The PRESIDENT (12:31): Does any senator wish to have that question put? There being no-one, we will proceed to business.

Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales) (12:31): The Labor Party will be supporting the passage of the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014 through this place. I want to provide a bit of context and background as to how we have come to where we are on this.

In this bill we are looking at a series of well-negotiated, bipartisan suggestions and proposals on how implementation of the FoFA reforms of previous years can be improved in a practical, sensible and reasonable manner. I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, has done in bringing these together in conjunction with Dr Jim Chalmers, the shadow minister from the Labor Party looking after financial services. Together they have been able to craft what is really a bipartisan series of proposals and changes that really clean up some of the more practical components of how this legislation is and has been implemented.

Mr President, as I am sure you no doubt recall, the provision of financial advice and the law surrounding that has been a very contentious issue over recent years. It has been before this chamber several times and, I am sure you recall, there was a very large debate regarding the disallowance of a series of regulations that were implemented by the last government. In the past year, we have had a series of different government ministers responsible for this area. In particular, when we were having that debate, it was Senator Sinodinos and then Senator Cormann. I note that since that time the Hon. Josh Frydenberg has also had that role, and now it is the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer.

The industry has been crying out for certainty and it has been crying out to make sure there is one fixed set of rules. Different people in this chamber at different times have had some very different views on what these laws should be, how these laws should be implemented and what the standard for the provision of financial advice should be—particularly the role that the FoFA reforms implemented by the Labor government performed. Following the end of that debate last year, I think there was an acknowledgement from the government—rightly so, I believe—that the biggest mistake we can make now is having a long debate that provides uncertainty to the industry about what the standard is and what the requirements are going to be.

The government, at that point, turned around and said, 'As far as we're concerned, we had a different view than this parliament and certainly a different view than the Senate chamber.' They were looking to make some reforms that were not supported and were disallowed. That being said, there are still some minor reforms that can and should happen to provide practical certainty to the industry, also acknowledging that with any large piece of legislation like FoFA there are going to be implementation challenges.

I have to say the government has been true to its word. I know that, while ideologically there are certain members of the government that have come to the financial advice debate with different views, broadly they accepted that the debate had been settled and this legislation represents a consensus view that, while we may disagree on some of the bigger issues around financial advice, we can work together at a practical level to fix some of the minor challenges and make sure there is a level of certainty there for the industry.

I acknowledge the work that the PJC also has been doing in this space in relation to the provision of financial advice. The committee that I have been involved with, the Senate economics committees—both references and legislation—have also played a fairly sizeable role at different points in this debate.

There are still some challenges within the industry. I note that the PJC is looking at the education standards and has done some amazing work in setting them and working with industry to do that. I note that the Senate Economics References Committee is still going through a process, through the scrutiny of financial advice inquiry, where we are looking at whether or not there should be some kind of a scheme of last resort. They are good debates to have. There is a difference of views in this chamber, and that is all healthy; but what we do not want is to be going right back to the drawing board again for the provision of financial advice.

These are practical, simple, sensible changes to the existing legislation to provide certainty to the industry. That is why the Labor Party will be supporting the bill.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:36): I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014. What a difference a day makes. In the Senate yesterday Senator Wong put on an academy-award-winning performance about the Greens doing a deal with the government over a water register and an agricultural land register. The Greens have played a very important role in this debate in this country in recent times. I was part of the Senate inquiry into the FoFA changes and played an active role in the allowance motions. But today we have been given 40 minutes notice to look at the detail of what is a very complex subject. We have been given 40 minutes notice to look at a number of changes to the bill. We have seen a number of measures in the bill removed. We have seen amendments to the bill—some minor but some very technical. We have seen a set of legislation that is a totally different from what we have been debating in this parliament in recent months. So Labor are happy to come in here and lambast the Greens and the government for doing a deal, but today they are doing exactly the same thing.

It is disappointing that we were not given more of a heads-up so that we could at least have a closer look at this detail. I do not have anything to speak on because I have not had a chance to look at it—and nor have Senator Xenophon or Senator Madigan; they both had to drop off the speakers list because they have had no time to prepare for this. It is really quite pathetic, considering how important this legislation is. But let me say that Labor have done a lot of work on FoFA in the last three or four years. It is their law and the measures we are debating here today have been put into parliament by the Labor Party over a long period of time. They rightly should play an active role in this legislation and any changes go forward. I recognise that and I want to get that on the record. But it is disrespectful to the rest of us in the Senate that we have had no time to look at this. We have had no time to consider it. We have had no time to get legal advice on it. We have had no time to speak to stakeholders about it. In my opinion, this is a very direct attempt to cut us out of the debate. On that basis, the Greens do want to participate and we will ask some questions in the committee stage so that we can get some answers on this.

These laws are critically important. We have seen a number of scandals in financial advice in this country in recent years. A lot of things have come to the surface and there has been a lot of murky water. The legislation that we are dealing with today is absolutely crucial to restoring the 'advice' back into the financial advice industry and getting more Australians to seek financial advice. I think that is a good thing. The more Australians educated around the potential risks and opportunities in financial advice the better. We want to see a financial advice industry that transitions to being a lot more professional and accredited with higher standards. And I think that is what the industry wants. This legislation is critically important to restoring faith and confidence in the financial advice industry and helping the industry to prosper and boom.

I have worked with the FoFA committee stage. I have worked with a number of financial planners in my home state of Tasmania. This is something I have taken very seriously. I am really disappointed that we have had 40 minutes notice on what is before us today and we have not had a chance to consider it. The Senate is a house for reviewing legislation, but that is not going to be possible today because we have not had a heads-up.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:41): I thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Dr Chalmers, Mr Bowen and Mr Ripoll for working with the government to help facilitate bipartisan support for the government amendments to this bill that will be moved shortly. This bill seeks to deal with a number of minor and uncontentious technical refinements to the FoFA regulatory regime, which is designed to ensure that we minimise the level of the compliance burden without reducing the important and necessary consumer protections in place in the context of the financial advice industry. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:42): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:43): One of the amendments to the bill is said to be minor and technical but I want an explanation from the minister as to why the time for fee recipients to provide renewal opt-in notices to retail clients is extended from 30 days after the client's renewal notice day to 60 days. Why was that time frame doubled as an amendment in this bill?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:44): It is because, in the judgement of the government and this is a position that is supported, I believe, by the opposition in a bipartisan fashion, that is a more appropriate and practically more realistic timetable.

While I am on my feet, I have already flagged in my second reading speech that the government intends to move a series of technical amendments, and Senator Whish-Wilson has already started to debate those amendments, so I seek leave to move together all of the amendments, from one to 29 on sheet GU108.

Leave granted.

Senator CORMANN: On behalf of the government I move:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 15 and 16), omit "Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Act 2014", substitute "Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice Measures) Act 2015".

(2) Schedule 1, items 1A to 1J, page 3 (line 4) to page 6 (line 23), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, items 3 to 5, page 7 (lines 1 to 6), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (lines 7 and 8), to be opposed.

(5) Schedule 1, items 7 to 11, page 7 (lines 9 to 21), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 13), omit "paragraphs (2)(b), (ba) and (c)", substitute "paragraphs (2)(a), (b) and (c)".

(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 19), omit "paragraphs (2)(b), (ba) and (c)", substitute "paragraphs (2)(a), (b) and (c)".

(8) Schedule 1, items 13 and 14, page 8 (lines 20 to 33), to be opposed.

(9) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (lines 3 to 6), to be opposed.

(10) Schedule 1, items 17 to 20, page 9 (line 25) to page 10 (line 5), to be opposed.

(11) Schedule 1, items 21 and 22, page 10 (lines 10 to 13), omit the items, substitute:

21 Subsection 962K(1)

   Omit "30 days", substitute "60 days".

22 Subsection 962S(1)

   Omit "within a period of 30 days", substitute "before the end of a period of 60 days".

(12) Schedule 1, items 24 to 27, page 10 (line 19) to page 11 (line 2), to be opposed.

(13) Schedule 1, item 28, page 11 (lines 5 to 8), omit the example.

(14) Schedule 1, item 29, page 11 (line 20) to page 13 (line 29), omit the item, substitute:

29 At the end of section 963B (after the note)

   Add:

(4) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, despite a provision of this section, all or part of a benefit is to be treated as conflicted remuneration.

Note: The expression intrafund advice is often used to describe financial product advice given by a trustee (or an employee of, or another person acting under arrangement with, the trustee) of a regulated superannuation fundto its members, where that advice is not of a kind to which the prohibition in section 99F of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 applies. (Section 99F of that Act prohibits trustees of regulated superannuation funds from passing on the cost of providing certain kinds of financial product advice in relation to one member of the fund to another.)

(15) Schedule 1, items 30, 31 and 32, page 13 (line 30) to page 14 (line 2), to be opposed.

(16) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (lines 7 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

34 Section 963C

   Before "Despite", insert "(1)".

34A At the end of section 963C

   Add:

(2) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, despite subsection (1), all or part of a benefit is to be treated as conflicted remuneration.

(17) Schedule 1, item 35, page 15 (line 10), omit "personal advice", substitute "financial product advice".

(18) Schedule 1, item 35, page 15 (lines 15 to 24), omit subsections 963D(3) and (4), substitute:

(3) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, despite subsection (2), all or part of a benefit is to be treated as conflicted remuneration.

(19) Schedule 1, items 36, 37 and 38, page 15 (line 25) to page 17 (line 12), to be opposed.

(20) Schedule 1, items 39 and 40, page 17 (lines 13 to 16), to be opposed.

(21) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (lines 1 to 3), omit "Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Act 2014", substitute "Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice Measures) Act 2015".

(22) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (lines 7 and 8), omit "Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Act 2014", substitute "Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice Measures) Act 2015".

(23) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (lines 9 to 23), section 1531AA to be opposed.

(24) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (lines 25 to 27), omit "The amendments made by items 7 to 16 of Schedule 1 to the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Act 2014", substitute "The amendments made by items 12, 14A and 16 of Schedule 1 to the Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice Measures) Act 2015".

(25) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (lines 2 to 4), omit "The amendments made by items 17 to 21 and items 39 and 40 of Schedule 1 to the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Act 2014 apply", substitute "The amendment made by item 21 of Schedule 1 to the Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice Measures) Act 2015 applies".

(26) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (line 11), omit "for pre‑existing clients".

(27) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (lines 12 to 14), omit "The amendment made by item 22 of Schedule 1 to the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Act 2014 applies", substitute "The amendments made by items 20A, 20B and 22 of Schedule 1 to the Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice Measures) Act 2015 apply".

(28) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (lines 19 and 20), omit "Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Act 2014", substitute "Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice Measures) Act 2015".

(29) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (lines 24 to 30), section 1531F to be opposed.

These are agreed refinements aimed at improving the operations of FoFA and alleviating a number of unintended consequences that have arisen since the FoFA laws were legislated.

Senator Dastyari and Senator Whish-Wilson would well know that this piece of legislation, the broader FoFA regulatory arrangements, have a long history, particularly in the Senate. Both senators have been in much of that, along the way. As a result of the disallowance of a previous set of FoFA related regulations some further regulations were made, on a bipartisan basis, to deal with some of the necessary improvements, which have bipartisan support.

This bill now enshrines these things as appropriate into legislation. These amendments remove measures in the 2014 bill that do not have broader parliamentary support. These amendments include an extension of the time frame for advisers to send renewal opt-in notices to retail clients and fee-disclosure statements to pre-1 July 2013 clients from 30 to 60 days. The bill already extends the time frame for financial advisers to deliver fee-disclosure statements to their post-1 July 2013 clients. The amendments bring the time frames for providing these documents in line with each other.

During consultation, a number of stakeholders supported the extension of the time frames for fee recipients to provide their statements. I noted that the 30-day time frame was not long enough to properly prepare and quality-assure these documents, particularly as information is usually needed to be sourced from third parties. The extension of the time frame will also be beneficial for consumers in ensuring they receive documentation that contains accurate information.

The amendments also amend the short title of the act—to the bill, at the moment, which hopefully will become the act, to the Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice) Measures Bill 2015. This change is reflective of the fact that the proposed amendments have substantially changed. They are, primarily, minor and technical in nature. The government is committed to ensuring that FoFA operates efficiently and effectively for all consumers and industry participants and, as I indicated in my summing-up speech, we particularly thank Dr Jim Chalmers for his assistance in progressing these bipartisan refinements to FoFA in an efficient manner. With these few words, I commend these amendments to the committee.

Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales) (12:48): I just want to confirm that this correlates with my understanding that the amendments being proposed are only the amendments that were discussed in correspondence between the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer and Dr Jim Chalmers. I have a letter in front of me that you may or may not have, referring to a letter on the 13th, saying that the government intends to table parliamentary amendments to the Senate in the week beginning 23 November and that they reflect the bipartisan agreement reached and there is nothing in these amendments outside of that. That is my understanding. I would like to get your confirmation.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:48): Yes and no. Senator Dastyari asked me two questions. Yes, this reflects the agreement and no, there is nothing else in there.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:49): Senator Cormann, you talked about alleviating a number of unintended consequences that have arisen since the original laws were legislated. Could you go into some more detail about what those unintended consequences are?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:49): Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. As you would be well aware, we have had hours of debate about all the ins and outs of the future of financial advice changes, which had their iteration right from the outset—from the previous government's efforts to implement recommendations from a bipartisan inquiry, locally referred to as the Ripoll inquiry, through the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

With reforms of this size and complexity, there are always unintended consequences. Various parliamentary committees have scrutinised this in some great detail. The amendments here in front of us are amendments that have broad consensus across, at least, the two major parties as being sensible technical improvements to the framework that is currently in place and will continue to be in place. As such, unless Senator Whish-Wilson has a specific question he wants me to address, I do not propose to go back through the whole comprehensive debate that we have been having for a number of years on these matters. In fact, that debate started all the way back in 2009. I am always happy to answer specific questions but that is really a question that invites me to go through the whole history, again.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:51): You are absolutely right, Minister, I do remember the long and lengthy debates and conversations we had, in here, around this. The unintended consequences we talked about related to things I cannot see in this bill. In fact, they may relate to things around catch-all phrases and best-interest duties, which have been removed from this bill and which I am quite glad about. I was just wondering if there was anything more specific that you could point to, in relation to the unintended consequences, in your statement.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:51): Unless you have a specific inquiry, there were many unintended consequences. I will give you one example. It relates to the way FoFA treats basic insurance products and non-cash payments. Essentially what we are proposing to do here is ensure that FoFA treats basic insurance products and non-cash payments consistently with other simple and well-understood financial products. There was an unintended consequence that the application of the previous FoFA regime went too far, and that is now widely accepted.

It also clarifies the intrafund advice provision to ensure it operates as originally intended and not in the broader way, essentially to avoid unintended consequences here too. It makes clear that the client pays exemption; it also applies in circumstances where benefit is paid by another party, as long as the payment is made out of the client's funds and the benefit is given at the direction of the client and with the client's clear consent.

So this is essentially a tidy-up bill, which I would have thought was pretty uncontentious.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Ketter ): The question is that the following amendments be agreed to: (1), (6) and (7), (11), (13) and (14), (16) to (18), (21) and (22), and (24) to (28) on sheet GU108.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The next question to be considered is that items 1A to 1J, 3 to 11, 13 to 15, 17 to 20, 24 to 27, 30 to 32, 36 to 40, and sections 1531AA and 1531F in item 43 of Schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Are there any other amendments to consider? As there appear to be none, the question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to. Senator Whish-Wilson?

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:56): Just before you move on, let me get on record that there very well may have been amendments that the Australian Greens would have put up to this, including the extension of 30 days to 60 days for opt-in. we did hear a lot of evidence during the inquiry that 30 days was sufficient time. Most financial planners and most financial advisers, have good databases; the information systems where their clients would well and truly have advance notice of the requirement for an opt-in and that still gives them a month to do follow-up work on those clients. So that is an example of something we very well might have put an amendment up for. But let me get on record here today that we have not had time to consider amendments. We have not had time to even consider the amendments in front of us and we are very disappointed that we have not had the opportunity to do our job in the Senate, which is to scrutinise this and actually see if we can improve the legislation.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:59): I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today I introduce the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015.

This bill combines six routine, noncontroversial measures. As such, there are six schedules that amend three acts.

Each of the measures achieves a noncontroversial but nonetheless significant, welcome and—in some cases—long awaited change.

Turning to the specific measures in the bill:

Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to allow certain New Zealand Special Category Visa holders to access the HELP scheme from 1 January 2016.

It will assist New Zealand citizens who first came to Australia as children, who have lived here for at least 10 years and who deserve the same support as Australian students to go to university, TAFE or study at one of Australia's high quality private higher education or training providers.

While these New Zealand citizens have access to Commonwealth-supported places in higher education, they have been denied the option of deferring their tuition fees through HECS-HELP and similar schemes.

Tertiary education plays a crucial role in creating opportunities for individuals—it enriches their lives and careers.

It also provides the skills needed to boost productivity and improve Australia's economic competitiveness.

The HECS-HELP schemes ensure that eligible students do not miss out on these benefits because they cannot afford up-front fees.

As the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced during his visit to New Zealand last weekend, this bill honours a long-standing commitment by Australia to our Kiwi family.

It provides opportunities for New Zealanders who have long called Australia home.

And it provides fairness, given Australians on certain visa categories have long had access to New Zealand's student loan scheme.

If the bill is passed this year, around 2,600 New Zealanders are expected to be eligible for loans to help them study in 2016.

Australia and New Zealand have begun cooperating on ways to share data that will help overseas student loan debt recovery efforts.

These efforts are being supported by legislation that is currently before this Parliament that will require anyone living overseas to repay their Australian student loans.

The extension of student loans to young New Zealanders who have grown up here and think of Australia as their permanent home has been on the government's agenda for some time.

In fact, this is the third time we have brought this measure to the Parliament.

We look forward to the opposition's support for this bill, to ensure that it can be in place in time for 1 January 2016.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2013 to add Torrens University Australia to the list of 'table B' providers.

Torrens is a new Australian university.

It was registered by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (or TEQSA) in 2012, and commenced operations in January 2014.

However, because it is not currently listed on table B, it is not eligible for the same research funding support as other private Australian universities.

Adding Torrens to table B will address this inequity.

It will mean this promising university is eligible to receive research block grant funding, which includes tuition fee support for PhD and Masters by research students, and funding for research scholarships including the Australian Postgraduate Awards.

This measure advances a fair and competitive university research system and supports greater access and opportunity for students.

Like the previous measure to extend access to HELP for certain New Zealand citizens, this measure is only necessary because the opposition failed to support the government's higher education reforms.

Those reforms contained measures to enable the minister to extend access to such programmes beyond those institutions listed on table A and B, which would have made it possible to extend research funding eligibility to Torrens.

In another measure previously presented to this parliament but rejected by the opposition, Schedule 3 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2013 to reflect the change of the name of the University of Ballarat to the Federation University Australia.

This name change took place in mid-2013 and the new name took effect from 1 January 2014.

This amendment to the act serves simply to update the list of 'table A' providers to reflect the new name.

Schedule 4 inserts a provision that confirms the relevant heads of constitutional power that part 2-3 (other grants) of the Higher Education Support Act 2013relies upon, in addition to the effect that part 2-3 otherwise has.

This measure makes the constitutional head of power for these grants clear and provides the confidence and assurance to our universities and their students that Commonwealth support for university research can be maintained.

Schedule 5 amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to streamline and clarify the reporting responsibilities of TEQSA following the passage of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

It removes the requirement for the commissioner of TEQSA to prepare annual operational plans, as the PGPA Act now requires commissioners to prepare and publish a corporate plan.

As the annual and corporate plans cover the same material, this measure removes duplication and reduces regulatory burden, in line with the government's broader agenda to cut unnecessary red tape.

Importantly, it means TEQSA is able to direct more of its resources to supporting high quality higher education, and less on unnecessary paperwork.

Further, revising the day by which TEQSA must provide its corporate plan from 31 January to 30 April provides commissioners sufficient time to prepare the plan in alignment with the relevant Portfolio Budget Statements, whilst ensuring the minister may properly consider the plan prior to its commencement on 1 July each year.

Schedule 6 increases the funding caps in the Australian Research Council Act 2001in line with inflation and ensures that the government can continue to provide support for thousands of research projects.

The Australian Research Council (or ARC) invests in excellent fundamental and applied research that helps improve the quality of people's lives, that supports Australian businesses, and that ensures our nation remains at the cutting of research, innovation and global competitiveness.

For example, earlier this week, the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Sussan Ley, announced 76 researchers would share in $43 million in joint ARC and National Health and Medical Research Council funding to tackle the impacts of, and to find ways of preventing and curing, dementia.

This is part of the Coalition government's $200 million election commitment to dementia research.

The ARC is the most significant single source of competitive funding in Australia for research across all disciplines.

The amendments in this bill to extend funding through to 2018-19 provide certainty that Australian researchers will continue to have access to critically important taxpayer funding for their work.

The bill will also remove the specific provisions contained in the act requiring the development of an annual corporate plan.

As with the TEQSA amendment, this will reduce duplication of effort and resources, whilst ensuring the ARC, like all other Commonwealth departments and agencies, remains accountable through the PGPA Act, which requires the development of an annual corporate plan.

Conclusion

Each of these measures makes an important change to Australia's higher education system.

Australia has one of the world's best higher education systems, with some of the world's best universities.

This higher education system, along with our world-class vocational education and training system, will help ensure Australia has the workforce it needs to grow, to be innovative and to remain globally competitive in the future.

Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales) (13:00): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015. Labor supports this bill which implements six unrelated measures. Several of them do, however, have this in common: they are overdue. They are mostly minor reforms that the government could and should have acted on earlier. When the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills introduced this bill in the other place he sought to blame Labor for the delay. These reforms could have come sooner, he said, if Labor had not insisted on opposing the government's higher education reforms. Not everyone who heard that speech would have understood what the minister was saying, because his tongue must have been wedged firmly in his cheek.

It is the government not Labor that is responsible for the delay in introducing these reforms. There was never any justification for making the extension of HECS-HELP access to long-term New Zealand residents of Australia dependant on fee deregulation and cuts to Commonwealth supported places. The government wanted to make the rectification of a small injustice conditional on the perpetration of a much greater one. It wanted to make 2,600 New Zealand students hostages to its plan for $100,000 degrees and the Americanisation of Australia's university system. The opening up of HECS-HELP to long-term New Zealand residents never should have been bundled with the government's agenda for deregulation of university fees. Labor could never support such a fundamentally unfair agenda. As the previous minister for education twice found to his cost, that agenda was never going to be accepted by a Senate responsive to the wishes of the Australian people. So I am pleased that his successor has seen sense in reintroducing this reform with other measures that will also receive bipartisan support.

But let us be clear about how we got to where we are now. This is a mess of the government's making. Labor was never going to acquiesce in the previous minister's stubborn refusal to act in a bipartisan matter on what surely should have been a noncontroversial matter. As senators will be aware, senators including Senator Carr sought to resolve the problem earlier by introducing a private senator's bill to extend HELP access to long-term New Zealand residents in Australia. There is nothing in this bill now before the Senate that was not in the private member's bill introduced by Senator Carr. If the government had supported Senator Carr's bill, the issue would have already been resolved. But it did not. Labor is supporting this bill so that the eligible New Zealand students will not have to wait any longer. They have waited far too long already.

It is a long accepted principle that the recipients of the various HELP schemes should be people who will be able to repay the loan because they will be paying Australian taxes. The operation of that principle has been slightly modified by the recent bill—which Labor also supported—to recover HELP debts from Australians working overseas. It has become possible to do that because other jurisdictions in which a significant number of Australians work, such as the UK and New Zealand, also have income-contingent loans for higher education. The principle remains intact. In any case, it was never going to be undermined by the opening up of HELP to long-term New Zealand residents in this country. 'Long term', in this context, means people who reside here for at least 10 years. As Dr Andrew Norton of the Grattan Institute, a former adviser to the present government, has said, most of these people:

… have been in Australia for much of their lives, went to Australian schools, talk with Australian accents, and consider themselves Australian for most purposes …

It was always normless and unfair that people who could be so described should be excluded from HELP because they happened to have New Zealand passports. Australians in the equivalent position in New Zealand have access to the Student Loan Scheme. This bill fulfils a longstanding commitment on both sides of politics to balance the Australian side of the ledger.

Another noncontroversial matter that the government has bizarrely bundled with its two failed deregulation bills was formal recognition of the name change of the University of Ballarat to Federation University. The new name was the choice of the university's council and has been implemented by the recent state legislation in Victoria. It is a necessary formality that the Commonwealth also adopt the change by amending the Higher Education Support Act, HESA. And we are, at last, doing so through this bill. This bill also clarifies the constitutional head of powers that HESA relies upon to assure universities and their students that the Commonwealth will continue to be able to provide financial support. The bill further amends the Higher Education Support Act to include Torrens University on the list of table B providers. Torrens University, which was registered by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, in 2012 and began operations last year, is at present not eligible for the same research funding support as other private universities. Its inclusion on table B means that it will now be able to obtain research block funding, including fee support for postgraduate students and research scholarships, including postgraduate awards.

Labor takes the position that on the issue of inclusion of private universities among table B institutions, the horse has already bolted, as other private universities have already achieved inclusion. Further extensions of this kind of support should remain the preserve of the parliament on a case-by-case basis. This should not be taken as an indication that we are open to further privatisation though. Labor, most certainly, will not support the inclusion of private higher education providers, be they domestic or international, as table A institutions and eligible for base funding support to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme.

This bill also implements a change affecting TEQSA itself. The TEQSA Act is amended to clarify the agency's reporting responsibilities after passage of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. The bill removes the requirement for the TEQSA commissioner to prepare annual operational plans, as the PGPA Act now requires publishing of a corporate plan. Since the annual and corporate plans cover the same matters, this change removes what has become an unnecessary duplication.

Finally, the government has at last moved to give the higher education sector greater certainty by increasing the funding caps in the Australian Research Council Act 2001 in line with inflation. This means that thousands of research projects can continue to receive government funding through to the 2018-19 financial year. As senators will be aware, the ARC is the most significant distributor of competitive funding in Australia for research in all disciplines. The bill also removes specific provisions in the act requiring the development of an annual corporate plan. As with the TEQSA change, this also removes the duplication while ensuring that the ARC continues to remain accountable under the provisions of the PGPA Act.

These six measures will together—as the government acknowledged when introducing the bill—help to maintain Australia's world-class university system. It remains a matter of deep concern and regret, however, that the government continues to be intent on degrading that system through its proposals for deregulated fees, cuts to the Commonwealth-supported places and extension of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to private providers. If that agenda is never implemented, the cost burden on universities, their students and taxpayers will spiral upwards while the quality of the system declines. And the government is now hinting that it wishes to impose a further cost hike through increasing the GST and extending it to educational services. Australia's students do not need a system that will burden them with a lifetime of debt. Even less do they need a 15 per cent GST on top of that, which will mean paying even more. Once again, I urge the government to abandon its unfair and unnecessary higher agenda, to consult the sector and to start again.

Senator SIMMS (South Australia) (13:08): I rise today to speak to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015. I say from the outset that there is much in this bill that we believe to be good. As Senator Dastyari has said, the bill would extend HELP loans to a subset of New Zealand citizens who have been long-term residents here in Australia since they were children, providing pathways to an affordable qualification in the Australian tertiary education system for thousands. This is a welcome change from the government, who only months ago was mute on the bill which Senator Carr put forward and which would have achieved exactly the same objective. My Greens colleague Lee Rhiannon at that time spoke in support of that bill, and the Greens are in support of that change. The bill would also end duplication in the reporting requirements that now exist in both TEQSA and the PGPA Act. Although the Greens are often accused of adding so-called red or green tape, it has always been the policy of our party that we support only necessary regulation, and in the case before us today the regulation is no longer necessary, so we support schedule 5.

Perhaps one of the nicest surprises is the increase in indexation for the Australian Research Council, which would not only see an increase in funding for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years but also see funding extended out into the forward estimates. That is a welcome development. It is pleasing to see the government slowly accepting the reality that you need a well-funded university research sector to power a modern knowledge economy. Indeed, the Greens have been calling for such an investment in universities for many years, because we know that if our economy is to transition away from the 19th-century industries of coal and carbon and move into a new era of advanced manufacturing, information technology and renewable energy then we will need to put a robust public research program at its core.

We need to unwind the series of cuts into the research sector, which go back as far back as the Gillard Labor government in 2012, when the Sustainable Research Excellence grants were slashed during the MYEFO process. That was certainly a dark day for the education sector in this country, when the Gillard government came out swinging the budget axe. We need to ensure that both our research block grants and our competitive grants see an increase in overall funding. We need to stop hacking into research organisations like the CSIRO and ensure that programs like the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy are not held hostage by government, so that scientists and researchers have the program stability they need to do their jobs with confidence. And we need to ensure that thought bubbles and captain's picks like the Lomborg Consensus Centre, which went over like a lead balloon, in my home state of South Australia, are off the table and never see the light of day again.

So, while I commend the government's actions today—and the Greens do support increases in funding for the ARC—it is insufficient to the task that confronts us. We hope the government will come back with a far more comprehensive program to back up its innovation nation rhetoric. And what better way to be innovative, what better way to be flexible and agile, than to actually listen to the community and provide appropriate funding for research? It is something for the government to think about.

However, despite all the benefits that have been identified, the Greens have some reservations with this bill. It is disappointing to see the inclusion of Torrens University as a table B provider. That is a new development in education. Torrens University, as many in the chamber may know, is a part of Laureate International Universities and a private for-profit institution. That is a rare thing in our country. We do have private universities, but we do not have ones that operate purely for profit, and Torrens University is one of those. As a table B provider, Torrens would be eligible for research block grants, postgraduate scholarships and a range of other forms of public funding, and that is concerning. One has to ask, when looking at an idea like this being put on the table, whether the government has learnt nothing from the complete debacle of the VET sector.

Public funding and for-profit education simply do not mix. The evidence is in, and we know that the situation within the VET sector is not working. The incentives do not line up. The chief outcomes of the higher education sector—qualifications, training, research and teaching—are so difficult to quantify and so diverse in their qualities that the profit incentive, even with regulation, almost invariably leads to rorting. That has been the experience in the VET sector. Now we are potentially talking about opening up Pandora's box and going down this pathway in our university sector. Look at how the dodgy RTOs in the VET sector have cut every corner to maximise profit at the expense of education outcomes. What confidence does the government have that this will not happen within our university sector once we open that door and start going down that path?

The inquiry into the for-profit VET sector by the Education and Employment References Committee found that:

… expanding a demand driven entitlement to the private sector to access Commonwealth subsidies for sub-bachelor and bachelor degree programs entails unacceptable risk to the reputation of Australian higher education.

Again, if one considers what has been unfolding within the VET sector, one has to wonder why the government is contemplating going down this path. I am referring to a system that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has described as 'absolutely scandalous'. This is potentially going to be opened up to our university sector as well, if we open this Pandora's box and if we go down this path. While we acknowledge that the bill does not yet expand access to HELP loans for Torrens students, and we are not suggesting Torrens University be classed as a table A provider, has the minister actually considered the evidence as to what effect for-profit entities receiving public grants will have on the integrity of our research sector? I know Senator Dastyari says the Labor Party do not support going down that path. But the worry is that, once we open the door to this, we are on that trajectory. That is a worrying thing for the higher education sector within this country.

The question must also be asked: if the money is available to expand grants to for-profit providers, why not instead put this money back into the public system? We know our public universities have a world-class research reputation, we know they have multiple safeguards that protect the integrity of research and we know that, unlike for-profit providers, they will spend all their money on research instead of skimming stuff off to try to make private profits. Why wouldn't we be giving the money to them? We know there is quality control in place. Putting public revenue into an established public university system is a smarter and safer way to spend taxpayer money and to avoid the kind of scandal, waste and exploitation that has characterised the VET sector that was initiated by the Labor Party and continued by the Liberal Party. We need to avoid having that system expand into our universities.

If we could go back in time to before the national partnership agreement that locked in the contestability model for VET and TAFE, to before the rollout of the VET fee help to for-profit providers, and put a stop to the appalling RTO behaviour that is plaguing the VET sector, then of course we would do that. I am sure most people in this place would recognise that, if they had the time again, maybe they would not have gone down that path. Today we have an opportunity to take a different path when it comes to higher education. Today we have an opportunity to prevent that first encroachment of the private contestability logic onto our university system. We do not want to bring that kind of modus operandi into our universities. As I said from the outset, there are many things that the Greens like about this bill. We support the expansion of HELP to select New Zealand citizens, we support the regulatory adjustment to TEQSA and we support the increased funding for the ARC. But as long as this bill sets the precedent for public funding of the for-profit business model in the university sector, then we do have some concerns. I call on this chamber to support the Greens amendment to remove schedule 2.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:19): I rise today in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015 and the many individual measures contained within. These are measures that, up until now, have been hijacked by the Abbott-Turnbull government in their ideological mission to deregulate Australian universities and to create $100,000 degrees. This crusade has not been abandoned. It has only been delayed—hidden and put away in the bottom drawer, out of sight until after the next election. For nearly two years Labor has been calling for these measures to be uncoupled from the Abbott-Turnbull plan to deregulate universities, to allow the higher education sector to continue to function as effectively as possible despite the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the government's deregulation agenda. Australian universities, researchers and students have had their futures put on hold while the Abbott-Turnbull government has zeroed in on its ideological crusade.

After going out of their way to derail the normal operations of our entire higher education sector, it appears the Abbott-Turnbull government is, in this small part, prepared to proceed with these important changes. Now that the government has delayed—not abandoned—its higher education package, it is good to see they have finally followed Labor's lead to see reason and to propose these measures in a separate piece of legislation. But it does beggar belief that we have had to bring it kicking and screaming into this chamber to ensure that this legislation, which is important to the higher education sector, will be debated and supported in this chamber.

This legislation is important, and Labor will be supporting it. However, it should be noted by those on the other side that we are vehemently opposed to any delay or any further attempts to ensure that university degrees in this country would have a price tag of $100,000-plus. That is not in the best interests of the higher education sector, and it is certainly not in the best interests of the community. In my home state of Tasmania it will certainly go no way towards ensuring that more of our young people and mature-aged people take the opportunity to experience the opportunities a tertiary education can offer you.

I must say, though, that Labor foreshadowed such a bill when we were in government, and we were prepared to work with this government to bring about this reform much more quickly. But, as I said, we had to bring them kicking and screaming to the table.

I would like to briefly touch on the individual measures contained within the bill. The bill expands access to the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, to New Zealand citizens who have been in Australia since childhood. This is an anomaly that needs to be fixed and could have been fixed well over a year ago if it were not for the Liberal government's pig-headedness. I know many in my community, in this place and around the country are very much in support of this particular measure.

The bill adds Torrens University Australia to the list of table B universities under the Higher Education Support Act, making it eligible for the same funding support enjoyed by other private Australian universities. The bill will also update the name of the University of Ballarat to the Federation University in the Higher Education Support Act. It also clarifies the constitutional power that other grants under the Higher Education Support Act rely on.

Labor are pleased to see this bill streamlines the reporting requirements for the Australian Research Council and the Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Agency. We are also pleased that it gives certainty to Australian researchers and universities by guaranteeing appropriations for the Australian Research Council. Labor support this sensible measure and would have done so sooner if the government had ditched its plan for university deregulation and, instead, focused on achieving meaningful reform that has a positive impact on students and universities which, in the long term, benefits all Australians and our local communities.

In summary, Labor are pleased with the individual components of this bill, pleased that the government has now, belatedly, come to the party and pleased to support its passage through parliament. It is disappointing that it has taken so long to get to this point, and that the Abbott Turnbull government is continuing to pursue its $100,000 university degree agenda. But, as I said, it is good that those on the other side of the chamber have come to the table, though belatedly, and decided to use some common sense and ensure that these sensible measures in this bill are passed.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator POLLEY: Those on the other side can yawn but that is what the Australian people do every single day when they wake up to find this out of touch government is still in office.

Labor will never support the government's agenda. Labor will never support an attack on the universities in this county. We will never support $100,000 university degrees being the only options for Australian students and those mature-age students who want to have the benefit of a tertiary education. We know that this government are sneaky. They try to say that they are nimble and that they are the government of the 21st century. What they are is a government that is hell-bent on ensuring that fewer Australians have the opportunity to go on to university. If they were serious, they would have brought this piece of legislation in more than 12 months ago and that would have then shown some credibility that they have an interest in higher education in this country. Unfortunately, as with so many other tests that have been put before them, they failed the test. They have failed the Australian people. They have failed the university sector. I am sure the university sector have, on many occasions, advised the government of their displeasure at the course of action that the government were trying to impose. But with the crossbenchers and the Labor Party on this side, we were able to stop that. We will always stand up for the universities in this country.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (13:26): I thank the Senate for the debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015. It is not my intention to take a long time in the summing-up speech, prosecuting arguments, as Senator Polley was just doing, on measures that are not actually relevant to this bill nor reflected in this bill. But, at the outset, I will make very clear that the government's commitment is to a strong higher education system in Australia, one where access is equitable and fair, and one in which we are providing the type of higher education system that skills Australians for the jobs of the future and supports research and development and the knowledge that can facilitate Australia's success into the future.

This measure amends three pieces of education legislation to achieve important and worthwhile changes but, largely, are minor and modest in nature. The government has chosen to group together a suite of six education legislation amendments that expand eligibility for funding support, resolve uncertainty in some places, streamline requirements and secure funding.

The passage of this bill, to go through those six measures, will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to allow certain New Zealand special category visa holders to access the Higher Education Loan Program scheme from 1 January 2016. This will assist a number of New Zealand citizens who moved here as children and provide the same support as Australian students to undertake higher education. This has been the subject of discussions between the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, and the New Zealand Prime Minister, as indeed it has been for some period of time, including under the previous government, who never moved to legislate this measure.

The second area of amendment in this bill is to add Torrens University to the list of table B providers in the Higher Education Support Act. This will enable Torrens University Australia to be eligible to apply for the same funding support as other private Australian universities, including for research block grant funding.

The third measure will ensure that the Higher Education Support Act reflects the change of the name of the University of Ballarat to the Federation University Australia. The fourth measure confirms the relevant heads of constitutional power that part 2-3 'Other Grants' of the Higher Education Support Act relies upon in addition to the effect that part 2-3 otherwise has.

The fifth measure will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to streamline and clarify the reporting responsibilities of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Authority, following the passage of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and indeed applying similar measures, I believe, to other agencies, the ARC.

Finally, it will also provide amendments to the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to add funding for the financial years starting on 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2018, and also to apply indexation against appropriations for existing schemes. This amendment, importantly, will provide certainty and security of funding for the Australian Research Council through until mid-2019.

The measures in this bill have generally been welcomed by higher education institutions, the Australian Research Council, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and other key stakeholders in the higher education sector. I also thank and acknowledge the opposition for their support of this legislation and the support that Senator Kim Carr, as the relevant opposition spokesman, has provided to this legislation, where he has noted that all six measures are 'non-controversial measures that enjoy bipartisan support'. Senator Carr also noted, quite rightly, that the measures would provide certainty to researchers and scientists across the country, which indeed I concur with.

It is important that this bill be passed without further delay, and I am pleased that the Senate has dealt with it so swiftly today. Some of the measures are time critical because they change eligibility for funding support for the 2016 calendar year. This is especially important to those New Zealanders who are expecting additional support for their status. These are people who, because of their visa status, do not currently have a practical pathway to Australian citizenship and therefore are caught, in a sense, out of current arrangements.

The bill will also, as I mentioned, enable Torrens University, which is a successful university in Australia with a proven track record, to be considered for research block grant funding and funding to award Commonwealth postgrad scholarships to its research students. Torrens has established its track record as a quality provider of higher education and will join other successful private institutions, such as Bond University, on table B of the Higher Education Support Act. In listening to Senator Simms, I gathered that the Greens intend to move an amendment to this bill that would remove this particular measure. This amendment is unwarranted. The bill merely extends to Torrens University the same right to bid for research block grant funding that other private universities like Bond University already enjoy. As our smaller, regional and newer universities would attest, research funding should not be reserved for universities with a lengthy track record. It plays an important role in expanding their research capacity. It will also put Torrens University on a level playing field in terms of improving access and choice for PhD and research masters students to have some coverage of tuition fees and/or receive scholarships through, for example the Australian Postgraduate Awards. The passage of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015 will ensure that this promising young university in Australia, a very credible institution, can further develop its research footprint and its postgraduate opportunities.

Finally, as I indicated, the bill provides certainty to the ARC by publishing the funding caps through to the end of the 2018-19 financial year. It allows for a further two years of funding, worth more than $1.5 billion in total. This vital recurrent funding stream supports the council's highly regarded National Competitive Grants Program, which builds our national research capability, creates and sustains momentum in research partnerships, and enables promising careers to thrive.

Overall, this bill is an important contribution to providing that certainty to our research providers to ensure that our research sector can continue to thrive into the future, and to expanding access to university places in a number of different but important ways. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator SIMMS (South Australia) (13:34): I have a question for the minister. Minister, are you aware of the comments made by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull when he referred to the VET sector as being scandalous? In light of the concerns about the scandal that is unfolding within the VET sector, are you concerned that, by making block grants available to private, for-profit universities, you are going to be opening Pandora's box and bringing a similar calamity onto the university sector within this country?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (13:35): No, Senator Simms, I am not concerned, and let me try to calmly talk you through it. I am well aware of the Prime Minister's statements, and indeed I have made similar statements about my concerns with some of the operations in the VET sector and the way in which, in particular, the VET FEE-HELP student loan scheme is working in the VET sector.

It is important to understand that that VET FEE-HELP student loan scheme provides demand-driven funding to students enrolling in vocational education and training courses; that the way that it was established means that institutions are free to set their own prices; that they can enrol as many as they want once they have been approved; and that they get paid, essentially if they so choose, up-front for the entire duration of the course once the student commences their studies. That is profoundly different to what we are talking about in relation to Torrens University Australia being listed as a table B provider in the higher education sector, as distinct from vocational education. There are virtually no analogies that can sensibly be drawn in this regard. Obviously access to ARC block grant funding is not something that is demand driven. In fact, there are clear restrictions around that access that ensure that there can in no way, shape or form be blow-outs, rorting or other problems in this regard.

I would also note that there are, as I said in my summing-up speech, a number of private providers already listed as table B providers: namely, Bond University, who I mentioned; the University of Notre Dame Australia; and the former Melbourne College of Divinity, now the University of Divinity. So it is not unusual to have those private providers.

I did hear you in your speech, Senator Simms, single out Torrens University as being owned by a for-profit company. I would draw your attention to the fact that the parent company of Torrens University Australia, Laureate education, have recently converted from being a traditional corporation in a for-profit sense to being a public-benefit corporation, which requires them to have very clear, positive impacts on society and the environment through a number of legally defined goals. Their structure has in fact changed in that sense as well, which makes them much more analogous with the type of not-for-profit providers that we see already as table B providers in Australia. But, in relation to your specific question there, in no way could I see the type of behaviour that has occurred in the VET sector being replicated by a university by virtue of their being scheduled on the table B listing.

Senator SIMMS (South Australia) (13:38): Thank you to the minister for his reply. In his reply, the minister did note that a different model applies to Torrens University and recognised that there is a distinction between Torrens University and other private providers within this space. Torrens are uniquely a for-profit university. On the basis of that point, Minister, do you not concede that many Australians would be alarmed to see a for-profit institution getting their hands on public funds in this way and that many Australians could perceive that there are going to be consequences that stem from that?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (13:39): Again, no, Senator Simms. I am sure that if you put your mind to it you could create alarm in some quarters, but I think that alarm would be unfounded and misguided were it to be created. Again I would emphasise that this listing relates to access to block grant funding from the ARC, which the ARC has very careful monitoring of. I would note that Torrens has established itself as a very credible and reputable provider in relation to postgraduate student opportunities. Again, in those instances, any support that comes from the Commonwealth is strictly capped and controlled. Really, the safeguards that are in place are extremely clear. And I draw your attention to the point that I made previously, which is that Torrens does not now strictly operate as a for-profit provider with all of the connotations that that perhaps has and in fact now has a very clear public-benefit purpose that is much more similar in its nature to the way in which Australian entities have been historically allowed to operate in the not-for-profit type sector.

Senator SIMMS (South Australia) (13:40): by leave—I move the amendment standing in my name on sheet 7805:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 2 to 6", substitute "Schedules 3 to 6".

The Australian Greens oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 2, page 8 (lines 1 to 5), to be opposed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Ketter ): I remind the chamber that the questions before the chamber need to be separated out.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (13:41): Can I just indicate the position of the Labor Party on this matter. The proposition we have before us is a simple measure. The government has decided to amend the Higher Education Support Act to include Torrens University on the list of table B providers. Torrens University has been registered with the regulator since 2012. My recollection is that it arose from discussions with the former Premier of South Australia and in Mexico prior to that date, and it was intended that the university establish its operations in 2013, but it did not subsequently do so until last year.

The entity that Torrens University is associated with, as I think the minister has already indicated, is not, strictly speaking, a for-profit entity. It is headed up by an emeritus chancellor, former President Clinton, and has a number of other distinguished academics associated with it, formerly associated with the University of Adelaide. I think that, given that the circumstances are such, this is a credible, authoritative body which is quite distinct from the shonks and shysters we have seen operating within the VET sector. I think TEQSA is in many respects a different organisation to ASQA, which has not been very effective in dealing with some of the abuses that we have seen.

Specifically, this is an issue that goes to the question of attaining research block grant funding, which is subject to a whole series of other regulatory requirements, including through the ARC, which I think has a very, very strong track record of operating with integrity and on the basis of peer review so that there is an outside measure of monitoring. It also would provide for support for research scholarship and postgraduate awards. I do not expect that a body such as Torrens would actually attract very much additional revenue, given the sheer scale of its operations.

The reality is that there are already existing not-for-profit private entities within the Australian university system—namely, of course, Bond University and the Catholic University of Notre Dame, which of course arose in Western Australia under a similar set of circumstances, I might add, as a result of intervention by state authorities. Whether or not one agrees with the principle of not-for-profit, private entities being within the university system, the reality is they are there. On this issue—the inclusion of private universities as distinct from private companies—the horse has already bolted, and I think there is little that can be said about that, other than drawing attention to that fact this matter has been attended to in this manner. I would like to indicate that, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, we take this view on a case-by-case basis. This is not an invitation for every fly-by-night operator, like Greenwich university or any others, to seek to have entrance into the Australian university system. In fact, we must have the most stringent of standards to ensure that we have due quality assurance and that we can maintain an international reputation in regard to both domestic and international postgraduate students. For those reasons, the Labor Party will not be supporting either of these propositions that are put before the chamber.

I apologise that I was not able to get to the chamber in time to do the second reading on behalf of the Labor Party, but Senator Dastyari did a very admirable job on my behalf. But the central principle here is that this is bill is made up largely of non-controversial measures, which should have been put to this chamber last year, not this year. In fact I have had to move private senator's bills in regard to one particular matter here—particularly the New Zealanders. It just reflects the fact that these are genuinely non-contentious in most parts, apart from this matter, and ought to have been given swift passage. They should have been put to the chamber 18 months ago for a normal, routine passage, but the government has chosen to act in this belligerent way through the former minister—recognising of course that the Senate had to reject the whole package because it was so closely associated with some unpalatable measures, including the introduction of $100,000 degrees.

But since we now have a debate about the GST we can now see circumstances where this question becomes even more complicated, and I think it would be wise to get these matters out of the way before we have to deal with the unsavoury consequences of increasing university costs because of this government's determination to pursue the GST, which will see a further 15 per cent rise in everything from a textbook through to a university course cost and all of the other matters directly associated with education. So I would urge the chamber to deal with these matters promptly so that we can move on to the next item.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (13:47): For all the reasons that I outlined previously, some of which were indeed echoed to some part by Senator Carr in the early part of his remarks, the government also opposes the Greens amendment.

Senator SIMMS (South Australia) (13:48): I seek leave to put Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7805. I just wish to put that amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Ketter ): We are going to have two separate questions. Given that amendment (2) is the substantive amendment I propose to put that one first. The question is that schedule 2, page 8 (lines 1 to 5) stand as printed.

Senator SIMMS (South Australia) (13:55): I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7805:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 2 to 6", substitute "Schedules 3 to 6".

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Ketter ): The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7805 be agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:34): I, and also on behalf of senators Macdonald and Lindgren, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2016:

The development of the bauxite resources near Aurukun in Cape York, with particular reference to:

(a) the economic development of the bauxite resources near Aurukun in Cape York;

(b) any issues relating to native title rights and interests on the land on which these resources are located;

(c) the process for the finalisation of an exclusive Mineral Development Licence Application on this land;

(d) any opportunities for traditional owners to receive ongoing benefit from the resources located on this land; and

(e) any other related matter.

Question agreed to.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:35): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and for related purposes—Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015.

Question agreed to.

Senator XENOPHON: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator XENOPHON: Finally, I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard and to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Online gambling, in particular online sports betting, has grown exponentially over the past 10 years in Australia and with it an exponential increase in the harms associated with problem gambling.

This issue was examined by the former Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform who made a number of recommendations in the course of its inquiry which were ignored by the then-government.

The Coalition's policy statement includes tougher restrictions on gambling advertising and improved self-exclusion systems, but even those limited recommendations appear not to have been followed through.

The terms of reference of the review announced by the former Minister for Social Services, the Hon Scott Morrison MP into online gambling are welcome but the terms are quite limited, with a particular focus on illegal offshore online gambling. The terms of the review appear to fail to acknowledge the enormous harm that can arise from authorised operations. I have seen through my office many cases of harm caused by legal online gambling as well as illegal online sites.

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, whilst only 14 years old may as well be 140 years old in that it has been outdated and outpaced by the explosion in online gambling and aggressive practices of online gambling entities to lure customers.

The Australian community is already seeing the effects of a lax regulatory environment for authorised gambling sites and the absence of a political will to tackle the illegal sites by disrupting financial transactions.

In August 2015, Financial Counselling Australia released its landmark report: 'Duds, Mugs and the A-List: the impact of uncontrolled sports betting'. This report described the devastating consequences of gambling addictions on individuals and families. The report argued that a number of industry practices contributed to a person's gambling getting out of control. The ability to gamble using credit was identified as one of the biggest contributors to unsafe gambling habits. This Bill tackles this issue by prohibiting websites who offer sports betting from providing credit to individuals for the purpose of gambling. It is a simple yet powerful harm minimisation measure.

There is currently an absence of sensible measures to ensure online sports betting is conducted in a responsible manner. This Bill seeks to fill these gaps in a way that offers protection for those who have difficulty controlling their gambling but will have minimal impact on so-called recreational gamblers.

The measures introduced by this Bill aim to minimise the harm caused by uncontrolled sports betting, and to give problem gamblers more effective tools to manage their gambling.

As the case studies in Financial Counselling Australia's report demonstrate, the time for reform of the online sports betting industry is past due. Amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 are essential in order to put an end to dangerous and predatory industry practices and to make an all too often unsafe product much safer for consumers.

If we fail to act now we will see an increase in the number of Australians, particularly young men, who will lose enormous amounts of money and cause irreparable harm.

The time to act is now. The Parliament of Australia must ignore the vested interests of the online gambling industry and unambiguously side with the public interest.

Debate adjourned.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:37): At the request of Senator Smith, I move:

That the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:

(a) Tuesday, 2 February 2016;

(b) Tuesday, 23 February 2016;

(c) Tuesday, 1 March 2016; and

(d) Tuesday, 15 March 2016.

Question agreed to.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:37): At the request of Senator Smith, I move:

That the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:

(a) Thursday, 4 February 2016;

(b) Thursday, 25 February 2016;

(c) Thursday, 3 March 2016; and

(d) Thursday, 17 March 2016.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): At the request of Senator Collins, I move:

That, for the purposes of its inquiry into the matters referred on 10 November 2015, the Committee of Privileges have power to consider and use the minutes of evidence and records of the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru appointed on 26 March 2015 and reappointed on 10 August 2015.

Question agreed to.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:07): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present report No. 9 of 2015, Referrals made August 2015.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:07): I present the 156th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Treaties tabled on 8 September 2015. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate this tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Mr President, today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties’ Report 156: Treaties tabled on 8 September 2015.

Report 156 covers three proposed treaties:

an Air Services Agreement with Laos;

a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement with Brazil; and

amendments to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.

Mr President, air service agreements are bilateral treaties that allow commercial air travel between two countries.

The proposed Agreement with Laos details the number of flights; and the number of passengers and the quantum of freight that can be transported between Australia and Laos using commercial air services.

The Agreement permits airlines from each country to set up operations in the other country, including selling tickets, reaching code sharing arrangements with other airlines, offering package deals combining international air travel and domestic travel, and having fair commercial access to airports and related facilities.

The Agreement also emphasises the importance of air safety and security in relation to commercial air travel between Australia and Laos. All aircraft and staff involved in commercial air travel between the two countries must be certified to the relevant international standard. In addition, the authorities of each country have the right to inspect aircraft and facilities operated by an airline from the other country for both safety and security reasons.

Each country has the right to suspend without notice the services of an airline of the other country if there is a safety or security problem.

Mr President, at the moment, there are no direct commercial flights between Australia and Laos. However, the Committee hopes that this agreement will encourage stronger commercial ties between Australia and Laos.

Mr President, mutual legal assistance agreements establish formal mechanisms for cooperation between countries in the pursuit of criminal matters. Australia has 29 such agreements at present.

The Agreement with Brazil will enable Australia and Brazil to cooperate in tackling serious and organised crime, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, human trafficking, people smuggling, cybercrime and terrorism.

Specifically, these agreements establish a framework for requesting and considering a request for legal assistance in relation to a criminal matter. The assistance rendered can include:

taking evidence and statements;

providing documentary evidence, including government and court records;

locating persons and objects;

examining locations and sites;

search and seizure;

delivery of evidence or property;

arresting suspects;

serving documents; and

locating and forfeiting the proceeds of crime.

Mr President, a number of checks and balances are included in the agreement.

In particular:

a request can only be accepted where the matter under investigation is considered to be a crime in both jurisdictions.

mutual consent is necessary for legal assistance, so Australia can choose not to cooperate

In addition, a request can be denied if the requested party believes it to be motivated by political, racial, sexual or other prejudice, or if the request relates to a crime that is punished by the death penalty.

In relation to the death penalty, Government witnesses advised that Brazil has not conducted an execution since 1855.

Mr President, the final treaty considered in the Report I am tabling today contains amendments to the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, which is generally known by its acronym, SOLAS.

SOLAS contains basic minimum requirements for the safe construction, equipping and operation of ships at sea.

The proposed amendments to SOLAS include:

additional steps to verify the weight of containers before they are loaded onto ships, including provisions for testing by Port State Authorities;

clarification of requirements relating to the fire safety equipment and machinery spaces on passenger ships; and

a new requirement for cargo ships to carry specialised atmospheric testing equipment on international voyages.

Mr President, I can advise that the Committee supports all the proposed treaty actions. The Committee has recommended binding treaty action in relation to the Air Services Agreement with Laos and the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement with Brazil.

Amendments to SOLAS are deemed accepted by parties on a set date, so no recommendation is required.

Mr President, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:08): On behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, I present a corrigendum to the dissenting report from the Australian Greens to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015.

Ordered that the document be printed.

The following documents tabled earlier today (see entry no. 2) were considered:

Law and justice—Marriage equality—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia (Mr Sutherland) forwarding the text of a resolution, and attachment. Motion to take note of documents moved by Senator Simms and agreed to.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:19): I move:

That senator Dastyari replace Senator Singh on the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 30 November 2015, and Senator Singh be appointed as a participating member.

Question agreed to.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:20):

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

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

The Government is committed to fairness and sustainability in Australia's tax system. This Bill underlines that commitment by making some important changes to realign policies with their original intent, improve integrity and reduce complexity for taxpayers.

Schedule 1 to this Bill will modernise the methods for calculating tax deductions for work-related car expenses by streamlining and updating the available methods and rates for claiming work-related car expenses.

Schedule 2 will better target the Zone Tax Offset to exclude Fly-in Fly-out and Drive-in Drive-out workers. This meets the Government's priority to deliver a fairer tax system—ensuring only those genuinely living in the specified geographic zones are entitled to the offset.

Schedule 3 will introduce a separate grossed-up cap of $5,000 for salary sacrificed meal entertainment and entertainment facility leasing expenses for certain employees of not-for-profit organisations, and all use of these salary sacrificed benefits will become reportable.

Schedule 4 will create a new reporting regime which requires third parties to report on a range of transactions.

The 2015-16 Budget delivered by this Government demonstrated a commitment to building a fair and sustainable tax system. Schedule 1 to this Bill contributes to this commitment by modernising and streamlining the available methods and rates for calculating work-related car expenses. The schedule reduces the number of methods for claiming the deduction, not what is deductible for car expenses.

Currently, work-related car expenses are claimed by 3.8 million taxpayers each year.

Under current rules, taxpayers can choose one of four methods to calculate their claims based on their travel and documentation. This Bill reduces the available methods down to two.

Having four different methods available adds complexity to claims for taxpayers. This is because taxpayers—or their tax advisers—tend to calculate all four methods in order to identify the method that delivers the greatest amount of deduction.

Of the four methods currently available, both the 12 per cent of original value method and one-third of actual expenses method are used where more than 5,000 business kilometres are travelled, and therefore require less substantiation. Yet these two methods are used in just two per cent of claims each year. As such, this Bill will remove these two options.

Instead, for the 2015-16 income year, taxpayers can continue to calculate their claims using the more popular cents per kilometre method for business travel of less than 5,000 kilometres, or the logbook method to calculate their claims based on actual expenses and travel.

This Bill also modernises the formula for calculating claims using the cents per kilometre method. Under this method, no substantiation of car expenses is required—only a reasonable estimation of the work-related travel conducted throughout the year, up to a maximum of 5,000 business-related kilometres. This will not change under this Bill. Under present arrangements, these work-related kilometres are then multiplied by a cents per kilometre rate based on the size of a car's engine - currently 65 cents per kilometre for small cars, 76 cents per kilometre for medium cars, and 77 cents per kilometre for large cars.

In addition, the existing rates apply to rotary engines of different sizes, and have not previously been modernised to apply to modern electric or hybrid vehicles.

This Bill streamlines the different rates based on engine size to a single rate of 66 cents per kilometre, which is based on the average running expenses in Queensland and New South Wales of the five highest selling vehicles in Australia. This rate is a fair estimation of expenses for all taxpayers, and is supported by recent data from both RACQ and NRMA for the costs of running the top five selling cars.

For those taxpayers who travel more than 5,000 business‑related kilometres, the logbook method will not change—establishing work-related driving by keeping a logbook for 12 weeks which is valid for five years—still enables them to claim their actual expenses based on their work-related use.

For those that wish to stay on the cents per kilometre method, Tax Time 2016 will be much easier with a standard rate applied to their travel.

The original methods and rates were set in the 1980s—it is clear based on the methods actually used, and up to date industry information on current running costs, that these rates and methods are outdated. They are adding to the compliance burden of everyday Australians—which is already one of the highest in the modern world.

Going forward, the Commissioner of Taxation will review the new single rate each year reflecting the most up to date running costs for the greatest number of Australian taxpayers. These changes will raise $845 million over the forward estimates, making a significant contribution to our ongoing budget repair effort.

Schedule 2 provides for changes to the Zone Tax Offset to realign it with its original intent.

From the 2015-16 year, the Zone Tax Offset will be targeted to people genuinely living in identified regional areas. This Bill will exclude 'fly-in fly‑out' and 'drive-in drive-out' workers (also referred to as FIFO workers) from claiming the offset, where their usual residence is not within one of the 'zones'. FIFO workers whose usual residence is in one zone, but who work in a different zone, will retain the Zone Tax Offset entitlement associated with their usual place of residence. This will ensure that the offset is better targeted to those taxpayers genuinely living in these regional areas.

The Zone Tax Offset was introduced in 1945 and was intended to compensate recipients for the disadvantages of living in remote areas including isolation, uncongenial climate and higher costs of living.

Geographic regions associated with the Zone Tax Offset are spread across Australia and include regional areas of all states and territories except Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, particularly remote areas (including parts of the Northern Territory, far west and north Queensland and northern Western Australia) are eligible for higher zone rebates in recognition of the additional costs they face.

Currently, to be eligible for the offset, a taxpayer must reside or work in a specified remote area for more than 183 days in an income year. The residency test does not require a Zone Tax Offset recipient to spend 183 days consecutively in the relevant zone. As a result, FIFO workers who spend more than a total of 183 days in a zone are currently eligible to claim the offset.

When first enacted, the Zone Tax Offset was intended to compensate Australians genuinely living in these regional areas for certain disadvantages associated with living in such remote areas. However, this offset was designed before the rise of the Fly-in Fly-out worker, before modern travel and before the mining boom made temporary relocation for work economically viable.

So what we now see is that FIFO workers flying in from Perth, or Brisbane, or Sydney—areas otherwise ineligible for the offset—are able to spend over 183 non-consecutive days in these regional areas of Australia, return to their home in Sydney or Brisbane or Perth, and still claim the offset. This is clearly not the intent of the original policy and it is unfair on those Australian families who are genuinely contending with the isolation, uncongenial climate and higher costs of living in these remote areas.

It is estimated that up to 180,000 people currently claim the Zone Tax Offset based on where they work rather than where they live.

Schedule 2 to this Bill amends the law so that only those residents genuinely living in the designated geographic zones are eligible to claim the offset, and is expected to raise $325 million over the forward estimates. This change is consistent with the original policy intent of the offset, ensuring that it is fair, well targeted and sustainable.

Schedule 3 to this Bill introduces a separate single grossed‑up cap of $5,000 for salary sacrificed meal entertainment and entertainment facility leasing expenses for employees of certain not‑for‑profit organisations. All use of these salary sacrificed entertainment benefits will become reportable.

The charitable and not‑for‑profit sector in Australia is vitally important to the strength of our community. Each year the federal government provides billions of dollars in support to the sector in the form of various tax concessions.

These include income tax exemptions, deductible gift recipient status, applying a higher threshold for GST registration and fringe benefits tax concessions.

Employees at a public benevolent institution or a health promotion charity are ordinarily entitled to Fringe Benefit Tax exempt benefits up to $30,000 a year and employees in public hospitals, not‑for‑profit hospitals and public ambulance services up to $17,000 a year.

In addition to their $17,000 or $30,000 cap, an employee will also be entitled to spend an unlimited amount on entertainment benefits without being subject to Fringe Benefit Tax. These uncapped benefits can include meals, alcohol, cruises, holidays overseas and birthday parties.

The use of these concessions has moved beyond its original intention. However, as the government recognises the ongoing importance of these concessions in the not-for-profit sector, this Bill imposes a cap of $5,000 grossed up on these benefits rather than removing them altogether. A cap improves fairness and is further evidence of the Government's commitment to the integrity and sustainability of the Australian tax system. This change is expected to raise $295 million over the forward estimates.

Since 2007, the Australian Taxation Office has offered individual taxpayers a pre-filling service to help them to complete their tax return. It uses the information received from third parties to provide this service.

The Australian Taxation Office now receives sufficient information to completely pre-fill a simple tax return. It now provides information to taxpayers on wages and salaries, interest and dividend income, government benefits from Centrelink, and Medicare and private health insurance details.

To further improve compliance and make it easier to complete tax returns, Schedule 4 to this Bill amends Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to increase the information reported by third parties to the Commissioner of Taxation.

Schedule 4 creates a new reporting regime requiring third parties to report on the following four types of transactions: government grants and payments, transfers of real property, transfers of shares and units in unit trusts and business transactions made through payment systems.

First, government grants and payments often constitute income in the hands of businesses. Examples of these payments are those provided to contractors or consultants for a range of services. These payments may give rise to taxable consequences for the supplier of services.

Commonwealth and state and territory government entities will be required to report information on grants and payments for services to businesses that occur on or after 1 July 2017.

Local government entities will also be required to report information on payments for services to businesses that occur on or after 1 July 2017.

Second, transfers of real property may give rise to different kinds of tax consequences. A common consequence is an income tax liability, based on a net capital gain. Another is a goods and services tax liability.

Each state and territory will be required to report information on transfers of freehold or leasehold interests in real property that occur on or after 1 July 2016.

Third, transfers of shares or units in a unit trust may give rise to income tax consequences based on a net capital gain. Corporate events, such as a return of capital to shareholders, may also have income tax consequences.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be required to report on transaction data that it has received under the market integrity rules. ASIC will report on transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2016.

To enable the Commissioner to identify the parties in each transaction that ASIC reports, market participants such as stockbrokers will provide client identity information to the Commissioner.

Such reports will be provided for transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2017.

Trustees of trusts other than unit trusts are required to report on transactions that have a tax consequence for absolutely entitled beneficiaries. This will allow the Commissioner to attribute any capital gains tax consequences to absolutely entitled beneficiaries. Such reports will be required for transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2017.

The Commissioner will exempt trustees from reporting under this regime where they lodge a tax return for the trust for the relevant income year.

Finally, amounts that a customer pays a business typically give rise to income tax consequences for the business.

Administrators of payment systems will be required to report the total of all electronic transactions paid to a business or provided as a refund or cash to a customer of the business. Examples of electronic transactions are those payments using credit or debit cards. However, the reporting will be limited to transactions the administrator of the payment system reasonably believes are for the purposes of a business.

These reports apply to transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2017.

This measure will improve taxpayer compliance by increasing the information reported to the ATO to allow improvements to pre-filling of tax returns. This is expected to raise $123 million over the forward estimates. In addition to increasing integrity in the tax system, this measure will also simplify the tax return process for taxpayers.

The Government recognises that this regime will impose some costs on reporters and fully expects the Commissioner of Taxation to streamline processes and avoid duplication. Compliance costs for reporters can be minimised by aligning information reporting requirements with the natural systems of businesses (such as setting up new client records or paying suppliers) and using current and emerging technologies.

This Bill is aimed at better targeting and strengthening our tax system to ensure it is fair and sustainable.

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

Debate adjourned.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:22): On behalf of the chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator McKenzie, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:22): I thank senators for their contribution to this debate. The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015 is to amend the Migration Act 1958, to introduce a new criminal and civil penalty regime that will make it unlawful for a person to ask for, receive, offer or provide payment or other benefits in return for a range of sponsorship related events. The bill also allows visa cancellation to be considered where the visa holder has engaged in such conduct, referred to as 'payment for visas' conduct.

This bill reflects the key integrity recommendation of the independent review into integrity in the subclass 457 program: that it be made unlawful for a sponsor to be paid by visa applicants for a migration outcome and that this be reinforced by a robust penalty and conviction framework. This bill will apply to a range of temporary sponsored work visas and skilled permanent employer sponsored visas, where payment for visas conduct is known to occur, including the 457 visa and the 186 and 187 permanent employer sponsored visas.

The practice of giving or receiving a benefit in return for a visa sponsorship can have serious detrimental effects. These include making vulnerable non-citizens liable to exploitation; reducing employment opportunities in Australia and putting downward pressure on wages and conditions for citizens and permanent residents; allowing persons who receive a payment in return for sponsorship to inappropriately make significant financial gains; and adversely affecting the integrity of Australia’s migration program.

Payment for visas conduct is not currently unlawful. It is, however, unacceptable to the government and the Australian people because it undermines the genuine purposes for which visas are intended to be granted. This bill will strengthen the integrity of Australia's migration program by deterring payment for visas conduct and allowing action to be taken where such conduct has occurred. The regime of offences, civil penalties and discretionary visa cancellation provided for in the bill will allow the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to take action against unscrupulous people across a broad spectrum of payment for visas conduct.

The proposed amendments protect Australian workers, because they ensure that overseas workers who are employed in Australia and who may eventually gain permanent residence do so on the basis of genuine skills and need rather than because they have paid their employer. The proposed amendments protect overseas workers from exploitation by sponsors who threaten to withdraw their support in the visa or employment process if payment is not forthcoming. Employment opportunities in Australia should be earned not sold, and the employment of foreign workers should not act to undercut Australia's wages and conditions.

I note that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee have recommended passing the bill without amendments. They have also recommended the government undertake a broad information campaign to ensure that migration agents, sponsors and visa applicants understand the requirements of the bill. The government accepts and will implement this recommendation. I would like to thank the committee for their work. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (17:27): I would like to indicate to the committee that it is my intention to seek leave to move six separate blocks of amendments relating to the nature of visas, increased penalties, business numbers, whistleblower protections, reporting obligations, coercion and criminal offences and civil penalties in relation to visa holders. So I indicate that these are separate measures and I believe that we can vote on these as blocks. I seek leave, firstly, to move amendments (5) to (8), (10) to (18), (22), (23), (25), (27) to (30), (32) to (37), (39) to (44) and (47) to (55).

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:29): Would it be possible for Senator Carr to give us an update on the amendments he intends to deal with?

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (17:29): Yes, I will repeat that. They are amendments (5) to (8), (10) to (18), (22), (23), (25), (27) to (30), (32) to (37), (39) to (44) and (47) to (55).

Leave granted.

Senator KIM CARR: by leave—I move opposition amendments (5) to (8), (10) to (18), (22), (23), (25), (27) to (30), (32) to (37), (39) to (44) and (47) to (55):

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 11), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(6) Schedule 1, item 1 page 3 (lines 14 and 15), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 20), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 23), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(10) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 29), after the definition of benefit in subsection (4), insert:

   migration outcome ‑related event has the meaning given by section 245AQ.

(11) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 30 and 31), omit the definition of sponsorship‑related event in subsection (4).

(12) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 8), omit "sponsored visas", substitute "work visas".

(13) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (after line 24), after the definition of executive officer in section 245AQ, insert:

   migration outcome ‑related event means any of the following events:

   (a) a person applying for approval as a sponsor under section 140E in relation to a sponsor class;

   (b) a person applying for a variation of a term of an approval as a sponsor under section 140E in relation to a sponsor class;

(c) a person becoming, or not ceasing to be, a party to a work agreement;

   (d) a person agreeing to be, or not withdrawing his or her agreement to be, an approved sponsor in relation to an applicant or proposed applicant for a sponsored visa;

(e) a person making a nomination under section 140GB in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination;

   (f) a person not withdrawing a nomination made under section 140GB in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa;

(g) a person applying under the regulations for approval of the nomination of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination;

   (h) a person not withdrawing the nomination under the regulations of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa;

(i) a person employing or engaging, or not terminating the employment or engagement of, a person to work in an occupation or position in relation to which a work visa has been granted, has been applied for or is to be applied for;

   (j) a person engaging, or not terminating the engagement of, a person to undertake a program, or carry out an activity, in relation to which a sponsored visa has been granted, has been applied for or is to be applied for;

(k) the grant of a work visa;

   (l) a prescribed event.

(14) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (after line 27), after the definition of sponsored visa in section 245AQ, insert:

   work visa means:

   (a) a sponsored visa; or

   (b) any other visa (other than a visa of a prescribed kind, however described) in accordance with which the holder may perform work:

      (i) without restriction; or

      (ii) subject to one or more work‑related conditions.

(15) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 28) to page 5 (line 31), omit the definition of sponsorship‑related event in section 245AQ.

(16) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 33), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(17) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 38), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(18) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 2), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(22) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 23), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(23) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 28), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(25) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 31), omit "sponsorship‑related event", substitute "migration outcome‑related event".

(27) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (lines 12 and 13), omit "sponsorship‑related offence", substitute "migration outcome‑related offence".

(28) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 15), omit "sponsorship‑related offence", substitute "migration outcome‑related offence".

(29) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 18), omit "sponsorship‑related offence", substitute "migration outcome‑related offence".

(30) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 20), omit "sponsorship‑related offence", substitute "migration outcome‑related offence".

(32) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 24), omit "sponsorship‑related offence", substitute "migration outcome‑related offence".

(33) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (lines 32 and 33), omit "sponsorship‑related offence", substitute "migration outcome‑related offence".

(34) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 4 and 5), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(35) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 8), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(36) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 11), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(37) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 13), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(39) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 24), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(40) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 32 and 33), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(41) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 4), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(42) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 8), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(43) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 12), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(44) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 14), omit "sponsorship‑related contravention", substitute "migration outcome‑related contravention".

(47) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (line 22), omit "sponsorship‑related offence", substitute "migration outcome‑related offence".

(48) Schedule 1, item 10, page 14 (line 26), omit "sponsorship‑related provision", substitute "migration outcome‑related provision".

(49) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 27), after item 10, insert:

10A Section 487A

   Insert:

   migration outcome ‑related offence means:

   (a) an offence against Subdivision D of Division 12 of Part 2; or

   (b) an offence against section 6 of the Crimes Act 1914 that relates to an offence against that Subdivision; or

(c) an ancillary offence (within the meaning of the Criminal Code) that is, or relates to, an offence against that Subdivision.

   migration outcome ‑related provision means a civil penalty provision in Subdivision D of Division 12 of Part 2.

(50) Schedule 1, item 11, page 14 (line 31) to page 15 (line 1), omit paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of related provision, substitute:

   (a) a migration outcome‑related offence; or

   (b) a migration outcome‑related provision; or

(51) Schedule 1, item 12, page 15 (lines 4 to 14), to be opposed.

(52) Schedule 1, item 13, page 15 (lines 17 to 19), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute:

   (a) a possible migration outcome‑related offence; or

   (b) a possible contravention of a migration outcome‑related provision; or

(53) Schedule 1, item 15, page 15 (line 25), omit "sponsorship‑related provision", substitute "migration outcome‑related provision".

(54) Schedule 1, item 16, page 15 (lines 29 to 31), omit subparagraphs (i) and (ii), substitute:

      (i) a migration outcome‑related offence has been committed; or

      (ii) a migration outcome‑related provision has been contravened; or

(55) Schedule 1, item 17, page 16 (lines 5 and 6), omit subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii), substitute:

      (i) the migration outcome‑related offence or offences; or

      (ii) the migration outcome‑related provision or provisions; or

As I noted during the second reading debate, in our judgement this bill is defective in that the bill does not apply to all work related visas, including student visas and working holiday visas. It is limited to employer sponsored visas, but the kinds of exploitation that the bill seeks to prevent have arisen with regard to other visas as well. As we have seen with the 7-Eleven examples, these amendments extend protection to all holders of temporary work visas and subject their employers to the same penalty regime. A consequential amendment substitutes the term 'migration outcome related event' for the term used in the bill: 'sponsorship event'. The thrust of these matters is to provide proper protections, not taking away rights but actually enhancing the rights of visa holders when, as we have seen, there have been so many examples of people being ripped off.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:31): We will not be supporting these amendments. Whilst the principles of the mischief that you wish to ameliorate are sound, this is specifically about particular coercion for a particular group. Government would say that it is not appropriate within this legislation to spread the mischief from actually coercive behaviour, in the purchasing or receiving of benefits from either the party of the person who receives the visa or in fact the sponsor who is assisting in providing the visa, to some issues around how much you actually get paid. They are significantly separate issues, and we would say that the matter that you are referring to should be dealt with by Fair Work Australia.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:32): Looking at the amendments as circulated by the opposition, the Greens support them. We need to be clear here that we too are very concerned about the exploitation of people on those more short-term working visas or student visas. They are indeed some of the most vulnerable people working in our community and some of the most vulnerable noncitizens working in our community.

How much more evidence do we need than the scandal from 7-Eleven? I know it was a little bit of a Freudian slip by the Leader of the Opposition in one of his interviews, where he referred to 7-Eleven as Subway, but the issue here is surely that we would be naive to think that this type of exploitation of workers only happens within the 7-Eleven chain and franchises. We know that there are employers out there who are doing the wrong thing, particularly by young workers whether they are here on holiday visas or whether they are here on student visas, and they should not be able to get away with it.

Of course, there are some elements of being able to tackle this through the Fair Work Act and the Greens are doing what we can. The Member for Melbourne, in the other place, has introduced legislation to amend the Fair Work Act to ensure that there is responsibility for exploitation such as this to be taken right to the top of organisations that operate on these types of franchise set-ups. But here we are today looking specifically at issues that relate to the exploitation and wrong use of people on working type visas. Why shouldn't it also ensure that we protect those people who are here on student visas, working holiday visas and other types of short-term working arrangements?

I struggle to understand why the government is not taking this issue up themselves head-on. It is surely not a particularly hard line to draw if you want to crackdown on those who are doing the wrong thing in terms of employer sponsored visas. If the same credentials apply to them and you want to crack down on them then surely you are able to stretch that out and ensure that you get those who are amongst the most vulnerable of our non-nationals and non-citizen workers.

I have also got some questions for the minister. I raised in my speech on the second reading the big concern around these issues: that they do not just deal with the employers who have done the wrong thing but that they also capture the person who has been given the visa, who may have got into this situation unwittingly. I am drawing this question in the context of these amendments from the opposition because a lot of these students are people who have English as a second language and who do not have family supports around them. They are back home overseas. It makes them even more vulnerable. I think we should be going after the employers in this area, not the workers. I would like to know what the government is doing to ensure that we are not going to be tripping up and catching those who are actually the victims in this rather than the masterminds of unscrupulous behaviour.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:36): Thank you for your question. This legislation deals with a class of visas that are sponsored. You need a sponsorship to come to Australia to have a work right. In the circumstances that you are describing there may well be mischief in that area, but their right to be in Australia is actually afforded invariably by a study right so it is not about the sponsorship issue.

Whilst I appreciate the very good remarks you make, the recommendation from the committee was to stick specifically to where coercion is able to be offered, where the coercion leans on your capacity to be in the country and the right to be in the country rather than on the right to work. For a student the right to be here to study is already conferred but they have a right which is very similar to other rights in the country, which is why it is our recommendation that that is dealt with through Fair Work Australia.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:37): I understand the comments not put forward by the minister. The problem is that there is this intersection with these group of workers where they are being exploited because of the conditions on their student fees, for example, or on their working holiday visa. So employers are able to exploit them. It may not be that that is the reason they are sponsored to be here but because they are being forced to do things that are out of line with their visa conditions, that is where the coercion sets in. For a student who is forced to work more than 20 hours a week, otherwise they do not have a job, their employer will sack them, it is that type of exploitation. They cannot work legally more than 20 hours a week because they would be in breach of their student visa but here we have the employer exploiting that vulnerability.

I understand it gets into a grey area but it is a very clear intersection between the already large number of vulnerabilities of these workers linked into this business model from employers, whether they are sponsored work visas, whether they are keeping people here as low-paid exploited workers on other types of visas, these people are doing the wrong thing and the people who are copping it, if they speak out, if they do not comply, are the vulnerable workers caught in the middle.

I understand it does not fit exactly with what the government is trying to do in this legislation, but what we are pointing out here is that there is a big gap where most of the exploitation is happening. If we are not going to do it in this piece of legislation, where are we going to do it because it does need to be tackled? Perhaps the minister could give me some indication as to where the government wants to go. If not with these amendments, where are you going to pick up cleaning up the system because, for all the talk, we have not seen amendments to deal with that issue.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:40): Thank you again for that contribution, Senator. I can only reiterate that for the particular legislation we are dealing with now a fundamental recommendation was that we deal with this particular part of it. That may be because of the complexity of the transaction between those two areas. I am not the minister; I am just acting on behalf of the minister so I cannot give you an answer about how those other matters can be dealt with but I am advised that most of the matters on which you are seeking clarification can be dealt with under the Fair Work Act. I can only reiterate that for the issues we are trying to deal with here, the threat of coercion deals with the right to be here in the country, not with any particular right to work. I acknowledge that in some of the circumstances you describe, an employer can coerce someone to work outside their visa conditions, but the mischief we are trying to ameliorate specifically in this legislation is where the coercion lies with their right to be in the country. I understand the connection you make is that you put your right to stay in the country at risk because you have been coerced to work longer. I accept that that is a mischief which may occur but again I reiterate that the recommendations which come with this legislation are specifically to deal with those matters where an employer or a sponsor is put in a position where they can exploit and coerce other people who wish to have a visa or outcome.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (17:42): Minister perhaps you could outline to the chamber exactly what was the nature of the evidence that John Azarias found in his investigation about the exploitation of 457 visas. That is something the government directly acknowledges in this legislation because it says it is seeking to deal with that matter. Perhaps you could explain to us exactly what he found in terms of his report.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:42): In broad terms there are a number of ways by which coercion can be provided. There are three classes. There is a class where the sponsor or the mischief the sponsor would indicate that they would seek to have some benefit to the sponsor: 'You'—the applicant—'will pay me a certain amount of money and I will provide the sponsorship.' It can be an existing sponsor. In my opening remarks I related to where an existing sponsor had a job or has work rights in this country, the sponsor can say, 'For a number of reasons I am able to breach my sponsorship or close off my sponsorship unless you continue to maintain or start paying funds' or some of the benefit to the employer. It may also be the case, and I suspect it is in a small number of cases, were a potential applicant offers funds to coerce a sponsor into ensuring that they provide the right sort of evidence so that the applicant for that visa class is successful. I hope that is of assistance, Senator. It is a broad range of the mischief that this legislation is trying to ameliorate.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (17:44): I fully acknowledge that the government is doing the right thing in regard to that particular matter. That is not the issue. The opposition is supporting that aspect of the bill. The concern I have is that there have been too many examples now where there have been groups of people on visas other than 457s subject to exactly the same problem.

For instance, take the recent case where the Australian Federal Police have laid charges against three individuals relating to alleged fraud in the vocational educational system. The example that has been brought to our attention is of Australia Post. This is a government agency employing subcontractors—in this case, St Stephen Institute and Symbiosis, two colleges that were registered here. In fact, I think one of them was just recently given a seven-year extension on their registration without any site visit. Yet this college has been employing people to work for Australia Post and treating them very badly, to the point where fraud charges—which we know have a very high threshold for criminal proceedings—have been laid by the Federal Police against those colleges. There is another one, TK Melbourne Education and Training, which, as I understand it, has also been the subject of these actions by the Federal Police.

These examples are not historic. They are very much happening now. They are examples of people with visas other than in the 457 class who have been mistreated by employers. The 7-Eleven example has now become infamous across this country, and of course there are many others. My attention has been drawn to a raid that I understand Border Force officers undertook just last Wednesday at a house in or near Brisbane. According to reports that I have seen, the house contained up to 30 people from Taiwan who were operating what has been described as a 'boiler room'—that is, a high-pressure sales call centre. The boiler room was discovered when residents in the house tried to prevent the real estate agent from entering the facilities. Workers in this call centre probably could not be called employees because, as described, they were effectively slaves.

This is happening here now, and this parliament has an obligation to do something about it. We all know that 'slavery' is a pretty ugly word, and I am sure it shocks many Australians for us to use it. But that is the reality of what is occurring. As I understand it, the Border Force raid saw four persons expected to be deported for violating their 417 visa conditions. There needs to be attention paid to prosecuting employers who misuse these provisions.

I think it is reasonable to assume that these circumstances are just the tip of the iceberg. It demonstrates why it is necessary to broaden the scope of this bill. We can commend the government for taking action on 457 visas, in terms of payment for results. I acknowledge that that is a step forward, but it is nowhere near as good as we could get by simply acknowledging that there is a range of other visas where similar practices are occurring. In particular, I think the actions with regard to the backpacker visas have seen widespread abuse of those workers. The student visa provisions have been widely acknowledged to have been grossly abused by unscrupulous employers. That is why I am suggesting there needs to be action taken, consistent with the provisions that we are proposing, to extend protections to students and working holiday visa holders so that they can be treated properly.

It is no good saying, 'Take it up to Fair Work Australia.' That makes an assumption about the power relationships, and that people have standing and union protection, because it is often the case that unions play a vital role. If you are a student and you are placed in these circumstances, you are put at a complete disadvantage if you want to stay here. I did not come down in the last shower—I know that people do things that they should not do in terms of breaching their visas, but there have to be measures put in place so that people can come forward. That is why I argued in the 7-Eleven case that there needed to be an amnesty to allow us to get to the bottom of what was a systemic rort. The way this company was operating—their business case depended on it—suggested to me fundamental corruption of the system which required quite strong and deliberative action by this parliament.

That is why I am urging the chamber to examine these matters. I would ask you, Minister: when you say that these questions can be taken up before Fair Work Australia, what history do we have of that being a successful course of action for students or backpackers who are placed in this situation? How often does that occur and what are the results? I am sure the department has some statistical evidence. Given the level of abuse that the department knows is going on, what percentage of those people end up before Fair Work Australia and how long does it take to get your case heard?

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:51): I would just reiterate the motivation and the mischief that this legislation seeks to ameliorate. There is currently conduct that is lawful in Australia. All the circumstances that you have described, Senator, are currently unlawful in Australia. The motivation for this legislation is to ensure that those things that are obviously odious to the Australian public but currently lawful in Australia are now made unlawful by this piece of legislation.

You make a few references to circumstances where you wish to make amendments to include them in this legislation. As you would know, Taskforce Cadena, which is a taskforce made up of both Fair Work Australia and the department, is acting to ensure that those circumstances, as they come to bear, are investigated.

You did refer to boiler room activities and they are horrendous circumstances. I do not want to go into any great detail. Those issues are currently under investigation. The authorities are moving to provide a brief of evidence to prosecution, as they should under these matters, because those matters are lawful. But where a matter that is equally odious to us comes to the attention of the Australian government or the authorities, we cannot act on it because it is currently lawful in this country. So this legislation specifically seeks to ensure the right to remain in this country. As a sponsor, people are using coercion, at one level or another, to ensure that they can gain access. After this legislation, that will be unlawful. Where one party has been coercive in their behaviour, that will be unlawful and various authorities will now be able to act.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (17:53): Some submitters expressed concern that the amendments to section 116 of the bill will give the minister an unrestricted power to cancel a visa if a benefit was received by a visa holder in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship related event. Can the minister confirm whether the minister will have an unrestricted power to cancel a visa?

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:53): You are correct, Senator, but it will be a discretionary power. The reason it will be discretionary is that we are talking about circumstances under which the person who is in the country with a visa has acted in a way that coerces an employer—and I would say those circumstances would be extremely rare—where they are party to ensuring that they benefit. There may be circumstances where a clear benefit does not flow to that visa holder. The minister then has the discretion to look at all those circumstances to ensure that there is ample evidence that the person who is the applicant for the visa is a beneficiary of some of those transactions. That will be a discretion held by the minister for those reasons.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (17:54): There were some concerns that, if this bill is passed, the minister may cancel the visa of a person who has been subject to human trafficking, enforced labour or slavery related offences under the Criminal Code or serious exploitation in violation of the Fair Work Act. Can the minister please advise what safeguards are in place to ensure that such cancellations do not occur?

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:55): Under this policy it is the intention that visa cancellation would not be pursued where payments have been extracted under coercion or in circumstances of slavery or human trafficking. That is exactly what that discretion is intended to provide.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (17:55): It was submitted to the Senate inquiry that the threat of cancellation of a visa is likely to have the perverse outcome of assisting those engaged in human trafficking and shocking workplace exploitation by further deterring victims of such crimes from reporting the crimes against them if they have been offered a sponsorship related event. Can the minister please advise what is in this bill to prevent this perverse outcome from occurring?

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:56): It is the intention of this bill to protect not only the process but also those who are legitimately here with work rights from being exploited. So I guess the burden of evidence that would operate around the issues that the minister may take into consideration in his discretion would be the role that was actually played by the applicant. It is very difficult for someone in those circumstances to put their hand up and say they are in those particular circumstances. I acknowledge that. But in the nature of these crimes that is often the case. But once discovered, which is the circumstance we are talking about, if we were able to establish that the sponsor was actually providing the coercion to the worker—if we talk about the circumstances of the workplace, I think I have covered that in my answers to the last couple of questions from my colleague opposite. The clear intention of this legislation is to prevent the mischief of the sponsor coercing the individual who is applying for the visa.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (17:57): Can the minister please advise me who drafted the bill and what consultation occurred?

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:57): I am advised that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel drafted the bill, which is the regular process. A number of Commonwealth agencies were consulted—the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of the Treasury, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Department of Employment. As you would be aware, Senator, there was a parliamentary inquiry into this matter and they made some substantive recommendations. Most Senate inquiries—particularly with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as you would be aware, Senator—involve submissions and general consultations. It is a process the Senate takes for granted.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that opposition committee amendments (5) to (8), (10) to (18), (22), (23), (25), (27) to (30), (32) to (37), (39) to (44), (47) to (50), (52) to (55) on sheet 7807 be agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that schedule 1 item 12 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (18:07): I seek leave to move a second tranche of amendments—to increase penalties for sponsors—amendment nos (20), (21), (24), (31) and (38).

Leave granted.

Senator KIM CARR: I move:

(20) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 12), omit "2 years or 360 penalty units", substitute "4 years or 720 penalty units".

(21) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 16), omit "240 penalty units", substitute "480 penalty units".

(24) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 29), omit "240 penalty units", substitute "480 penalty units".

(31) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 21), omit "360 penalty units", substitute "720 penalty units".

(38) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 20), omit "240 penalty units", substitute "480 penalty units".

The current bill has a criminal offence of a maximum of two years in prison or a fine of $64,800 for individuals, or $324,000 for a corporate body, and civil offences with a maximum fine of $43,200 for individuals and $324,000 for corporate bodies. It is my view that this penalty regime is too lenient to be an effective deterrent.

The evidence is that financial gains from committing offences against visa holders can be as much as $70,000 for an individual visa holder and up to $700,000 for a sponsor dealing with multiple visa holders. It may well be that people feel there is an advantage in terms of profiting from the exploitation of cheap labour under these circumstances. It clearly is not a humane approach for this parliament to take to allow such actions to continue. Clearly the government recognises this; that is why they have proposed changes to the 457 visa arrangements.

However, the penalty regime remains far too low and will undermine the intent of this bill—by a simple measure: an employer that wants to exploit these people in this way will still be able to make very substantial profits out of it. So Labor's amendments provide for penalties set out in the bill to effectively be doubled.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:08): Before I address that particular amendment, I would like to thank all crossbench senators for their thoughtful approach to the bill. In particular, I would like to thank Senators Lazarus, Wang, Lambie, Muir and Madigan for approaching the government with concerns and assisting the government to address those concerns to pass the legislation.

The minister has agreed with the crossbench to review certain aspects of the legislation 18 months after the commencement of the legislation and to make that review public within 24 months. I understand the minister will be writing to the crossbench senators, Senators Lazarus, Wang, Lambie and Muir later this evening, but a form of words has already been agreed to for the minister's undertaking. The government considers this an extremely important bill and thanks the crossbench for supporting this bill through the parliament.

In regard to the penalties, the maximum 360 penalty points and a two-year term of imprisonment for the criminal offence is already greater than the standard ratio of penalty units to imprisonment prescribed in the Attorney-General's Department's Guide to framing Commonwealth offences infringement notices and enforcement powers,which is five penalty units, which is one month imprisonment, which would equate to a maximum of 120 penalty units for a two-year term of imprisonment. The current level of penalties attracted the attention of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills when conducting their recent inquiry into the bill. We acknowledge that, however, the high penalty units are commensurate with the anecdotal evidence as to the upper limit amount paid in payment for visa cases.

As you indicated, Senator Carr, in your contribution, the penalties for this bill are for in fact each criminal offence and each civil penalty contravention. So a person convicted of charging two visa holders for sponsorship would under the criminal offence be liable for up to 720 penalty units, which may be imposed instead of, or in addition to, a maximum term of four years imprisonment.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (18:10): I have nothing further to add on the matter, given that, I understand, there are a number of other events on this evening and senators may well have an interest in those. I disagree with the position the minister has outlined. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee highlighted a problem here. There ought to be effective penalties imposed by this, and I do not think the current regime allows that.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:11): Without going on with this matter too much, I just want to reiterate my last line: 720 penalty units may be imposed instead of, or in addition to, the maximum term of four years in prison.

The CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Minister, I thought you had finished your contribution. I hope I did not cut you off.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:11): No, you didn't.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (20), (21), (24), (31) and (38) on sheet 7807 be agreed to.