am in no way reflecting on the teachers there, but when you have a highly casualised workforce the quality of the work that comes through is certainly under a cloud.

But what we saw in so much of the evidence with the funding cuts was the enormous impact it is having on the lives of individuals, whether they be staff or students or people who really hope that they could go to TAFE but now often find that that is not possible. The funding cuts are also affecting, as I mentioned, the education standards and also the very fabric of our society. I do not say that lightly. I really learned so much of this inquiry in terms of the huge contribution that TAFE makes to our society in helping bring people back into having confidence to be part of society, gaining training and in many cases then going on to employment. I did find it a great irony, because we are hearing so much from the coalition government about people getting back into the workforce and at the same time they are undermining to such a huge degree an organisation—our TAFE system—which has this myriad of pathways bringing people literally back into society. We heard examples, met and heard evidence from people who were feeling so insecure that in some cases had not left their homes for years and years because of disabilities suffered at work and because of various circumstances that had arisen with their own wellbeing. But through either being introduced to TAFE or meeting TAFE teachers accidentally they were brought back. In one case a man met a TAFE staff person through his disabled child and that person recognised that this man could benefit enormously from TAFE. He went on to not only gain an education but to become a TAFE teacher in graphic design. The stories were just so impressive. That is what I mean when I talk about the damage that is being done to the very fabric of our society.

We heard a great deal of evidence that the affordable, quality vocational training and further education to individuals, communities and industries across Australia is being compromised or even, in many cases, made not possible. Serious concerns were raised about these accessible pathways. Again I really want to emphasise how impressive the evidence was on this issue from both staff and students. This came from so many of the sites that we visited—from Perth to Wollongong. It was very comprehensive inquiry and the evidence from so many people was so beneficial to our considerations.

Other issues that came up strongly were the increase in student fees and the imposition of limited once-only publicly funded training entitlements for each student and how that has put qualifications out of the reach of many students. Then, as I said, there was the evidence about people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, people with disabilities and how they had benefited so much. So many of the staff who teach these people with disabilities, teach these people with special needs, set out the difficulties under the changes that are coming through at a state level—again, allowed because of the contestability model and the weakness of the regime that we have federally.

I take the example of my home state, New South Wales, the so-called 'smart and skilled' approach to vocational education and training—certainly those words are far from an accurate representation. But what a number of staff explained was that under 'smart and skilled' the money allocated for the assistance many people need will not cover the notetakers, will not cover the translators for people who need an Auslan interpreter if they are deaf. While that does sound costly—it often runs to about $80,000 over four years—when you consider that out of the training so many of those people go on to full employment, paying their taxes, not being on benefits for the rest of their lives, that $80,000 is in fact a most important and worthwhile contribution. That will not be available under the new way that vocational education and training is being rolled out by conservative governments. It was quite moving to hear the stories of some of the deaf students and people with disabilities. The current conditions made a difference to their lives but, they said, if they had enrolled next year it would not have been able to happen.

This was an incredibly worthwhile inquiry. The Greens were pleased to support the report; however, we were disappointed that some important recommendations that came through from a lot of the evidence were not adopted. I would like to thank the many teachers, the staff, the Australian Education Union and many other organisations that gave evidence.

Some of the recommendations that the Greens put forward which we think should have been included in the report are: an end to the current model of competitive tendering of government vocational education and training and a comprehensive public examination and review of the consequences of full competition on TAFE, including the impact on the quality of vocational education, levels of student support and teaching infrastructure, and a reassessment of the case and justification for a competitive training market.

We also put forward a further recommendation for a complete and rigorous examination of the real costs of the provision of high quality vocational and further education, including technical skills for work, adult literacy and numeracy and a number of other key factors. A third recommendation that we included in our part of the report was for guaranteed funding for the public TAFE system based on the actual costs of providing education and on a funding model that supports a strong and increased base for capital works, maintenance, infrastructure and equipment, and which properly recognises the important role of TAFE in providing vocational and technical education in areas of high and low demand, in rural and remote areas and improved access and participation for disadvantaged learners.

We cannot afford to lose TAFE. TAFE is an integral part of how our society works—not just in terms of education but in bringing dignity and respect for people across the board who have had varying opportunities. (Time expired)

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (18:02): I want to rise very briefly; I will not be using all the time available to me today. Senator Back, the magnificent deputy chair of this committee, has fully traversed all the issues that I was hoping to raise today, except for one.

Senator Cameron: Mr Magnificent!

Senator McKENZIE: Senator Cameron, I am glad you are in the chamber! Page 1 of our dissenting report goes to the fact that vocational training is incredibly important, and we all know that in this place. It is incredibly important that it meets the needs of students and of industry so that our young people are appropriately trained, with important skills that our nation and our industries need, to go on to full careers within their chosen industry.

What was so disappointing and so typical is that this inquiry is about an issue that concerns state government jurisdiction. It is epidemic within the Greens political party that we are continually conducting inquiries into issues that quite properly belong within area of control of the state governments simply so that Senator Rhiannon or Senator Di Natale can get their press releases out into the media—even though they are issues that, as a federal parliamentary body, we cannot do anything about. At the moment we have got several inquiries going on, and the first page of our dissenting report goes to the fact that the integrity of the Senate committee process is fabulous. We are very lucky in this nation to have a committee system that is the envy of other chambers throughout the world. I want the reports that we produce in this place, from both references and legislation committees, to be well-researched reports that can be cited by other bodies that contribute to the public debate—rather than just a replication of evidence provided because the staff within the Senate are overworked, as are the senators. Our committee report says it beautifully:

Senate committees are not political footballs. They have scarce resources that should be employed to produce substantial, high quality reports based on extensive and comprehensive evidence gathering. Senate reports should be reputable, with high quality reference material that everyone in the policy arena can access with confidence.

Unfortunately, this particular inquiry was conducted in such a way that we were running around the country, hearing similar evidence time and time again. I think those of us on the committee can agree that we got a certain amount of evidence quite quickly and then it was simply repetitive so that certain media opportunities could be obtained by certain senators. I think that is a great disappointment, because the education and employment references and legislation committees have an important role to play in policy discussion and debate within the wider population.

One of the recommendations of the majority report goes to the quality of teaching and support for teachers within the TAFE system to participate in the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group and perhaps make a submission around that. I particularly enjoyed some of Senator Rhiannon's commentary around increasing support for pathways into higher education, and I look forward to her support for some of our budget measures in that light.

A lot of the critique of the majority report goes to issues concerning state governments—particularly coalition governments but not all; South Australia followed Victoria's lead in terms of restructuring and refocusing their vocational education sector so that TAFE remains a very key part of the mix but not the only part in delivering vocational education in this country. I commend the report and the dissenting report to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have been reminded to make sure that senators know that the time for the debate on this particular item finishes at 6.13 and, on the whole segment, at 6.43.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (18:07): I rise to make a few short statements given the time constraints of the report. Unfortunately, I did not hear all of Senator McKenzie's speech so I cannot really make any comment about what was said.

It is true to say that across the country we heard from a range of witnesses—teachers, academics, TAFE directors, parents, students, the Australian Education Union, the Australian Human Rights Commission and business groups. So it is fair to say that TAFE is an important provider of vocational education and training. Indeed, it is the most significant provider of vocational education and training in the country. Its role is critical.

But what was very clear to us was that, right across the country, the role of TAFE is under threat. It is being undermined. All the people who gave evidence—they were experts in their fields, whether they were teachers, people in the business community who rely on TAFE, students, academics or TAFE directors—put significant expert evidence before us.

The contestability market is clearly not working for TAFE. Certainly a number of independent witnesses suggested that there be more of a controlled market, and that there are some areas that TAFE should not be competing in. One of the areas of excellence that TAFE provides is in the absolutely solid support for students with disability. We heard from an amazing young man in Sydney, who was representing the Deaf Society. He was incredibly articulate. Help with the cost of Auslan interpreters and note-takers and all the other services and supporters that, in particular, deaf students need is under threat. In Wollongong a young man gave us evidence. He had completed a whole range of diplomas but he physically needed quite a lot of support. That is at threat, too.

Clearly, TAFE is a provider of excellence in terms of supporting students with disability. It is clearly a leader in second-chance education. It is a leader in terms of providing younger students who have dropped out of school with the opportunity to come back. We heard evidence from a young woman in Perth who told us that TAFE was the difference between life and death for her. It was that serious. Her life was so far off the rail but through doing a youth diploma in TAFE she is now working in that field and her whole life has changed.

I am sure that those opposite—in particular, Senator McKenzie—would appreciate that education can turn people's lives around. Clearly TAFE is expert in that.

TAFE sits within a political space. There were very disappointing issues that arose in Perth and Wollongong. In Perth particularly, the state government threatened the employment of witnesses who were giving evidence. The committee had to send a very strong letter to the WA government outlining the fact that parliamentary privilege extended to witnesses. There was a similar issue in Wollongong. So this is obviously getting to be political.

I hope that COAG takes our recommendations seriously. We need to ensure that TAFE survives. It is not just another registered training organisation. It is clearly much, much more than that. At risk right now is the further education of students with disability and second-chance education, of which TAFE is such a strong providers, particularly in relation to mature-age people who have become redundant and need to change their skills.

We heard a lot of evidence like that and it was rather surprising that only two state governments have a clear definition of the sorts of roles that TAFEs play. We heard evidence of where TAFE was expanding. There were partnerships with universities. One TAFE in particular is looking at working with a big private health provider to look at how they can do courses of mutual benefit. Those are all positive outcomes, but clearly both the federal and state governments, through the COAG process, need to be very clear about TAFE. It does need to remain a provider of excellence and a benchmark against which we hold all others accountable.

This competitive market it sits in now needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency, because TAFE is a great provider of vocational education and training in our country. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (18:14): I present the third interim report of the Abbott Government's Commission of Audit Select Committee. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator DI NATALE: I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendation contained in the interim report that the time for the presentation of a final report of the Select Committee into the Abbott Government's Commission of Audit be extended to 16 June 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator TILLEM (Victoria) (18:15): On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, I present the report on departmental and agency contracts together with a Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator TILLEM: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Senator Kate Lundy, it is a pleasure to speak on the tabling of the committee's report on the Senate order for departmental and agency contracts. This is the committee's third report into the operation of the Senate order and it is narrowly focussed on two matters: the use of AusTender to comply with the Senate order and an assessment of the ongoing role of the Auditor General in auditing compliance with the Senate order.

Firstly, the committee strongly supports the continuation of the Senate order for the production of lists of departmental and agency contracts. Since it was introduced there has been a significant decrease in the number of government contracts containing confidentiality provisions. Numbers have dropped from 24 per cent in the 2001-02 financial year to four per cent in the 2012 calendar year. While the committee supports initiatives to remove duplication of agencies' reporting functions, the primary concern of the committee during the inquiry has been to ensure that the proposed AusTender reports are capable of complying with the Senate order.

A demonstration of AusTender during the public hearing failed to show that it is capable of producing reports that comply with the Senate order. For AusTender reports to comply with the Senate order, the committee's expectation is that there is access to a pregenerated list of contracts for agencies. However, the committee has received subsequent assurance from the Minister for Finance that AusTender will be modified so Senate order reports will be pre-generated and that compiled reports for individual agencies will be available without users needing to set their own search parameters.

Given the committee has not had the opportunity to view this capability, it is recommending a staged approach to the changes. By 1 September 2014, the committee has asked to be provided with a link to a prototype of the AusTender website with agencies' compiled Senate order reports for the 2013-14 financial year and the draft revised guidance from Finance which assists agencies to meet the requirements of the Senate order. Subject to the caveat that the committee is satisfied that AusTender is able to produce reports which comply with the Senate order, the committee has recommended agencies be able to use AusTender as a mechanism to comply with the Senate order for a trial period of 18 months from 1 January 2015.

It is important to note that AusTender can only be used to comply with the Senate order in respect of procurement contracts. All other non-procurement contracts required to be reported pursuant to the Senate order will need to be reported using the current mechanism—that is, a list which is accessed via a link to individual agencies' websites.

I turn now to the role of the Auditor-General. Given the length of time the Auditor-General has been reporting on compliance with the Senate order and the improvement in the use of confidentiality clauses, the committee is sympathetic to the Auditor-General's view that the need for ongoing audits of compliance with the Senate order has diminished. However, in view of the trial, the committee was reluctant to move directly to a model whereby the Auditor-General would monitor compliance with the Senate order through the ANAO's audit of programs more generally.

The committee believes the oversight by the Auditor-General will be critical in the committee's assessment of the trial. The committee therefore recommends a phased approach to changing the role of the Auditor-General. This would see the Auditor-General table a report no later than 30 September 2014 pursuant to the current Senate order. The committee has then recommended that the Senate order be amended to reflect that the Auditor-General will table two subsequent reports no later than 30 September 2016 and 30 September 2018.

To provide a quality assurance mechanism regarding the proper use of confidentiality provisions, the committee has supported the proposal by the Clerk of the Senate that ministers be required to certify in the letters tabled pursuant to paragraph (1) of the Senate order that none of the contracts in the list include inappropriate confidentiality provisions as measured against the guidance issued by finance. Amendments to the Senate order would also take a staged approach, and the committee has gratefully accepted the offer by the Clerk of the Senate to assist with the drafting of the amendments.

The first set of amendments would reflect legislative changes as a result of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which is due to take effect 1 July 2014. The committee does not propose amending the wording of the Senate order to take account of the trial. The committee envisages that, for the purposes of the trial, agencies will provide a link to AusTender via their website home pages in addition to the link where non-procurement contracts are listed. If the trial is successful, further amendments to the Senate order would be proposed to refer to AusTender as an acceptable means of complying with the Senate order. At the end of the trial period the committee will consider any further amendments such as the minister's proposal for the Senate order to capture contracts 'published' in the six month reporting period, rather than contracts 'active' during the past 12 months.

It has been a privilege to be involved in this committee and to see the tabling of this important report for the Senate. I thank all those who contributed to the inquiry. In particular I would like to thank the Secretary of the Finance and Public Administration Senate References Committee, Ms Lyn Beverley, and all staff of the committee secretariat. I commend the report to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:22): Youth unemployment is a very big issue for Australia and for young Australians. I regret to say this is particularly the case for my home state of Tasmania. According to the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics our unemployment rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is 17.4 per cent compared with a national average of 12.2 per cent. The situation is even worse when you get into the north-west of Tasmania where in some areas the unemployment rate is as high as 21 per cent. That is one young person out of a job for every five seeking to participate in the workforce. This is a serious challenge for government as we need to ensure that our young people have a stable future and that the next generation is job ready.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill is the government's attempt to put in place incentives to assist young job seekers. The bill establishes the Job Commitment Bonus. Young Australians aged from 18 to 30 who have been receiving Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance, other than as an apprentice or a full-time student, for a period of at least 12 months will be eligible to receive a tax-free payment of $2,500 if they remain in gainful work and off income support for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Recipients will also qualify for a further tax-free bonus payment of $4,000 if they remain in continuous gainful work for an additional 12 months. That is a continuous period of 24 months in total.

The bill also establishes the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program. This program provides financial assistance to long-term unemployed job seekers with participation requirements who have been receiving Newstart Allowance, or Youth Allowance, other than as apprentices of full-time students, or parenting payment for at least the preceding 12 months to relocate for the purposes of commencing ongoing employment. The program is demand driven and will provide up to $6,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a regional area, either from a metropolitan or another regional area, or up to $3,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a metropolitan area, either from a regional area, or, in certain circumstances, another metropolitan area. Families with dependent children will be provided with up to an extra $3,000. The non-payment periods for participants who leave their employment without good reason within six months after receiving a relocation payment will be 26 weeks under this bill rather than the 12 weeks which currently applies to relocation payments made under Labor's Move 2 Work program.

I question the government's financial impact statement accompanying this bill. The government's figures assume that the relocation program will operate as a savings measure due to job seekers remaining in employment rather than receiving unemployment benefits. There are a couple of reasons why I believe this assumption is questionable. Firstly, relocating for work does not mean that long-term unemployed job seekers are more likely to remain in employment. Secondly, Labor's Move 2 Work program, while not as generous as the government's relocation program, was similarly intended to increase workforce participation but had a very low take-up rate. While Labor will not be opposing the bill, we do have a serious concern about one of the provisions. The non-payment period for participants who leave their employment without good reason is extended to 26 weeks, up from the 12 weeks which currently applies under Labor's Move 2 Work program. We believe that 26 weeks is unduly harsh. I understand that my colleague Senator Cameron has already tabled amendments to deal with this provision which will be considered in committee. I understand that the hardship provisions, which waive the non-payment period, continue to apply. But the hardship provisions are about access to the essentials of life such as health care, housing or sanitation. What we need to consider carefully is the impact of extending a non-payment period on a job seeker's ability to find work and to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. Labor would like to see the government commit to reviewing the impact of this measure on job seekers because we do not accept that a person can be job ready while receiving no income for six months.

Perhaps we should be thankful that this is not the worst to come considering the announcement in the budget last night that people under the age of 30 applying for Newstart Allowance will have to wait six months before receiving a payment. The changes to Newstart announced in the budget seem to be at odds with the Treasurer's statement in his budget speech which said, 'As Australians, we must not leave our children worse off,'—but I digress.

As I said earlier, Labor will not be opposing this bill. After all, it has some provisions which have the potential to be useful. The measures in the bill are about providing young people with incentives to look for work and to remain in work. Incentives are important, but they will not work unless there are jobs to go to and job seekers have the right skills for those jobs. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of young people are willing to work but face a number of barriers that are beyond their control. The government needs to realise that a lot more is needed to tackle the pervasive problem of youth unemployment. There needs to be a job creation agenda.

The Prime Minister promised before the election that he would create one million jobs within five years and two million over the next decade. That is an average of 200,000 jobs a year so, by now, the government should have created more than 100,000 jobs. However, the pace of jobs growth has been well short of this target. In catching up to their aspiration, the government also need to make up for the announced 60,000-odd job losses in Holden, Toyota, car parts manufacturers, Qantas, Rio Tinto and Alcoa, not to mention the job losses in the public sector resulting from last night's budget and all the flow-on effects of those losses.

Labor in government created 950,000 jobs, while 28 million jobs were lost around the world during the same period. In addition to this we saved another 200,000 jobs through our decisive action during the global financial crisis. We also put in place a $1 billion plan to support exports, grow small business and help local manufacturers win local contracts, and we investigated future export opportunities through the Asian Century white paper. By contrast, we have yet to see a plan from this government for job creation. Australians who are currently out there looking for work are rightly asking where the government's plan is.

Another element that is needed to get young people into work is education and training so that they have the skills to match the jobs available. In government, Labor focused on supporting young people to finish school and to get the training and higher education they need for well-paying jobs. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor invested over $19 billion in skills funding—a 77 per cent increase on the previous government's investment. Since 2009, the federal Labor government provided funding of $6 billion to support state and territory skills and workforce development under the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development. We also announced that all Australians would have access of up to $90,000 assistance though VET FEE-HELP and access to courses up to certificate Ill level though the National Training Entitlement. So, Labor has a proud record of investing in skills and training.

Getting young people into jobs also requires comprehensive support services, and this is an area where Labor also has a proud track record. We introduced a system which matched services to individual job seekers and prioritised resources to go to the job seekers with the greatest need. This resulted in outcomes for job seekers improving by 90 per cent. Labor initiated a further review of employment services in 2012. There was strong interest in the review with over 180 written submissions received, and 440 people from 300 organisations attended face-to-face consultations.

We announced, prior to the last election, that Labor would establish a new system, Jobs and Training Australia, which would integrate employment services and training systems for the first time and place job seekers, workers and employers at the heart of the system. The system was to be founded on seven key principles: (1) training and employment services will be integrated through a place based and demand-led model; (2) Jobs and training boards

will be established in around 42 regions across Australia to formally link employers, employment and training services, and health and community services. The boards will also ensure that services meet local needs and replace the artificial boundaries of the current employment service areas. (3) The up-front assessment of job seeker needs and employment barriers will be improved; (4) the jobs, training and apprenticeship guarantee will ensure that every job seeker gets the help they need to get back to work and that no one slips through the cracks regardless of whether they have low or high needs, or how long they have been unemployed; (5) there will be an increased focus on addressing long-term unemployment and youth unemployment, and on closing the gap in Indigenous employment; (6) incentive structures for providers will be changed to encourage sustained employment outcomes and reward investment in improving the capacity of job seekers to secure work; (7) an independent employment services regulator will manage job seeker complaints and service quality, oversee provider compliance and be responsible for reducing red tape. We are yet to see what the new government's plan is for Job Services Australia. If they are serious about tackling youth unemployment, I would strongly encourage them to take up the principles enshrined in Labor's pre-election policy.

Labor also wanted to provide a jobs, training and apprenticeship guarantee, which would ensure access to telephone and online career advice, skills appraisals, assistance with resume writing. It would be engaged with an employment service provider and start work on a return-to-work plan within two days.

So, to sum up, we are satisfied with the incentives provided in this bill, but we believe there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to tackling youth unemployment. This approach needs job creation, investment in skills and training, and investment in employment services which meet the needs of job seekers.

On that note, I commend the bill to the Senate, while highlighting the opposition's concerns about the doubling of the non-payment period.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:33): As my mother used to say, this bill is a bit like Curate's egg—in other words, there are bits that are good and bits that are bad. There are elements of this bill we support and agree with because we do think it is important to provide incentives, in particular for young job seekers. I was in here not long ago talking about how some of the budget measures the government is intending to bring in will significantly impact on young job seekers and young unemployed people. I am glad the government is recognising that we do need to be providing support to young job seekers and this is a much better way of doing it.

This bill seeks to amend two parts of social security legislation. First, it provides that job seekers aged from 18 to 30 years who have been receiving Newstart or youth allowance for at least 12 months will be eligible to receive a tax-free payment of $2,500. If they remain in employment and off income support for a continuous period of 12 months, they will receive an additional payment. That is really good and we can support that part of the legislation. Second, it provides relocation assistance for people to take up a job.

But what we have concerns about is this bill changes the non-payment period or, in effect, the punishment period if you leave employment without a reasonable excuse. In fact, there will now be a 26-week non-payment period before a person can become eligible to receive unemployment benefits. This is the same issue I was talking about in the chamber earlier today. Young job seekers who are unemployed will have to wait six months—well, six months and six weeks so, in fact, seven months and two weeks—before they are given an initial payment. They then have to work for the dole and after six months they will then receive no payments for six months. It is the same argument: how do you expect people to live for that period of time? It also depends very much on what your definition of a reasonable excuse is, and I have had several run-ins with the department in the past about what are reasonable excuses.

When young people move and take up relocation assistance, they quite often move to an area where they do not have family support or the usual supports. They can be quite disconnected from the community and that plays out quite significantly on how they adapt to their work environment. The concerns here are that on one hand we have a positive measure, on the other hand we have one that we think is over the top. ACOSS has raised concerns about the changes of definition around some of the requirements in the bill and we share their concerns. So while the ALP has moved to amend, as I understand it, the exclusion from payments provision which would then revert back to the normal 12 weeks, we would like to knock out the whole of schedule 2 because the whole of the schedule deals with both the exclusion from eligibility for unemployment benefits and extending that to the 26-week period and also some of the definitional aspects of the legislation and we have some concerns about that. It changes the emphasis around how you get penalised and we believe that is a retrograde step in this legislation. We would prefer to see those not changed.

We have circulated in the last sitting amendments to the legislation which would in fact exclude or oppose schedule 2 while supporting schedule 1, which has the sorts of supports we need for young people. We need a much more supportive approach rather than a punitive approach. A punitive approach demonises people and assumes people do not want to work. As I said earlier, classing most of them as sitting around on the couch getting easy welfare is not the way you want to encourage people into work. The way to encourage them is, firstly, to have an incentive approach. The big stick does not work when people are living in poverty; poverty becomes yet another barrier to work. There is evidence to show that but there is not evidence to show that dropping people into poverty provides an extra incentive to work. It does not; it in fact becomes another barrier. So instead of penalising people we need to take a more positive approach, which this one does. It will be interesting to see how this now lines up with some of the other mechanisms that the government is bringing in and the impact the other approach the government is bringing through the budget will have on young people and how it encourages people into work versus a much more supportive approach which helps incentivise people and does not penalise people. It is an approach that works with young people to address their training needs and addresses any other barriers they have to employment. We know that that more individualised approach does help people into employment whereas a much more draconian penalising approach does not.

But the government could not help themselves with this. They brought in a positive but the sting in the tail was schedule 2, where people are penalised for such a long period of time. We believe it is much better to leave it at the current rate. If you are living on nothing, it really is a punishment for 12 weeks rather than 26 weeks; it really is. It is extremely hard for people to manage. I know that because I have had feedback from people who have already experienced, for example, the eight-week non-eligibility period when people were penalised for no-show, for example, through the current process. Eight weeks is a long time not to get any payment, so is 12 weeks, and 26 weeks is just too much. It is six months, half a year, which in fact is what the government is doing with its new approach announced last night in the budget.

So the Greens support the first part of this bill but we do not support the second part, schedule 2. Given that the ALP is, as I understand, still moving amendments, we support their amendments but they are not as extensive as ours, so I indicate our support for the ALP half-step that we have taken but we would prefer that we strike out the whole of schedule 2 because we believe that the amendments that this schedule seeks to make are not positive amendments but take us a step backwards in terms of the definitional aspects of the bill. However, we support schedule 1.