Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (12:31): I'm pleased to finally have the opportunity to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. The Labor Party have been calling for years for this type of legislation to protect vulnerable workers, with no joy at all. Finally we have some action on protecting vulnerable workers, but it certainly does not go far enough. Having said that, it is, I guess, better than nothing, and this bill does go some way towards dealing with the exploitation that occurs across our economy in Australia. We support its passage through the Senate because, as I said, we are better off having something than nothing at all, which is what we have had for a number of years. The government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to act to protect vulnerable workers.

At the last election Labor had policies to combat sham contracting; to shut down the practices of companies, phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities; to reform the Fair Work Act to protect vulnerable workers; to criminalise employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to temporary overseas workers; and to make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies. This bill, however, does nothing to address these issues, and that is why I emphasise that this bill does not go far enough to protect vulnerable workers. It also does not protect workers from cuts to penalty rates made by this government. Up to 700,000 Australians will lose up to $77 per week—people who will have to work longer for less, women who will be disproportionately affected by those penalty rate cuts, and regional communities who will have less money spent in their economies. So there is a real need for this bill.

The issues that I've just raised are of major concern to the opposition—to the Labor Party and to me personally. For some time now senators in this place would have been aware that I've been on an inquiry looking at the introduction of a modern slavery act in Australia. A lot of the evidence that has been brought to our attention during the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into modern slavery in Australia has included examples of some of the issues that were covered by Labor's policies at the last election. These included issues to do with coercion and threats by employers, particularly for temporary overseas workers, and issues to do with workers being unable to recover unpaid wages from their employers.

I would like to refer to the submission to the inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act by The Freedom Partnership: End Modern Slavery—that is, the Salvation Army, as well as the Uniting Church of Australia, FECCA and ACRATH. In their very, very detailed submission, they give examples of workers who have not been protected. Indeed, I would like to share with the Senate one example of what modern slavery looks like in Australian supply chains across a range of industries. In fact, this example is about a man called Samuel Kautai. Samuel Kautai was a young man from the Cook Islands, who along with four other men, all around the ages of 17- and 18-years-old—just starting out in their working life—were recruited by an employer's brother in the construction industry and were promised that while they would not get any wages for the first three weeks, after that they would get paid the full amount, and be able to send money back home to their families in the Cook Islands. However, he was never paid more than $50 a month. This is here, in Australia. He was never paid any more than $50 a month. And worse than that, Samuel and some of his co-workers, were physically abused, underfed and endured long working hours without decent breaks. This case was pursued by the CFMEU under industrial mechanisms and by the NSW Police Force under state criminal law. The case was decided both times in favour of the applicant, which, of course, resulted in the employer having to pay back to Samuel Kautai and the other employees what they were duly and rightly owed.

When we talk about protecting vulnerable workers, we are talking about workers across a range of industries from construction to carpentry to welding to the meat industry as well as domestic workers, market garden workers, horticultural—I have so many examples in this submission to our modern slavery inquiry of workers who have simply been ripped off and who have been treated appallingly, all because of their employers obviously doing wrong by them, but also because we don't have legislation that provides those protections that Labor has been asking and urging this government to deliver.

These examples of exploitation make it clear that action is needed. For example, subcontractors' exploitation—who were engaged by Myer employing cleaners on sham contracts under which workers were paid below award wages, denied penalty rates and superannuation, and worked without occupational health and safety protections—needs to end. Of course, we are all very familiar with what occurred with the 7-Eleven stores. They were operating a business model based on methodical, systematic exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers that included the gross underpayment of wages and doctoring of pay records designed to conceal unlawful conduct, and workers subjected to threats of deportation and physical intimidation. This has no place in a civilised society like ours. It has no place in Australia.

Protecting vulnerable workers is laudable, but, unfortunately, this government cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting vulnerable workers. We have concern that this bill gives coercive powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman without external scrutiny and oversight, and that it could be abused to investigate unions and industrial action rather than actually protecting the vulnerable workers that it needs to protect. We believe that this legislation needs to be amended to ensure that these powers can only be used in investigations into the underpayment of wages.

Labor will continue to lead the way in protecting vulnerable workers, be it through legislation or amendments to this bill in this place or be it through our work in support of the introduction of a modern slavery act similar to that in place in the UK, France and the Netherlands. And, of course, Labor will also ask for the Fair Work Ombudsman to have all the powers necessary to pursue employers who exploit workers. The Fair Work Ombudsman must have powers to be able to pursue those employers, whatever the case may be. But the powers, of course, must have proper oversight. That is what we are asking for in relation to this Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill.

As I outlined, this bill does fall significantly short of the suite of policy and legislative reforms that Labor first announced more than 12 months ago, before this Turnbull government even turned its mind to the notion of protecting vulnerable workers, because it's so caught up in its ideological obsession with unions and its lobbying against workers rather than actually standing up for their protection. I'm pleased to have had the chance to speak on this bill. We've been calling for action to protect these workers for a very long time without any joy. But something is better than nothing, and it's pleasing to see what we have before the Senate today. Let's strengthen this bill so that it can really do what it should do: protect vulnerable workers in Australia.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (12:41): The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill—it's not a normal name for a bill that comes out of this government. But the circumstances are worth considering. It got to a point where there was such enormous pressure on the government that they had to do something. But when we look at the detail of the bill we see that something isn't adequate; it doesn't actually solve the problem. And the problem is enormous: extreme exploitation of some of the most vulnerable workers that we have in our society. The fact that the bill has been introduced is significant, but we need to look into the detail, and the Greens will be moving amendments similar to those that my colleague the Greens industrial relations spokesperson, Adam Bandt, moved in the other place.

This bill is before us because of the courage of a few people who really looked into what was going on with the franchisees to understand the conditions that the workers were existing under. It became apparent that they are very tough. For many of them, their lives are on hold because of uncertainty with regard to the wages that they will be paid, and even if they will be paid. A lot of these scandals started with 7-Eleven. We quickly learnt that one person's convenience store is often another person's workplace of extreme exploitation and rip-offs. What we learnt is that 7-Eleven is probably just the tip of the iceberg, because there's Caltex, Domino's and probably many others where the loopholes in the law are now well-known by the legal eagles who are employed. They've worked out how they can become rich very quickly off the back of people who are actually keeping these businesses going.

These scams are extreme. It was found that some people were getting paid and were then being forced to give back part of their wages in so-called cashback scams. It was found that, so the proper payment and proper taxes did not have to be paid, the hours the people were being rostered for did not actually represent the hours they were working. It is a real scam of the books that has been going on for a long time and is now out in the open. We have the opportunity to clean it up, and clean it up properly, but that will only occur if this bill is amended.

What we also need to remember here is that the workforce that we're dealing with is often people with limited English or people who are from overseas and very worried that they may be under threat of being deported, even if they have a secure visa and it's totally legitimate that they live here. There have been many reports of intimidation, threats and insinuations made along the lines of, 'If you speak up, if you try to change things and get your proper pay, you could well be deported.' That's deeply shocking, and it needs to be factored in to how we handle this situation.

In my opening remarks I said that we have this bill before us now largely because of the dedication of a few individuals. One of them is Michael Fraser, who really dug into what was going on here. With the 7-Eleven case, he went from store to store collecting stories, winning the understanding, support and confidence of the people working there so he could document what was really going on—the levels of oppression and exploitation that shouldn't be occurring in workplaces anywhere in Australia. There was also a group of Fairfax journalists who took on this story and reported it in detail—another factor leading to the government being forced to act. We also learned from their studies that it was not just the workers who were getting done over; the people who bought into these franchise operations were, in many instances, also being put in a situation where their income was greatly reduced—it was often quite minimal—because of the way head office operated, and they were under pretty clear directions that a lot of the money had to go back to head office. Again, it's worth looking into the operations here: (1) we need to understand it and (2) it informs us of why this bill is inadequate in its present form.

How do these franchises work? Most of us have had the experience of going into a 7-Eleven. Wherever you go, they all look pretty much the same in terms of the stock that they carry, where the stock is, the signage and all that sort of thing. This is how it operates: the head office dictates how these places are managed, micromanaging to the nth degree. But one aspect of how these small businesses—if we can use that term in this case—operate that isn't consistent is the payment of wages. This is where they seem to have a whole different set of standards. The small business franchisees that run the business carry the legal risk if there is underpayment. It's not the head office; it's not the billionaire who's sitting back, doing pretty well off the back of the hardship of so many of the workers in the industry. We see time and time again that the worker who sits at the bottom is the one who is being ripped off.

This is where we are again reminded of the failure of the bill before us, because it does not offer the protection that the title of the bill suggests. If you believed the title of the bill before us—'protection of vulnerable workers'—you'd think it sounds pretty absolute, but that's not the case. What we need here is shared responsibility, and that is why we need to amend what's before us. The bill does not shift any responsibility back home to the owner—and they're really getting filthy rich off the way this system works. When you read the stories of the people who are making money for the people who own these companies, you see that what's going on is very ugly.

As I said, the bill does not make the head office responsible. Instead, it effectively says, 'You're only responsible if you knew or could reasonably have been expected to have known that the franchisee was underpaying the worker.' That's just passing the buck. It's simply unacceptable; it's been exposed and it has to change. That's why we're going to move to amend the bill—to close that loophole and make sure that the head office is responsible. That's the essence of what we're dealing with here. Really, the government should've had a good look at the Greens' bill that Adam Bandt, the MP for Melbourne, worked on. That really brings all these issues together and makes it very clear that we do need that shared responsibility, that you can't let the head office off the hook here.

So we will be moving an amendment that will make it very clear that, if you're a worker in one of these franchises—7-Eleven, Domino's or wherever—and you are underpaid, you can go straight to the head office and claim your underpayment. At the moment, it doesn't work that way. What happens is that the head office can just get out of it. We read that time and time again in those reports and articles about what was happening. They were just passing the buck back to the small business owners that they have further down their chain of command. This really does need to change here, otherwise what the government is doing is a farce. We need it set up so that if the worker wins a court case they can claim it against the head office. This is the key to achieving the protection that the government is stating is in this bill. Then it is up to the head office. They are then the ones who have to have the battle with the franchisees that they have brought in to run their stores. That is where the battle lies. Meanwhile, the workers who have been exploited and underpaid have been able to pick up their correct pay, because they have been able to go direct to the head office. It is a very simple requirement. The government has done a disservice here.

In many ways, it is classic in terms of what you see from Liberal-National parties when they are in government. They will often try to walk both sides of the road, particularly when a problem has been identified where the business world is doing the wrong thing. They will say, 'We'll bring in a correction; we'll fix this up,' but they have left the loopholes in the bill so that big business can still, effectively, get away with so much of the exploitation. Again, let's remind ourselves: it should not be the worker left in limbo trying to work out how they get their money, who owes them money and who can actually pay them. That is what was revealed in so many of the reports that exposed how so many of the companies were working. Whether it is 7-Eleven, Domino's or Caltex, there is a similar pattern. It is ruthless; it must stop. We have the opportunity right now to stop this level of exploitation.

I can't emphasise enough: it should not be up to the individual worker to try and work out who is the person responsible for the underpayment and who will actually pay them the money. We have to get rid of the tricks—and there are tricks in the legislation before us. Our amendment effectively says that the worker can go directly to the head office and get their money back. Then we're leaving it up to the franchisees and the head offices to fight it out and to work out how they are going to undertake their business model. It really does need to change. It really needs to recognise that people have rights and that they can't use some legal scams to get away with what's currently going on.

So, yes, we do need this legislation, but to be effective it does need to be considerably amended. I look forward to the discussion at the committee stage.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (12:52): I, too, am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. I'm going to make a very boring contribution following the media superstar, Senator Rhiannon, but I'll do my best!

A lot has been said over the last couple of months since this bill was brought on for consideration by this parliament, highlighting a great many examples of abuse of vulnerable workers and business enterprises taking advantage of those who may not be able to stand up for themselves. So I too am willing to commend the government for bringing on this legislation and for putting in place some protections and setting up a regime, or attempting to set up a regime, that will actually do something to provide some protections for workers who, as I say, may not be able to stand up for themselves.

We have seen companies such as 7-Eleven, Muffin Break, Gloria Jean's and Caltex—to name a few household brands—implicated in the allegations made about underpayment of vulnerable workers. Not having as much air time are the widespread ramifications flowing from underpayment of workers. These people have families. They have bills to pay. If they are underpaid, meeting those obligations is very, very difficult. It also has an impact on other businesses that are doing the right thing. Those who are paying the right amount—and, in some cases, more than the award rate—have an increased cost to doing business compared to those who are flouting the law and taking advantage of vulnerable workers. That's why this legislation is so incredibly important. It is why I am going to commend it to the Senate.

The Fair Work Ombudsman in its submission to the Senate inquiry on this legislation gave a great many accounts of the breaches that it had investigated and that were reported to it and the impacts that this has had on individual companies and individual human beings who were caught up in these cases. We heard stories of migrant workers being paid as little as $14.12 or $10 an hour, well below the federal minimum wage, which is something none of us should stand by and condone. That's exactly what we're getting at here—trying to crack down on this sort of behaviour. There were also stories of young people being forced to accept non-cash payments of pizza and soft drink rather than being paid the money that they were entitled to be paid. It's just unconscionable that any business proprietor or senior manager in any business entity would seek to take away from someone what they are entitled to be given in return for the work that they are contributing. So, when you hear of people doing this sort of thing, providing in-kind payment, as they would probably refer to it, in the form of sugary drinks and fast food, rather than the money they need to pay for whatever it is they need to pay for—the power bill, rent and food—it's just not good enough.

The Fair Work Ombudsman's submission to the inquiry looked at what action has been taken by business operators to evade compliance efforts. There were some startling things—for example, phoenixing, where companies liquidate and then set up a new business to avoid any liabilities that have accrued against that business in not paying what employees are due; the failure to keep records or falsifying the records that do exist, making it difficult to verify the hours that have been worked and what workers have been paid for the hours they are supposed to have worked; engaging in the cashback schemes, which I will touch on later; and targeting vulnerable workers who are less aware of their rights and less likely to report problems for a whole range of reasons, such as language barriers, a lack of familiarity around the mechanisms that are available to vulnerable workers and the protections that might be available. There are all sorts of problems. Then, of course, as we've heard before, workers have been threatened with their visa or their job—'If you don't take what I'm giving you, I'm going to send you home and seek that your visa be cancelled, or I'll terminate your employment and you won't have any money.'

I want to quote from a couple of parts of the Fair Work Ombudsman's submission because I think it's important to look at some of the things that it said. This entity works at the coalface. This is the entity that receives the complaints. This is the entity that deals with the allegations and gets to the bottom of what's going on and tries to do the right thing by the people who are purportedly being ripped off. The Fair Work Ombudsman's submission says on page 7, paragraph 17:

In some of these cases, the existing framework has not been sufficient to deter ongoing and systemic conduct across sectors, industries and regions, and usually with respect to these workers. Some unscrupulous employers view non-compliance as a business model and do not fear being caught out for their behaviours, or consider penalties associated with their breaches of the law an acceptable cost of doing business. These employers often do not keep proper records or payslips and are unwilling to engage with the FWO in an investigation.

That gives you an insight into what the Fair Work Ombudsman is dealing with in trying to get to the bottom of these things. The fact that the Fair Work Ombudsman acknowledges in its submission that there are business operators who see this as a way of doing business—a worthwhile risk; something that they are willing to sort of take a chance on in the event that they get caught out and may have to pay a fine—is just unbelievable. How these people can sleep at night, thinking, 'It is worth it in the end,' all the while inflicting some sort of misery on individuals who have been underpaid is certainly not something that is at all Australian. Again, that's why I'm so pleased that we are considering this legislation today.

Moving to paragraph 23, the submission goes on to say:

The package of measures outlined in the Bill together would make a significant difference to FWO's capacity to address this conduct where it occurs. In particular, providing higher penalties that reflect the gravity of serious contraventions of the law and ensuring there are real deterrents against not keeping records or falsifying records for the purpose of disguising underpayments. Ensuring Fair Work inspectors are taken seriously and cannot simply be ignored will make a significant difference when tackling the worst sort of conduct.

The FWO refers to, in the broad, the amendments proposed in this piece of legislation, saying that these will help them do their job—to deal with those dodgy operators who falsify, destroy, don't keep records and who think they can get away with ignoring the FWO when they come knocking, saying: 'Hey, we have examples or complaints against your business suggesting that you're engaging in this sort of conduct. We want you to provide evidence that this is not the case.' I think the fact that they're going to be able to clamp down on that is an excellent thing and something I look forward to seeing the results of as we move forward.

Moving to the conclusion of the Fair Work Ombudsman's submission to the inquiry, paragraph 113, they conclude by saying:

As the FWO has noted, the regulatory framework is fit for purpose in most circumstances but is not sufficient to deal with the most egregious behaviour in matters involving the exploitation of vulnerable workers. The proposed amendments would enhance the FWO’s ability to deal with serious and concerning conduct within the jurisdiction of the FW Act and contribute to efforts across government and within communities to address the drivers of workplace exploitation.

As I say, this is from the people who are at the coalface of dealing with this issue, of dealing with the complaints from vulnerable workers, their family, their friends and other employee-representative organisations who become aware of this stuff. To hear them make those comments about what this bill will do—the people who have to go out and apply it—is encouraging.

Fundamentally, when we do see this abuse of power—be it the employer, a senior manager or someone from any other representative organisation exploiting vulnerable workers—it is incumbent upon us to take action. This legislation does exactly that. Under the amendments contained in the bill, as has been stated in previous contributions, the franchisor will, in certain circumstances, become liable where a franchisee or one of the franchisor's subsidiaries violates specific sections of the act, such as the National Employment Standards, any modern awards, methods and frequency of payments, or record-keeping obligations. Most of those are very straightforward and, I think, speak for themselves.

Much has been made in the debate about the transfer or liability to the franchisor, so it's important to set out exactly what the amendments will establish and in what circumstances they'd be applied. The amendments introduced the notion of serious contraventions to apply deliberate and systematic breaches. They strengthen the liability and responsibility of franchisors for the business conduct in the franchises under their direction. It's important, though, to point out that the breaches targeted through these amendments differ greatly from the genuine mistakes—and they occur. I'm aware of one in Hobart, which attracted a great deal of media attention which was a genuine mistake. It was a business that had engaged the services of a third party to do its bookkeeping, a reputable firm. Clearly, this reputable firm and the individual they sent along to do this business's books didn't know what they were doing. As a result, the staff were underpaid a significant amount and this business was dealt with under the law. As with many of these cases, a significant amount of public attention was given to this business, somewhat unfairly. All the same, it will be nice to see these genuine mistakes, if they can be properly demonstrated, taken out of the basket that some of these more dodgy operators should be kept in and dealt with. In doing that, there is the three-stage test, to determine whether or not this is a genuine mistake, that must be satisfied before the franchisor can be held responsible. That test is as follows:

… the franchisor:

had significant control or influence over the franchisee,

knew or should have known about the underpayments, or

failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the violations.

Those three steps do establish a bit of a mental intent test, for want of a better expression, to ensure that the entity against whom the complaint is being made was seeking to actually do what has been done and that is the subject of the complaint.

The bill also seeks to define a 'serious contravention' as one that is intentional and is part of a systematic pattern relating to one or more individuals. Again it points to it being something that's planned or deliberate and is happening to a number of employees, rather than just one out of 30 or 10. Further, the bill notes elements that the court may give regard to when assessing whether a systematic pattern exists. So there are going to be strict tests under the law that the courts will adhere to when assessing these things.

A 'responsible franchisor' is one who has a significant degree of influence or control over the franchisee entity's affairs. The bill aims to ensure that franchisees and franchisors are held responsible for a series of contraventions, including underpayments and sham contracting, which we've heard a lot about in the debate over the last day or two. The bill also extends accessorial liability to franchisors where they knew or should have known that contraventions were occurring in one of their franchises. This liability means that an individual or company involved in the breach would also be potentially responsible in situations where they were not directly participating in the breach itself. So the amendments will apply to both franchisors and master franchisors if they exercise a significant level of influence or control over the franchisee's activities. The amendments do provide exemptions for franchisors in circumstances where they can demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to prevent contraventions and there were no reasonable steps they could have taken to prevent such a contravention from taking place.

Other provisions include increasing penalties tenfold for serious contraventions of specific parts of the act and for failure to maintain proper records. Individuals who engage in serious contraventions face a maximum penalty of 600 penalty units, which is $108,000, and companies could face a penalty of $540,000. That is, as stated, a tenfold increase on the current penalties and represents the government's resolve to deter these sorts of practices. I think it's important to note that, in the submissions to the inquiry, a number of entities said that the penalties didn't go far enough and others said that they went too far. To my mind, when you see those sorts of comments being made, it often means that you've got the balance right. Certain entities with certain interests believe that we're going a bit hard and others would like to see us go harder.

Further amendments outlaw the cashback and other coercive behaviour by employers where employees may be paid correctly but then forced by their employer to repay part of their wages. I heard Senator Williams explaining yesterday this disgraceful conduct. In some cases it has been suggested that the employer marches the employee down to the ATM and asks them to hand back a portion of what they've been paid. To see employers trying to make it look like they're doing the right thing on paper—'We've paid them X amount this week'—and then forcing their employee to give back a certain amount, because they were threatening them with having their visa removed or terminating their employment, is just disgraceful.

The EM for the bill specifically references the inquiry into the 7-Eleven scandal, which we've all heard and read so much about, and their involvement in cashback practices. It's important to note through this scrutiny and in debating this legislation that it was just some franchisees who did this and that others did pay their employees the lawful rate. Again, in the same case that had received so much public attention, the franchisee then deliberately falsified records to disguise underpayments. This practice, which clearly demonstrates that these businesses were seeking to deliberately rip off employees and hide it from the public and from the regulator, is exactly what we should be looking for and catching out. The amendments hold franchisors and companies responsible for underpayments where they should have known about them but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. The bill also builds on steps already taken by the government to protect vulnerable workers and broadens the circumstances in which franchisors can be held responsible for employment law breaches by their franchisees.

I will now touch on some of the contributions made by some of my colleagues yesterday in the debate. It's always good to listen to Senator Helen Polley and the contributions she makes in these debates. And I'm disappointed that I haven't yet heard Senator Bilyk's contributions, but I look forward to listening to that afterwards. Senator Polley referenced earlier on, consistent with some submitters to the inquiry, that the bill didn't go far enough. I make the point that there were some submitters who said it went too far, again pointing to the fact that the balance in this bill is right. And, when you take that into account with the amendments that have been proposed in the majority report on the inquiry into this bill, I think that the bill is exactly what we should be passing.

I have been amused at the reference to cuts to penalty rates and how that somehow gets intertwined into the substance of this bill. I accept it's an issue that there has been a great deal of public debate on. I don't think that I need to point out, for those who have listened to the debates on that issue, the rewriting of history from the opposition with regard to that. But it's very convenient. And, when they can conflate that into this attack on workers, then—

Senator Bilyk: You were doing so well up until then!

Senator DUNIAM: All points to the opposition for trying, but, when it isn't material to the substance of this bill, I do have to question why it does get raised. But I do understand that there is a pitch out there in the community to try to paint Australia as the most unequal society in the world and that it's all because of this government. I guess that all fits into the arguments, the dog whistles and the catch cries of the opposition in trying to defeat this sort of legislation.

In conclusion, in the words of the Fair Work Commission, 'No one single measure will fix this oversight,' but the package of measures in this bill will go some way to combatting some of the most serious worker exploitation in this country. In commending the bill to the Senate, I want to also pay tribute to the work of my colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie, as the chair of the legislation committee that inquired into this bill, and the proposals that her committee report made. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:12): I'm pleased that I was given some time today to talk on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. It's good that, having seen levels of abuse of workers' rights that not even this government could ignore, we are finally presented with the bill. Over the last couple of years, just some of the high-profile cases of exploitation of workers we've heard about include 7-Eleven shop assistants, Myer cleaners and Pizza Hut delivery drivers. But what we need to remember is that not all cases have been high profile. There has been consistent evidence of the exploitation of workers taking place over quite some time.

It is utterly despicable that in 2017 we're still hearing of exploitation of workers on such a large scale. Labor senators welcome the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, which will reduce the exploitation of some vulnerable workers in Australia. However, Labor senators consider that in some aspects the bill as currently drafted falls well short of addressing the range of ways workers are exploited. It falls significantly short on the suite of legislative measures required to properly address the breadth of worker exploitation.

For those who said that the bill has gone too far, I would suggest that they possibly don't like accountability, because the bill does nothing in relation to sham contracting, phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities or reforms to the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers, and it does nothing to make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages. As such, Labor senators believe that a number of amendments are required in order to provide a more comprehensive solution to the very deliberate and systematic exploitation of workers in Australian workplaces. It could be a better bill, and if the Senate accepts our amendments, it will be, but I do acknowledge that it is a start.

I shouldn't have to say it, especially here in the Australian Senate, but throughout the country employees shouldn't be ripped off by their employer, ever—full stop. Employees should be fairly paid in line with their agreements and the law. Employers shouldn't deliberately rob their workers to boost their own profits. We should be a better nation than that. However, we've seen in the last couple of years gross, systemic and wilful exploitation of workers, in particular, by some very large national franchises. This is completely unacceptable. It's unacceptable to the employees and to the employers who are placed at a competitive disadvantage by doing the right thing and paying award wages or over award wages, and who aren't exploiting their workers. It's unacceptable to the union movement and it's unacceptable to our sense as a nation of the fair go.

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 amends the Fair Work Act to increase penalties for serious contraventions defined as conduct which is:

(a) deliberate; and

(b) part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more other persons—

of prescribed workplace laws. Also:

Increasing penalties for record-keeping failures.

Making franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. The new responsibilities will only apply where franchisors and holding companies have a significant degree of influence or control over their business networks.

And the franchisor or holding company may raise a defence of taking reasonable steps to prevent a contravention, and:

Expressly prohibiting employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments (e.g. demanding a proportion of their wages be paid back in cash)—

giving the Fair Work Ombudsman and employees at SES level the power to compulsorily question persons as part of an investigation in to the breaches of the Fair Work Act where failure to answer questions gives rise to a civil liability.

As I said, those measures are a start, but they don't go far enough. But there's a policy that does properly protect workers' rights. Labor's rights at work policy released at the start of 2016 committed a Labor government to put in place a suite of reforms to protect rights at work by cracking down on unscrupulous employers who are willing to exploit employees.

Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 is a far more comprehensive suite of measures to protect vulnerable workers. As an example, our bill contains amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009, which make it clear that the Fair Work Act applies to all employees, irrespective of their immigration status; require the Fair Work Ombudsman to publish information for employees about the relationship between workplace and immigration laws and the right of overseas workers to seek redress for contraventions of workplace laws; provide additional protection from adverse action taken against an employee who questions whether a workplace right exists or whether they're an employee and not an independent contractor; introduce a reasonable person test in determining whether an employer has engaged in sham contracting; give the court the power to make orders requiring directors of phoenix companies to pay unpaid wages and other employee entitlements when a company of which they're a director is phoenixed; increase threefold the maximum penalty for employers, other than small businesses, who deliberately and systematically deny workers the wages they are due; give the courts the power to disqualify directors involved in companies that are found to have deliberately engaged in serious contraventions of workplace relations laws; and introduce new criminal offences for conduct that involves the use of coercion or threat within the meaning of slavery or slavery conditions of the Criminal Code where employers commit serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers.

Labor's bill is significantly better than the one presented today. I would like to take a moment to talk about the importance of ensuring that franchisors ensure franchisees are in compliance with the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Ombudsman in the report into 7-Eleven found:

It is our opinion that 7-Eleven had a reasonable basis on which to inquire and to act. To the extent that 7-Eleven contends that issues were limited to the few rather than the many, the Fair Work Ombudsman provided evidence of widespread compliance risks across the network in October 2014 at the commencement of the inquiry and again in May 2015 when presented with the preliminary findings of the 20 stores audited in September 2014.

So, in other words, 7-Eleven knew of the behaviour that had been going on across its franchisees for many years, yet they did nothing to protect the workers. This is utterly shameful. In addition, the Fair Work Ombudsman's 7-Eleven report said:

While 7-Eleven is not legally responsible for entitlements payable to employees of franchisees, it has a moral and ethical responsibility for what has occurred within its network and is capable of preventing it occurring again.

On this same issue, Labor senators, in their additional comments to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report into this bill, noted:

… the concerns raised by submitters such as WEstjustice that the bill as currently drafted does not make it clear that responsible franchisor entities and holding companies will be liable for the breaches of the franchisee entity or subsidiary.

Labor senators also consider that the bill does not go far enough in its amendments to expand accessorial liability. As the Franchise Council of Australia argued:

No evidence provided makes the case for singling out franchising when Fair Work compliance concerns are an economy-wide issue.

Labor senators contend that this evidence supports the need for liability to be extended so that franchisors cannot avoid responsibility by merely rearranging their affairs. Employers shouldn't be able to wash their hands by shifting employees to labour hire firms. This is one of the reasons that the bill, as originally drafted, doesn't go far enough.

However, just protecting workers from exploitation is not enough. We also have to work to protect their take-home pay. Of course, we all know that penalty rates are of vital importance to low-paid workers, and on this the government has failed those workers again. I often wonder if those on the other side of the chamber have ever had to rely on penalty rates—not just getting them from working a part-time job while living with mum and dad and all the comforts of home but actually relying on them. We're not just talking about students and young people; we're talking about 700,000 people: mothers and fathers, carers, primary bread winners for families. If those opposite really understood, they would side with our lowest paid workers and make their lives a little easier. But those opposite are not the ones negatively impacted by penalty rate cuts.

Labor does not accept the failed, flawed, sterile view of this country that says you reward those at the very top and hope that something trickles down to everyone else. It's clear to see that this government's priorities are utterly wrong. The last thing Australia needs is a cut to household budgets, which are already stretched to the last dollar. When corporate profits are at record highs and wages growth is at a record low, it is not the time to give multinationals a tax cut and workers a pay cut. Australians facing a cut to their penalty rates just want someone to fight for them. Well, guess what? That's exactly what Labor is doing.

Those opposite say we should just accept the decision of the umpire. We respect the Fair Work Commission—absolutely we do—but they've made the wrong decision in cutting Sunday penalty rates, and we will not stand idly by while Australia's lowest paid workers pay the price. A new Labor government will reverse this penalty rate cut and protect vulnerable workers from exploitation. I call upon the government and the crossbench to work with Labor, pass our amendments and leave this place with a significantly better bill. Our lowest paid and most vulnerable workers need legal protection from unscrupulous operators who are getting away with exploitation and theft. We should be making laws that protect the most vulnerable, not allowing these injustices to continue.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:24): I rise to oppose a bill with a dishonest name. It's the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. It doesn't promote fair work and it doesn't protect vulnerable workers. Like other industrial relations legislation, it destroys jobs and the lives of people who could fill those jobs. The bill raises penalties for paying a consenting adult $18 an hour, because the ban on low-skilled work, euphemistically called the minimum wage, is set at $18.29. This kills jobs, particularly for those unemployed Australians who are young, mature—or mature-ish, like me—disabled, have poor English or are fresh out of jail. Supporters of the minimum wage, to my left and right, are crushing the hopes of the most disadvantaged Australians. It is immoral.

The bill before us today also hits franchisors with $100,000 fines when someone else, a franchisee, does not comply with the fair work law, even though the franchisor does not know about, help or encourage the noncompliance. This is unjust. It's like a wrathful God incensed by the sins of the father and visiting them upon the son. It will also stop the franchise business model in its tracks. Australia will be forced back into the 1970s where, instead of a franchise restaurant or cafe, we ate at a local greasy spoon and, instead of ducking into an IGA to pick up some groceries, we would be lucky if we picked up a wilted lettuce at a dusty corner store. Businesses will become more and more reluctant to offer budding entrepreneurs a franchise, which is an easy way for them to start their own business. Instead, thousands of budding entrepreneurs will have to continue to work for the man, rather than become their own boss.

I will be moving amendments to soften the edges of this bill's attack on the franchise model. The Franchise Council of Australia, and many others, advised the Senate committee reviewing this bill that only those franchisors who influence their franchisees' employment arrangements should be held responsible for a franchisee's noncompliance with employment law. The Senate committee recommended consideration of an amendment along these lines. I will move such an amendment, to be co-sponsored by Senator Bernardi. My amendment will add a condition to the definition of 'responsible franchisor entity' so that not only does the franchisor need to have a significant degree of influence or control over the franchisee's affairs but also the influence or control must relate to the franchisee's compliance with workplace laws. It won't be sufficient if a franchisor only has influence over the size of the pickle in a franchisee's Big Mac.

My amendment will also make a corresponding change to the related civil remedy provisions. Currently, these provisions establish a contravention if the responsible franchisor entity knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that its franchisee would fail to comply with workplace laws. They also establish a contravention if a body corporate knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that its subsidiary would fail to comply with workplace laws. With my amendment, the contraventions would arise only if the franchisor or body corporate would know these things, or ought to know these things, in the ordinary course of business. So, if a franchisor hears from a loudmouth taxi driver that his barber said that he heard from his next door neighbour that the franchisee is paying below the minimum wage, the franchisor won't have broken the law simply because of these Chinese whispers.

This is a bill of the Liberal-National government and it is furiously supported by Labor and the Greens. These major parties pretend that fairness can be achieved by making a declaration in legislation rather than through voluntary deals struck between established businesses, budding entrepreneurs and workers. The Liberal Democrats stand against this madness. Just like the emperor has no clothes, the fair work system actually isn't fair.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:29): The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 is a lame attempt by this government to deal with a real crisis that we're facing in this country, and that is the crisis of wage theft that is rampant across our economy and rampant across a wide variety of industries and is, as a result, seeing the gross exploitation of far too many working people in this country. The bill is a very belated effort by this government to deal with the unbelievable exploitation of workers that we witnessed occurring at the 7-Eleven chain of stores a number of years ago. It's been years since this exploitation was revealed by media outlets, and, for years, the Labor Party, trade unions and many others in our community have been calling this government for action. Now, finally, we see the government coming forward with legislation, which, to some extent, deals with these issues but doesn't go anywhere near far enough.

I'm very proud of the fact that the workers who were exploited by 7-Eleven were represented by my former law firm, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. I pay tribute to the efforts of Giri Sivaraman and his team at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, who took on these cases on a pro bono basis and, as a result of the legal action taken on behalf of these workers, have managed to extract, literally, millions of dollars in underpayments to workers, many of whom came to Australia on temporary visas. That work has gone some way to rectify the massive losses that these exploited workers suffered.

In the interest of time, I will give a couple of quick examples of the kinds of conditions that people working at 7-Eleven were experiencing. The first claimant commenced working at 7-Eleven on a bridging visa B. They worked at three different 7-Eleven stores between 2011 and 2014. In total, this claimant was underpaid over $180,000, including interest. At one store, the claimant was required to work many weeks unpaid, which the franchisee characterised as training. At each store, he was paid below the award rate. He was paid somewhere between $10 and $12 per hour, well below the award rate. He was not paid overtime, was not paid penalty rates, was not paid for all the hours worked and wasn't provided with rest or meal breaks. For some time, the claimant worked 60 or 70 hours a week between all three stores. At one point in time, he worked 110 hours in a week. The claimant received deliberately falsified pay slips that halved the hours he actually worked. He was robbed twice in one day by a man with a serrated knife, and he was forced by the franchisee to work the next day. So he was robbed by an armed robber twice in one day and then his franchisee at 7-Eleven turned around and robbed him again by underpaying him.

The second claimant that I'll mention worked at two different 7-Eleven stores between 2005 and 2006. This claimant was underpaid by nearly $100,000, including interest. At one store, he was required to complete 32 hours of unpaid alleged training. Money was deducted from his pay if customers drove off without paying for fuel. Can you imagine the cruelty of an employer who would actually do that to someone! Not only would the employer underpay them and not pay them for alleged training but, if their customers drove off without paying for fuel, they would also take that out of the worker's pay packet. At each store, this person was paid below the award rate, not paid over time, not paid penalty rates, not paid for all hours worked and not provided with rest or meal breaks. At one store he worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week for over six months. That's not to mention the fact that this particular claimant's wife was extremely ill with stage 4 cancer.

These are the kinds of stories that emerged as a result of media coverage of the disgraceful behaviour of 7-Eleven and the complete lack of responsibility taken by their senior management, the franchisors, in the behaviour of their franchisees. The thing I remember most from talking to my former colleagues at Maurice Blackburn who were working on the case was that, no matter how bad you thought the behaviour of 7-Eleven was—and it was absolutely abominable behaviour—in many instances, for those people they were acting for who were working at 7-Eleven, that was their second, better paid job, because they were working elsewhere getting even more exploited than they were at 7-Eleven. That gives you some idea of the scale of wage theft and exploitation that is happening in this country. But it's not just 7-Eleven where this is happening. We've seen many other exposes through the great work of people like Adele Ferguson and her team at Fairfax Media, exposing the behaviour of Caltex, BP, Pizza Hut and Domino's.

Some of the worst instances we've seen have been in the meat-processing industry, particularly a company called Baiada and the way that they have been treating their workers in North Queensland. This is not an issue that is restricted to one particular company or one particular business model being franchised; this is something happening right across our economy and right across every kind of employment relationship that we see. I have seen it myself, both on the Gold Coast and in Central Queensland, those being the two major parts of Queensland that I represent, and it's really got to stop.

The fact that this is happening beyond one business tells you that this is actually a business model that is being adopted by a large number of companies right around this country, and the only way they are staying in business and the only way they are delivering profits to their owners is by ripping off highly vulnerable workers. As I said, this bill is the government's alleged attempt to respond to this problem.

Now, I do welcome the changes that the government is making in this bill, but they go nowhere near enough to deal with the scale and breadth of problems that we are seeing happen in our economy through exploitation of vulnerable workers. This bill doesn't address the problems that we are seeing around sham contracting, where many workers, who any objective test of whether they are an employee or not would say that they are an employee and therefore entitled to the rights that come with employment—leave, superannuation and all sorts of other rights that come with being an employee—but instead these people are being treated as contractors and denied rights. The bill does nothing about that.

This bill does nothing about phoenixing, which we're seeing not only in the construction industry but in security, in cleaning and in a whole range of industries. This is where people are employed by one firm and underpaid—or not paid at all in some cases. Then the business is shut down overnight and the assets moved to another company, which starts operating the next day under a different guise, and the people who have worked there and have gone unpaid end up losing out.

This bill does nothing about the problems that we're seeing around exploitation of people through labour hire. Obviously, that is something I have spoken about on a number of occasions in the chamber, particularly in relation to the problems that we have seen in Central Queensland in the mining industry. People are being sacked from permanent employment and the very same day mining companies are bringing people on through labour-hire arrangements, paying them less pay and giving them worse conditions. This bill does nothing about that. It does nothing to stop the incredible growth in casualisation that we're seeing right throughout the economy as well, where people are finding it harder and harder to find permanent work. And of course this bill does nothing whatsoever to reverse the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut people's penalty rates, which will have a dreadful effect not only on working people's budgets but on the economy overall.

Labor is going to step up to the challenge and is going to put forward some amendments in this debate that do try to deal with some of these other problems that we're seeing in the economy. We're going to put forward amendments which prohibit unreasonable demands for money by employers to prospective employees. This bill does go some way to stopping employers from demanding money be paid to them by current employees, with the threat hanging over them that if they don't pay that money they could be deported, lose their visa or lose their job. But this does nothing to stop employers from making the same kinds of threats and demanding money from prospective employees. Recently, we saw instances where a Domino's franchisee demanded around $150,000, I think it was, from someone in order to get a job. If they didn't pay that money, they weren't going to get the job and they were being threatened with immigration reprisals. One of the amendments that Labor is also going to put forward for this bill is to extend the liability of franchisors to labour-hire and supply chains.

This bill does do some good things in making franchisors liable, in some instances, for the actions of their franchisees. If their franchisees are underpaying their workers then, in some instances, franchisors will be held responsible. But we know very well—and every week new cases surface, whether they be in Central Queensland, the Gold Coast or other parts of Australia—that host companies are engaging dodgy labour-hire firms to bring people in on below-award illegal rates of pay and are getting away with it, because the workers who are brought in by these labour-hire firms are too scared to complain because they are in fear of losing their jobs. Currently, there is nothing in Australian law that stops a labour-hire company from doing that unless those laws are enforced. And currently there is no obligation whatsoever on a host employer to make sure that a labour-hire firm that they engage is doing the right thing and paying people the appropriate wages and conditions.

Big employers should not be allowed to get away with using labour-hire firms to underpay their workers. If a big firm—whether it be a mining company, a retail chain or whoever—engages a labour hire firm which then goes on to pay someone below the legal rates and conditions, then the host employer, the person who has engaged the labour hire firm, should be held responsible. The bill does nothing about that. It is time we took steps to correct firms who are doing the wrong thing. I'm very pleased that Labor will be moving amendments to that effect, and I look forward to joining the debate when we get to those amendments.

Senator KETTER (Queensland) (13:40): I rise to make a contribution in respect of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. As previous Labor senators in this debate have indicated, whilst we are glad that the government has taken some tentative steps to address the issue, in the face of the egregious examples of abuse by certain franchise companies these steps are woefully inadequate. We have seen very many examples of this, and I will talk a bit about that as well.

This bill has been a long time coming. It does do a few things worthy of note. Among other things, it introduces a new civil remedy offence of 'unreasonably requiring an employee to spend or pay an amount of their money in relation to the performance of work'. The Senate committee inquiry in relation to the bill revealed stakeholder concerns that this new offence will not cover unreasonable demands made by employers to prospective employees as a condition of employment. This is of serious concern. This is a serious deficiency in the bill.

Additionally, as highlighted in the submission by Morris Blackburn—a firm that has a lot of experience representing workers, often on a pro bono basis—these proposed changes to the liabilities of franchisors do not go far enough. If we're talking about improving accountability and making sure workers are paid what they are owed, then these changes need to be stronger. The liability imposed by the proposed section 558B attaches only to a franchisor who is a responsible franchisor entity. The bill defines this as a franchisor that has 'a significant degree of influence or control over the franchisee entity's affairs'. In short, I believe this change will merely encourage franchisors to operate at arm's length from franchisees to ensure that liability does not apply under section 558B. This change would have the effect of merely allowing franchisors to distance themselves from the alleged underpayment but would do nothing to stop the underpayment from occurring.

Secondly, there are additional protections for franchisors if they take what's referred to as 'reasonable steps to prevent a contravention'. The prevention test describes it as 'the franchisor need only take pre-emptive action in advance of a contravention and will not be in breach of the provision if they fail to address the contravention once it has occurred or is occurring'. This is an obvious flaw as, after becoming aware of the contravention, a franchisor can in essence do nothing and escape liability if it otherwise meets the prevention test in section 558B. It's concerning that meeting this prevention test could be as simple as a franchisor advising a franchisee of their obligation through a simple 'tick and flick' checklist.

Given these weaknesses in the bill, it is my view that more scrutiny is warranted. And this is where we look at the egregious examples of abuse that came out in the 7-Eleven underpayment scandal. This profit-splitting arrangement, in which a franchisor took 57 per cent of profits made by franchisees and imposed a significant number of business expenses on the franchisees, actually incentivised franchisees' noncompliance with the act as a way of recovering profits they had surrendered to the franchisor.

I was listening to Senator Williams's contribution in relation to this matter yesterday. Senator Williams advocated a review of the franchising arrangements. My personal view is that that is something which could be accommodated. There are some questions to be asked in relation to the franchising model and protecting franchisees and, in turn, protecting the rights of workers employed by the franchisees. The courts are needed here to examine if the business model of the franchisor has substantially contributed to franchisees breaking workplace law. Sadly, even when we have worker exploitation occurring on an industrial scale, this government has remained absent. We only need to look at 7-Eleven's dastardly attempts to minimise what's owed to employees, who have clearly been overworked and underpaid, yet this government has done nothing but produce weak legislation that will only have a slight impact in stopping this situation from occurring again.

Victims of this scandal are still being short-changed. Prakash Kumar, who was underpaid hundreds of thousands of dollars at a number of 7-Elevens, was offered a payout under the new scheme that is $100,000 less than the amount he originally claimed for. Another former 7-Eleven worker Raj Desia was made an offer by the panel of $60,986 which was $16,000 less than the amount he was owed. As recently as 25 July, a 7-Eleven owner in Brisbane was personally fined $28,000 and his company fined $140,000 by the Federal Circuit Court after he was found to have underpaid eight staff and falsified records to cover their tracks. This is an absolutely disgraceful situation. Australians expect that our industrial relations system is going to protect vulnerable workers. When we have people coming into the country who are particularly vulnerable on visas, who are studying and who rely on their jobs in order to remain in the country, they particularly need to be protected. In the face of these egregious examples, we have a government which is not taking reasonable steps to address the issues. If the government was to get serious about assessing whether the franchisor has taken reasonable steps to ensure that exploitation doesn't occur, the bill should also require consideration of the vulnerability of workers to exploitation, such as young workers or workers on visas.

Submissions to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 identified the behaviour allegedly engaged in by a Domino's franchise where sponsorship for a working visa and a job was offered on the condition of payment of $150,000, as an example. While it would appear that particular pre-employment requirement for an up-front payment linked to the provision of a visa may be prohibited by other legislation, other unreasonable pre-employment requirements are not. Stakeholders from business and unions made submissions to the Senate committee inquiry, raising concerns about the lack of oversight in the bill for the proposed new Fair Work Ombudsman compulsory questioning powers. Whilst Labor supports giving the FWO the powers necessary to prevent, uncover and prosecute the exploitation and underpayment of vulnerable workers, we are also concerned that these powers are exercised appropriately. We really need to address this particular issue. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't go far enough, and there are a number of amendments that Labor has in mind here. These will certainly improve the effectiveness of the bill.

I have been participating in the Education and Employment References Committee's inquiry into corporate avoidance of the Fair Work Act. I have heard numerous witnesses indicating to me that wage theft is now on the rise and is at historic levels in this country. It is quite clear to me that the Fair Work legislation is not working fairly for ordinary workers, particularly not for vulnerable workers. We need to have a thorough look at this issue. Unfortunately, the legislation we have before us at the moment is not going anywhere near addressing some of these issues. Senator Watt has touched on some of these issues. Other issues that should be looked at that require urgent attention are things like stopping sham contracting. I fully support any attempt to address that but, unfortunately, this bill doesn't go anywhere near that. Another issue is providing proper licensing for labour hire companies. Even the Franchise Council has indicated that the issues that came out, for example, in the 7-Eleven scandal, apply across the whole of the workforce, and the labour hire industry is also needing a bit of a shake-up. I note that the Queensland government has taken steps to introduce licensing arrangements here for labour hire companies, and we did start to look at this in relation to the backpacker tax at a federal level. There is also shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities; properly reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers; criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers; and making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies.

Having said that, I won't use all the time available to me, in the interests of trying to get on with the job of getting this bill done in a proper way. But, as I say, a number of these exploitation issues go across the economy. We support this bill with amendments. Quite frankly, the bill is better than nothing, and on that basis I commend it to the chamber.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (13:50): I'm pleased to talk about the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 today to highlight a group of vulnerable workers in Australia who are paid less than the minimum wage and aren't covered by the Fair Work Act. They don't have federal occupational health and safety protections or workers compensation and they can't take annual leave, sick leave or carers leave. They don't get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. More than 33,000 workers, because that's what they are, come under the Community Development Program. Of the 33,000, 31,000, or 94 per cent, are Indigenous, mainly living in regional and remote Australia. Because of where they live, and because they are mainly Aboriginal, these workers are out of sight and out of mind for the majority of Australians. This policy forces the overwhelmingly Indigenous population of remote communities into labour with none of the benefits of employment enjoyed by every other Australian worker.

The union movement is deeply committed to ending this discriminatory CDP policy. Kara Keys from the ACTU described it by saying:

This is a program which discriminates on the basis of race, and has no place in a modern society.

The ACTU looks forward to a future in which all Australian workers are treated equally, Indigenous people are not treated as second-class workers and are given the same opportunities and rights at work that any Australian worker rightfully expects.

The First Nations Workers Alliance has been launched to give a voice to this group of workers, a group who often don't have a voice, let alone a national presence. I will say a bit about CDP. Participants undertake activities, including hygiene classes, T-shirt dyeing and art making. Some participants have described this aspect of CDP as taking part in adult child care. There is very little of community development in the approach. Participants can also spend up to six months in a workplace, which the government describes as a long-term work experience opportunity. Basically, though, it's a pool of free labour for employers to access in remote areas, and those employers have none of the responsibilities that we would normally expect to their employees. The First Nations Workers Alliance is campaigning for wage justice, an issue that is at the heart of the labour movement. I congratulate the ACTU and the union movement across the board for their support of the First Nations Workers Alliance.

On the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, Labor stands with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to recommit to delivering a greater say on issues that affect their lives. It is a day that we celebrated only recently. We've made it clear we support enshrining an Indigenous voice in our Constitution, because for too long First Australians have been excluded from the nation's birth certificate. Labor is committed to advancing the recommendations from the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Referendum Council's report. Labor has clearly outlined a bipartisan parliamentary process to make this recognition a reality. We are committed to deliver practical, community-driven measures to help close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in every part of our national life, from education and employment to justice, housing and health. That's why we worked to set up the current Senate committee that is looking into the CDP.

I take this opportunity to thank all those organisations and individuals who've made submissions and will give evidence in the coming weeks to this inquiry. I'd like to share some of what people have already submitted. Mr Dereck Harris is chair of the Ngaanyatjarra Council, which delivers services to remote communities in WA just across the NT border. He makes it clear what happened when CDP replaced the old community development employment program: 'We feel the government stole our self-respect when CDP was taken away, and we will sink lower if we're forced to go on the healthy welfare card.'

People worked for CDEP because they got paid money, but under CDP they come in because they don't want their pay to get stopped. It is a punitive system that is clearly discriminatory, does nothing to foster job development and employment, exploits workers and fails to develop and empower remote communities socially or economically. This legislation is better than nothing, but being better than nothing does not make it as good as it could have been. It offers limited protections to vulnerable workers but, I suspect, nothing at all to our most vulnerable workers: those on CDP living in remote areas.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:56): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise through the Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party on behalf of the people of Queensland to support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, protecting unpaid workers and other vulnerable workers. My focus is on two aspects. I will start with the problems this bill addresses, and there are four main problems.

First, we have seen reports of the deliberate and widespread underpayment of workers. These have been too common in Australia. Allegations of underpayment have been raised in relation to major corporations 7-Eleven, Muffin Break, Gloria Jean's, Subway, Caltex, Domino's and Pizza Hut and their franchises. Second, this conduct by certain businesses is enabled by inadequate penalties and ineffective laws which fail to deter law-breaking and make worker exploitation difficult for the regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman, to prove. The ALP was responsible for creating the Fair Work Act. Third, underpayment of workers is unfair for workers but also for competing small businesses who do the right thing and face higher costs because they are complying with the law. Fourth, when someone abuses their power, whether it be union bosses intimidating small businesses or dodgy employers exploiting vulnerable workers, the government must and should take action.

So the solutions in this bill as we see them are targeting serious contraventions and making franchisors and holding companies accountable. The bill as we understand it will, firstly, amend the Fair Work Act to increase penalties by 10 times for serious contraventions of payment related protections in the Fair Work Act. This will apply when contraventions are systemic and deliberate. The bill will raise penalties for record-keeping requirements to make them consistent with penalties for underpayment of workers.

Secondly, it will outlaw cashback and other coercive behaviour by employers where employees may be paid correctly but then forced by their employer to repay part of their wages.

Thirdly, it will hold franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments where they should have known about them but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. We have also checked to make sure that, with regard to the varying franchisee/franchisor relationships, people who are not responsible won't be made accountable. This will hold accountable only those who are indeed responsible for payments.

Fourthly, it will strengthen investigation of underpayments by giving the Fair Work Ombudsman effective evidence-gathering powers and outlawing the provision of false and misleading information and the hindering and obstruction of inspectors who carry out investigations into compliance with the Fair Work Act.

It's quite clear, from the experience that many Australians have had and from the media reports, that these are urgently needed and necessary plugs in holes in Labor's Fair Work Act. While these are welcome, sadly, it only looks at one side of what makes workers vulnerable: underpayment. And I want to speak on behalf of vulnerable workers, because, including workers—

Debate interrupted.

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (15:39): At the request of Senator Xenophon, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2017:

(a) the recommendations of the 1987 Australian Law Reform Commission report on contempt, and in particular, the recommendation that the common law principles of contempt be abolished and replaced by statutory provisions;

(b) the recommendations of the 2003 New South Wales Law Reform Commission on contempt by publication and the need to achieve clarity and precision in the operation of the law on sub-judice contempt;

(c) the development and operation of statutory provisions in Australia and overseas that codify common law principles of contempt;

(d) the importance of balancing principles, including freedom of speech and expression, the right of fair trial by an impartial tribunal, public scrutiny of the operations of the court system and the protection of the authority, reputation and due process of the courts; and

(e) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:40): At the request of Senators O'Sullivan, Macdonald, Williams and McKenzie, I move:

That the Senate rejects the recommendation of the Environment and Communications References Committee in its final report Retirement of coal fired power stations, tabled in March 2017, which calls for the development of a mechanism to retire coal fired power stations in Australia

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government does not support the forced closure of coal. The government is currently considering the Retirement of coal fired power stations report and will respond in due course.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: The opposition won't be supporting this motion. This motion misrepresents the recommendation of the Environment and Communications References Committee. It is effectively calling for the Senate to endorse chaotic closure of old coal power stations like those experienced at Northern Power Station in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria. More closures are inevitable. By 2035, 70 per cent of Australia's coal plant fleet will have passed its design life. This is something Alan Finkel recognised in his report when he wrote:

A key challenge facing the NEM in the future will be managing the retirement of the existing coal-fired generators as they reach their end of life.

It also forms the rationale for the three-year closure notice period recommended by the Finkel review and endorsed by this government. The approach advocated by this motion guarantees community and work pain is maximised as are negative impacts on energy affordability and security. Labor stands by its call for closures to be managed in line with the government's Finkel review. With this motion, those opposite endorse more chaotic closures, larger job losses, higher prices and less secure energy supply. (Time expired)

Question negatived.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:42): At the request of Senator O'Neill, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on whistleblower protections be extended to 14 September 2017.

Question agreed to.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:45): I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

   (i) the President's report to the Senate on government responses outstanding to parliamentary committee reports as at 30 June 2017 listed the report of the Economics References Committee on the Future of Australia's Automotive Industry as having not been responded to by the Government within the three month timeframe, and

   (ii) the Government still has not provided a formal response to the Committee's report, even though it has been 20 months since the report was tabled; and

(b) there be laid on the table, by the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, by no later than 3.30 pm on 4 September 2017 the Government's response to the report of the Economics References Committee on the Future of Australia's Automotive Industry tabled on 1 December 2015.

Question agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:46): I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that there are now questions surrounding the citizenship of at least two current senators and one member of the House of Representatives.

(2) That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2017:

(a) the eligibility of Senators in the 45th Parliament under Section 44 of the Constitution in so far as it relates to being 'a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power';

(b) the legal liability of Senators who know, or have grounds to suspect, that they are ineligible for office but do not come forward with that information, and whether they are defrauding the Commonwealth; and

(c) any other related matters.

(3) For the purposes of carrying out the inquiry, the Committee must as soon as practicable, with the approval of the President, appoint an independent auditor, or auditors, with expertise in migration, citizenship and constitutional law to assist the Committee.

(4) The independent auditor or auditors will be able to request to the Committee to use its powers to order the production of documents from Senators and order them to appear as witnesses and answer questions.

(5) On behalf of the Committee, the independent auditor or auditors may present to representatives of foreign governments in Australia and seek information.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:46): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government opposes the motion. The calling into question of a senator's eligibility to sit in this place is a very serious step, and that step should only be taken in cases where there is a clear case to answer. The motion seeks to turn this long-accepted principle on its head, effectively calling into question every senator's position until he or she is able to provide conclusive proof of his or her citizenship status. That would constitute a wrong-headed reversal of the onus of proof, especially given the undoubted public interest in certainty for the composition of the parliament. Further, another referral would only add to the existing workloads of Senate committees, and the committee secretariats in particular.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:47): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The Senate dealt with, and negated, a very similar motion to this last week. I remind the Senate that when a similar proposal was considered in 1999, Senator Bob Brown, on behalf of the Australian Greens, said:

One of the problems is the reversal of the onus of proof. … I am concerned that it could be followed up by a wide variety of motions which require members of parliament to attest to their propriety without there having been any evidence that they had acted with impropriety.

Labor has taken a consistent approach on similar matters for several years. It reflects the past position of those opposite and the Australian Greens. Labor does not support reversing the onus of proof and requiring all senators to prove their eligibility where no question has arisen. However, where the public record reveals serious credible doubts, the only appropriate resolution is through a referral to the one body that can make an authoritative determination—that is, the High Court of Australia.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:48): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DI NATALE: Look, the reason the Greens have put forward this motion for a comprehensive audit of all MPs is precisely because we can't rely on individual members of parliament coming forward and raising the questions themselves about their eligibility to stand in parliament. If the most recent episode with the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, highlights anything, it highlights that we cannot rely on individuals to fess up. Indeed, it took pressure from some committed journalists within the media, and I do have to pay specific tribute to both Adam Gartrell and Amy Remeikis from the Fairfax papers, who pursued this. It was only after the Deputy Prime Minister was to be outed publicly that he made this acknowledgement. We need to have a comprehensive audit and we need to give some certainty to an issue that is creating great uncertainty in this parliament.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale in relation to a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be agreed to.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:10): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:11): On behalf of Senator Bushby, I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security titled Review of administration and expenditure: no. 15 (2015-2016)—Australian intelligence agencies. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:11): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present Report 6/2017: referrals made March 2017. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (17:11): I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the Provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition, togetherwith the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator GALLACHER: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:12): I would like to talk on the report, if that is okay.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Siewert, if you address your comments to the chair, I will say yes.

Senator SIEWERT: I beg your pardon, Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator Siewert, please proceed. You have the floor.

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. I should start by saying that I commend this report to the chamber. This is a very important issue. I would also like to congratulate and say thank you to everyone that gave evidence to this inquiry. This inquiry looks into how people with psychosocial disabilities access the NDIS, but it also talks about how people that aren't eligible for the NDIS will be able to continue to receive community mental health services and mental health services in general.

The committee report makes a number of recommendations—in fact, we make 24 recommendations. I really encourage the government, and the NDIA in particular, to look at these. There are some very serious issues raised here. I will point out that this is a consensus report from the committee, and that is very important, because we highlight issues around, for example, the problems with the way the NDIS legislation is operating, particularly for people with psychosocial disabilities. The focus and the parameters around the NDIS are around permanent disability. And that is very important. When we are talking about mental ill-health and psychosocial disabilities, we talk about a recovery model, yet that is not properly dealt with in the NDIS. There was an agreement when the NDIS was established that mental health and psychosocial disabilities would be included. Unfortunately, the recovery model doesn't quite fit in with the permanency model, so there are some recommendations to look at that in the act.

The act talks about psychiatric conditions rather than psychosocial disability, so there are also recommendations around the definition. We talk about the way the rules are operating around psychosocial disabilities and make a recommendation to consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the rules, looking at:

Including the principle of recovery oriented practice for psychosocial disability, and

Clarifying that Rule 5.4 which dictates that a condition is, or is likely to be permanent, does not apply to psychosocial disability, to reflect that people with mental conditions will receive ongoing treatments to aid recovery.

These are really, really important points. The other issue here is that people with psychosocial disabilities are required to have a diagnosis to receive a package for the NDIS. The problem with that is that everybody else isn't: for them it's about functionality of somebody with a disability. So we're taking two different approaches, and that needs to be addressed.

The Commonwealth is rolling Partners in Recovery; PHaMs—Personal Helpers and Mentors; Support for Day to Day Living in the Community; and some respite services into the NDIS. We need more funding into the NDIS, but what is happening is that not everybody who is receiving treatment through Partners in Recovery or through PHaMs is eligible for the NDIS. What happens to them? We have a commitment of continuity of support, but if those programs are being rolled into the NDIS, what is going to happen to those people into the future if they're not eligible for the NDIS? The NDIA has come back and said, 'Oh, well, most of the people who are applying who are on PiR are actually getting into the NDIS.' But what we know from the providers, in fact, is that it is only certain people who are coming forward to apply for the NDIS. So when they say most people who are in Partners in Recovery and are applying are in, they're conveniently forgetting there's a cohort of people who simply are not applying yet for the NDIS. What will happen to them?

Also of concern, some providers are telling us, is that providers are being told that if people are applying for PiR or PHaMs, for example, providers can only assess people to include in their programs people who are eligible under the NDIS criteria. In other words, they're already factoring out people who are mentally unwell and who may need some supports. That means those people are not getting supports, because they've already been screened out against the NDIS criteria. When these programs close we will be looking at the cohorts of people and their continuity of support. Will they be going into the NDIS, or into some other programs that the government hasn't outlined yet? What happens to the people who aren't on the books yet, people who haven't yet applied for a program or some support for mental ill health? All those issues need to be addressed. We don’t have any idea about what programs are being rolled into the NDIS from the states and territories. A lot of the states are saying, 'We're putting all our mental health funding into the NDIS.' There will be people who won't be accessing the NDIS, so they need support.

The issues around the planning process have been discussed a lot. People who have a psychosocial disability have been phoned—we were told that one was in the supermarket and told: 'We've got to do your planning process. We're going to do it now.' It's ridiculous. Those issues need addressing. Issues around continuity of support urgently need addressing also.

The other thing we deal with is what we call the old T2 or ILC—information, linkages and capacity building. We urgently need to make sure there is enough funding in there—I for one don't think that there is. We make recommendations about the need to look at how ILC is going to address issues of the emerging service gaps.

We also talk about the need to understand the numbers and the cohorts of people. I will finish because I know there is a lot to talk about in this session today. We need to make sure that we have an idea of the numbers of people that we are dealing with—not only in assessment of the programs that are closing and where the service gaps are but also the numbers of people who are accessing a service who will be accessing the NDIS.

There are a lot of things that we urgently need to do to address psychosocial disability. I urge everyone to look at this report and implement the recommendations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (17:20): I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australian veterans, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator GALLACHER: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard and make some additional comments.

Leave granted.

The report tabling statement read as follows—

I rise as Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to speak to the committee's report into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel.

Before I begin, I wish to acknowledge the service of those current and former members of the Australian Defence Force who have taken their own lives and the sorrow of their families and loved ones. In particular, the committee members and I were saddened to learn about veterans who took their own lives during the inquiry.

A unique aspect of this inquiry has been the opportunity to examine the framework of military compensation arrangements and their administration through the issue of suicide by veterans. This focus has highlighted the burden of legislative complexity and administrative hurdles faced by veterans who are often seeking support at a vulnerable period.

Some affected veterans characterised their post-service experiences as being the most difficult and challenging period of their lives. Accordingly, the committee has chosen to title its report The Constant Battle which reflects the problematic nature of the issue of suicide by veterans and the on-going challenges in providing them with support.

The broad scope of the terms of reference and their interrelated nature has been difficult. An extremely wide range of relevant matters were raised with the committee, particularly in relation to the reasons why Australian veterans are taking their own lives. The committee has been forced to focus its consideration on a limited number of key issues.

In the near term, the committee has acknowledged and supported the work of Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) in undertaking the reform of its processes through its 'Veteran Centric Reform' program and Lighthouse projects. These initiatives are showing results, particularly in reducing the time taken to process claims and the committee has recommended they be funded

The BVA will supplement and support the current system of volunteer advocates. Where necessary, the BVA will be allocated a budget to commission legal aid to assist veterans make appeals. The BVA will also take over responsibility for grants to ESOs regarding advocacy, training and accreditation of volunteer advocates and insurance issues.

Finally, the burden of legislative complexity and impact of administrative hurdles on veterans were the primary issues of the inquiry. It has been a number of years since there was a large scale review of the system as a whole. There was broad support for a wide-ranging review of the legislative framework and administrative delivery of support for veterans with an emphasis on simplification and improving client experience. While steps are being taken by DVA to streamline some aspects of their processes, the committee considers that simplifying the legislative framework and administrative process should be the key objective of future reform.

Given the complexity of the current arrangements, any systemic review will be extremely challenging. It will require a public research organisation with established research and analysis capabilities. It should also be able to conduct its review largely independent of Defence and DVA. The committee considers that the Productivity Commission is the best placed to undertake this large-scale review. In particular, this review should examine use of the Statements of Principle which are used in determining compensation claims. The review should be completed within 18 months and be tabled in the Parliament.

During the committee's inquiry there have been major developments in relation to several issues including suicide prevention programs, the legislative framework in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio and the administration of claims by DVA. This was underlined by the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon Dan Tehan MP.

The committee's report acknowledges the substantial support being committed by the government to veterans and undertaken by DVA to improve services for veterans. It is encouraging that DVA's reform agenda appears to be moving in the same direction as the recommendations suggested by many submitters. Nevertheless, it is clear that, the pace of reform has been slow and needs to be increased.

Using new research about veterans, including findings which will arise from the Transition and Wellbeing Research Program, will be important in guiding support. In this context, the committee has recommended a two-track transition process be established with intensive support for veterans who are identified as likely to need it. Further, the committee has recommended all transitioning ADF members should be provided with a DVA White Card to facilitate access to non-liability health care, serve as veteran identification and to serve as a platform for data collection.

Many of the veterans the committee spoke to felt that alternative therapies had significantly improve their conditions. While the evidence base for these alternative therapies is still developing, the committee has recommended the Veterans and Community Grants program be expanded to support the provision of alternative therapies to veterans with mental health conditions.

There also is value in developing an evidence base for alternative therapies to assist veterans in Australia. The committee has recommended funding for a trial program that would provide assistance animals for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) stemming from their military service in order to gather research.

The committee's understanding was assisted by the recent research undertaken by the AIHW into the incidence of suicide by ADF members and veterans. There was strong support expressed for an on-going national register to track this problem and to develop a better understanding of it. The committee has recommended a National Veteran Suicide Register be established and maintained by the AIHW.

A key contention during the inquiry was that the DVA claims process are a major stressor on veterans and could even act as a contributing factor to suicide. To gain a better understanding of this issue, the committee has recommended an independent study be commissioned into the mental health impacts of the claims processes on veterans with the results to feed into future administrative reform.

Senator GALLACHER: I wanted to make some brief additional comments in respect of this extremely important bipartisan report. The first thing I wanted to put on the record is the contribution of the deputy chair, Senator Back. Senator Back, as always in all of his work in this Senate, was extremely involved, competent, diligent and proactive with respect to what has been quite a long-running and, in some cases, distressing inquiry. So the first thing is that the contribution of Senator Back was, as always, above and beyond exemplary. Also, I would like to highlight the bipartisan nature with which this inquiry was able to conduct itself.

There were 420-odd submissions. I might say at this point that we're resourced in this parliament with quite extraordinary public servants. There is no doubt that, in the brief time that I have been in this parliament, I have had the excellent service and resource of quite extraordinary public servants. In this particular inquiry, our lead officer, Mr Owen Griffiths, has been absolutely extraordinary. I personally couldn't read all of the submissions that came in to our inquiry and still cope, because they are extremely distressing. Some of the private and confidential submissions—you can't read them without it affecting you. Mr Griffiths has had to go through all of those submissions. He's had to maintain the complete professionalism and discipline that is so evident in the Senate's exemplary staff and produce an outstanding, high-quality, bipartisan report. I think that simply needs to go on the record.

We won't please everybody with this report, but we have at least kept the parliamentary participants all on the one page, so to speak. The department has had some useful pointers on how to improve its performance, but I also think it is really important to put on the record that it is one of the oldest public sector departments and has a myriad of legislation which binds its activities. That hasn't made it easy. It hasn't made it easy for those public servants in that place. But we've gone through it all very diligently and methodically, I think, and pointed out some very useful areas where we can perhaps make some inroads into what is the constant battle. That is the title of this report, and suicide by veterans is by its very nature a constant battle. We won't solve it, but we believe that we've got a bipartisan approach and some pointers in the right direction. I will conclude at that point.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (17:24): In my role as Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee I would also like to attach my comments to the chair of this particular inquiry, Senator Gallacher, and his tabled comments and to reiterate his support for the very strong bipartisan approach that both the former chair, Senator Back, and he took to this complex and quite intricate issue of suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel. This inquiry received an overwhelming response and really goes to why this issue requires such a bipartisan approach from both sides of parliament and, indeed, from the crossbench with their strong advocacy for our veterans in that area.

Eight Australians take their lives every day, and suicide is the greatest cause of death for men and women aged between 14 and 44. Sadly, the challenges posed by the transition to postservice life and the inability to cope with these challenges on their own—often there is shame and embarrassment even to ask for assistance from loved ones—has meant that veterans and ex-service personnel have traditionally been overrepresented in these suicide statistics. Just over a year ago, anyone with a mental health condition who served a single day in the Australian Defence Force had to prove that it was linked to their service before they were eligible to access support from the department. In response, the government has already introduced free and immediate treatment for any mental health condition suffered by ex-service personnel.

The government is aware of this issue. We've been working tirelessly to address it, as Senator Gallacher has stated. This is very old legislation. There is a lot to unpack. This report will go a long way to assisting both our government and future governments with addressing this concern. But we stand united in this place and as a Senate committee in our desire to assist our ex-servicemen and our veterans to ensure that they have optimum mental health and that we reduce the statistics as a matter of urgency.

I'd like to thank the secretariat and former Senator Back, who led this charge on behalf of the government in that committee. Thank you.

Senator HINCH (Victoria) (17:26): I rise to pass on some bleak, sad and tragic news about the reality of life in Australia for a lot of our veterans these days. On average, a veteran is lost to suicide every four days in this country. 57 of them have taken their lives so far this year. Mark Johnston, my friend who heads up the Australian National Veteran Arts Museum, is here in the gallery today. I acknowledge him. He knew many of them. He also knows many others who are at risk right now.

Thankfully—and thank you, Senator Lambie—there are now some great organisations out there supporting our veterans. Museums and cultural institutions do play an important role in creating a sense of identity, a sense of worth, some purpose and some hope for these men and women in our communities and also individually. Remember: Weary Dunlop once said, 'Give the men in hospital access to the arts and crafts so they may have an interest in life.' In the 1930s, they built at 310 St Kilda Road a repat hospital for World War I veterans—and then it was used for World War II veterans—where Weary Dunlop took care of patients. That's the building where we hope and plan for ANVAM to be. It's been owned by the Department of Defence and has been empty for 20 years, and it will be the new home of ANVAM. It will validate the service and promote creativity. We're working with the War Memorial to provide a social gathering place. It will include all those who are suffering emotional turmoil. And it's in the arts centre footprint, as they call it, near the shrine, almost opposite the wonderful bronze statue of Weary Dunlop with one touch of red, which is the red poppy in Weary Dunlop's lapel.

Tonight I want to thank the Victorian government and especially the Treasurer, Tim Pallas, for working closely with us to give this museum a home in our beautiful St Kilda Road opposite the shrine. I also want to thank the federal government and the Victorian state government for their commitment to this project, because their commitment to the project has touched many people in the veterans community. They can't wait to have that museum space to call their own. I walked through it recently—admittedly with a safety mask because there was asbestos and God knows what in there—and it is going to be a magic place for the veterans in Australia.

Just one more point I want to make quickly is that on Anzac Day this year we had a display of veterans' art in an art gallery in Collins Street. I looked at some of the beautiful artworks there and I said to the guys, 'What are you going to do with your artwork while we try to get this museum open?' And they said, 'We'll probably stack them away in packing boxes.' I said, 'Give me a couple of them—they'll be on display in my office.' And two, by veterans Michael Williams and Sean Burton, are on display in the foyer of my office here. I invite all senators—all my colleagues—to come and have a look at them.

Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (17:30): I would like to pay tribute to the remarks made by Senator Gallacher, Senator McKenzie and Senator Hinch in relation to this report, The constant battle: suicide by veterans. Often people only see the conflict that goes on during question time, and perhaps during estimates. But I can assure them that the bipartisanship—in fact, more than bipartisanship—displayed by this committee working on this issue was exemplary. So I would also like to pay tribute to Senator Lambie and Senator Kakoschke-Moore.

I would like to acknowledge the service of former ADF members who have taken their own lives and the sorrow of their families. I wish to give special acknowledgement to those who have lost family members to suicide during the course of the inquiry.

The burden of responsibility to do justice to those ex-service personnel who have been lost to suicide has been keenly felt by all members of the committee. We don't have exact figures for the number of suicides and attempted suicides among former ADF members, but a recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study found that between 2001 and 2015 there were 325 certified suicides amongst ADF veterans. But the real figure may well be higher. The reason that it is sometimes difficult to know these statistics exactly is that some veterans become very isolated, and in fact it is not known by their comrades that they have committed suicide. This was evidence that was tendered during the committee inquiry.

The suicide rate among veterans who have seen operational service does not seem to be significantly higher than the rate among other veterans, and this would suggest that the common stereotype of veteran suicide resulting from the trauma of combat needs to be treated with caution. Post-traumatic stress is obviously a factor in some suicides amongst former ADF members, but it is far from being the sole cause. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study found that the group most at risk were young veterans involuntarily discharged due to physical or mental injury. This group exhibited suicide rates double that of the comparable national population and this suggests that our attention needs to be focused on the transition from service to civilian life, particularly among young men who have been involuntarily discharged for whatever reason. These men may suffer from a variety of psychological factors that may well then dispose them to suicide. We must never forget of course that behind every statistic there is a human story, and often a tragic and heartbreaking one. Of course, this is not only a tragedy that affects veterans and the Defence community but also their families and friends. Indeed, we are all affected.

For our veterans and ex-service personnel who are frequently required to spend an extremely long and difficult time on deployment, it is clear that the return to civilian life is not a simple proposition. The experiences of active duty can leave an indelible mark on some of our veterans. But I think that it's important that we not see our ADF veterans as victims. The vast majority of former ADF members, all of whom are volunteers, are justly proud of their military service and we are proud of them. They have made successful transitions to productive roles in Australian society and rightly believe that military service has contributed to their growth as humans and to their postservice roles.

It would be a mistake to accept the common stereotype that the trauma of operational service always leads to psychological difficulties, let alone to suicide. In fact, a senator from another place, US Senator John McCain, says in his memoir, Faith of My Fathers, that he often feels that he's most comfortable amongst those men with whom he served; those friendships that were formed and the support that they gave to each other while he was on service in the US Navy—particularly those he spent 'time' with, if I can put it that way, in the 'Hanoi Hilton'.

The key finding of this report is not that a disproportionate number of ADF veterans are at risk of suicide; it is that we currently have an inadequate infrastructure of support for those who are at risk. An accurate assessment of the impact of military service on the mental health of our veterans and the provision of appropriate services for them is a pressing issue. It is something that we need to address, and now. The report shows that we can do a much better job of fulfilling our responsibilities to our veterans. Every suicide among former ADF members, whatever its cause, is a reminder of our obligation to protect those who have protected us.

The committee heard about the sense of futility that faces some veterans upon being discharged. We heard about the trauma that can arise from living and working in a war zone. Perhaps most tellingly, we heard about the sense of abandonment felt by some veterans and their families upon their return. We heard veterans characterise their postservice life as being the most difficult and challenging period of their lives. We heard from Jason Burgess, who spent a combined total of 14 years in the ADF and was deployed twice to Timor and once to Iraq. Upon his return from Iraq, he attempted twice to take his life. He said to the committee:

To be told that you will never be able to work again due to your physical or mental illness, and then to have your pay cut, and so to not be able to afford to support yourself or your family, is enough to break people, and will lead them to suicide.

We also heard from a widow, Bonny Perry, whose husband took his own life, and we heard of her sense of frustration as she spoke of her husband's seven previous suicide attempts.

Mental health treatment is now available free of charge to all veterans and ex-service personnel, unlimited by budget. The Commonwealth has allocated $192 million over the next four years in addition to the $187 million DVA spends each year providing mental health support to veterans and their families. The committee's report presents a number of recommendations which we hope will go some way to addressing the current shortfalls in the system.

In the short term, we recommend that the government continue to support and fund the Veteran Centric Reform program in DVA. Much of the evidence that we heard over the course of the inquiry was related to veterans' experiences with DVA. We were saddened to hear veterans say that they would rather fight the Taliban than DVA. Our recommendations concern the streamlining of administration in the DVA, reducing the backlog of clients, and increasing the capability and training of staff at DVA to deal with mental health conditions and complex health concerns. Our recommendations also address the need to improve engagement with younger veterans.

Other short-term recommendations include targeted programs addressing issues in the transition of veterans to civilian life, and more appropriate interactions with both mental health service providers and alternative therapies for veterans with mental health conditions, including some very compelling reasoning around the benefit that therapy animals bring. I would like to pay tribute to the organisation Ruff Love Assistance Dogs, who came to the Brisbane hearings earlier this year with their very beautiful dogs and whom it is impossible to forget. We also recommend that all transitioning ADF members should be provided with a DVA white card to facilitate access to non-liability health care, to provide identification as a veteran and to aid in data collection.

In the medium term, we recommend that a national veteran suicide register be established and that the government commission an independent study into the mental health impact of the claims process. We also make some recommendations about the transition to civilian life, and we recommend supporting the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to create and maintain a public database of support services. In the longer term, we believe and recommended that a review by the Productivity Commission, which may look at simplifying the system, would be advisable.

The committee has also recognised the substantial support that the Australian government has shown for the reform of the DVA and legislative frameworks to improve the experience of veterans. But it's evident that there are significant improvements that must be made to the system before we can really aspire to address the problem of suicide among our ex-service personnel.

I am reminded once again of how fortunate we are to have the Australian Defence Force, and I am reminded especially in this week, when I am participating in the ADF Parliamentary Program and am hosting an intern. I would like to thank him and the organisers of that program. It's a privilege afforded to parliamentarians to have these opportunities. So I would like to say thank you, and I commend this report to the Senate.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (17:39): After almost a year of consideration by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee with five public hearings across the nation and over 450 submissions, the report on veterans suicide named, The constant battle: suicide by veterans, has been tabled. It is 191 pages in total and comprehensive. Part of this report addresses short-term problems which include streamlining, administration, staff training at the Department of Veterans' Affairs and improving engagement. It calls on targeted programs based on new research, increasing the understanding of the mental health community and addresses support issues of transition from military life into civilian life and the need for access to alternative therapies.

In the medium term, the committee found that there was clear evidence for a national suicide register. It noted concerns about negative interactions with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and that the claims process is the key stressor and contributing factor to suicide by some veterans. It noted issues with medico-legal firms retained by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to assess veterans. The committee has recommended the Department of Veterans' Affairs reassess medico-legal firms.

It has recommended that the carer assistance scheme include an option for veterans to undertake a period of work experience with an outside employer, and that the Australian Public Service Commission conduct a review to support veterans employment into the APS. Noting the complex range of services available to veterans, the committee recommended funding support of the veterans and veterans' families counselling services to create and maintain a public database of services which would provide an information service to assist veterans and their families.

The committee also recommends a review of the practice which prohibits lawyers appearing for veterans before the Veterans' Review Board. Longer term, it noted that addressing the legal and administrative complexities of veterans entitlements is long overdue. It has recommended a Productivity Commission review into the legislative and administrative processes, including an examination of the utilisation of the statements of principles with the objective of simplifying the entitlements system. It has recommended that this review be completed within 18 months, and the establishment of a bureau of veterans advocates. This bureau of advocates would be modelled from the Canadian system—that being the Bureau of Pensions Advocates—which has proven to be a success. I suggest that we have bipartisan support and that we do not wait 18 months to set that up. I will probably look at that tomorrow.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs can no longer hold on to the status quo nor justify incremental changes done in the past. Previous reviews of military compensation and the piecemeal approach of reforms have contributed to the overall complexities of veterans' entitlements in our country. It is now time for a complete overhaul of the compensation and rehabilitation system in this country.

Earlier this year, the Auditor-General, through the Australian National Audit Office, indicated it would conduct a potential performance audit into the efficiency of veterans' service delivery by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in its annual audit work program for 2017-18. As such, the committee recommends the audit be conducted as a matter of urgency. This audit will serve to complement and reinforce the work of administrative review by the Productivity Commission.

Given the context of this report and its recommendations, I am now calling on all veterans—young, middle-aged, old, enlisted and officers—to unite and put pressure on the Turnbull government to adopt and implement these recommendations as soon as possible. Over the last several years, the ex-service organisations of our nation and the veterans' community have been greatly divided on a host of issues. It is now time for healing. Veterans need to stop bashing veterans who are helping veterans. Stopping veteran suicides and attempted suicides is paramount. To be able to achieve this, we will all need to work together.

Where there are areas that veterans disagree on, we need to be able to agree to disagree. Where we find common ground, we all need to stand together as one. I'm calling on all retired Australian Defence Force senior non-commissioned and retired commissioned officers to take the lead and be the leaders that they once were when they served in uniform. Your nation needs you, once again, now more than ever as role models in the veteran community. Be the leaders who are healers where veterans are fighting and backstabbing other veterans. You need to call that out as leaders and show others a more constructive way of addressing issues and moving forward.

The time of a divided veterans' community needs to cease immediately if we are going to achieve tangible action on the recommendations of the committee's report. United we stand to demand the government takes action; divided we will continue to fall, with the status quo remaining. The veterans' community as a whole bears some responsibility here, because it has been so divided. All ex-service organisations, veterans and their families must band together to demand that the government of today implement these recommendations. Where the government decides to disagree with a committee recommendation, it should not be able to disagree without having a workable alternative to that recommendation.

We need a united front and sustained pressure to deny the government the space to wriggle out of its responsibilities to veterans once and for all. It is only with a united veteran community that we will be able to hold the government of the day, as well as future governments, accountable and ensure that the recommendations are adopted and implemented as quickly as possible. It is for this reason that all veterans and their families must stand together as one. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (17:46): This is a very useful report with a number of very useful recommendations, and the government will, no doubt, look at them and respond in due course. I congratulate the chairman, Senator Gallacher, and deputy chairman, Senator McKenzie. I also pay tribute to former senator Chris Back, who played a very big part in this inquiry and the report.

While the report does have a lot of useful information, the government has already worked very significantly on addressing the welfare of veterans. This has been going on for quite some time now under the Turnbull government. Indeed, in the last budget there were a significant number of new initiatives to address many of the matters that were raised before this committee.

I remind the Senate that the Department of Veterans' Affairs currently supports about 291,000 Australians. Just over half of these people are veterans or currently serving members of the ADF. Around 48 per cent of them are women. Around 82,000 are widows or widowers, and I'm aware of that because my sister is one of those who receives wonderful treatment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. There are around 2,500 children of veterans who are also supported. Interestingly, about $6.2 billion, or 54 per cent of the department's budget, will be spent on providing for veterans and their families with income support and compensation. About $5 billion, or 44 per cent of the department's budget, will be spent on meeting the healthcare needs of veterans and their families. And around 0.8 per cent of the department's budget is spent on commemorations and maintaining memorials and headstones. So it's a significant contribution by the Australian taxpayers, through the Australian government, to support people who have done so much for this country over years past.

We all know that one suicide in Australia is one too many. Suicide affects all areas of our community. Eight Australians a day take their own life, sadly and regrettably, and it remains the greatest cause of death for men between the ages of 14 and 44. Sadly, our veterans and members of the ADF are not immune from those statistics. The government's determined to address suicide in our community, and we all have a role to play. We're committed to serving all Defence personnel, veterans and their families. We have introduced free and immediate treatment for all mental health conditions for any veteran with one day's full-time service. The government has held the first Female Veterans and Families Forum. We're committed to the Prime Minister's veterans' employment initiative to find out how we can ensure that employers know the benefits of hiring a veteran. We've committed the largest investment in the Department of Veterans' Affairs systems and processes to cut the wait times and make their services more focused on veterans. I know this figured prominently in the committee's report. As a government, we have initiated and hosted the first meeting of state and territory veterans' ministers to provide input on how we can work together across all levels of government on issues such as veterans' homelessness.

Just a few days ago, the minister provided in a statement a confirmation of the government's commitment to a standalone Department of Veterans' Affairs—a department that focuses on needs of veterans first and a stronger voice for the veterans' community. The first one I mentioned is the standalone Department of Veterans' Affairs. Unfortunately, with social media there are a lot of furphies and mistruths and a lot of misinformation that go around, particularly amongst the veterans' community. This is unfortunate because they upset, needlessly, many veterans who naturally believe some of the rubbish that goes around on social media because they are sourced in a way that looks valid. But any early inquiry will show that they are completely fake, so to say. One going around last week was that the Department of Veterans' Affairs was going to be abolished and that the Department of Human Services was going to take over the role. I know that a lot of constituents of mine were concerned when they read this rubbish, and I was only too pleased to be able to confirm that it was nothing more than fake news. But it is unfortunate that that does permeate the social media because it does worry, needlessly, a lot of our veterans.

I just want to briefly mention again some of the support the government is giving. A lot of this has been referred to in the committee's report and a lot of it is already happening. Senators will know that the Turnbull government invested an additional $350 million in this year's budget to support veterans. There were focuses on two strong issues: mental health support, which we've been discussing; and reform of the department's processes and systems, which we've also been discussing in this debate and which the committee made reference to.

We are expanding the program of free and immediate—I stress 'immediate'—mental health support to current and former ADF members. This treatment is currently available for five specified mental health conditions. The government is expanding our Non-Liability Health Care Program so that it will be available for any mental health condition, including phobias, adjustment disorders and bipolar disorders. Just 12 months ago, anyone who had served one day as a full time Australian Defence Force member had to prove that any mental health condition was linked to their service. After suffering these conditions, they would have to wait to have their eligibility and claim approved by the department. The wait times would see their mental health deteriorate or they would not receive the support that they desperately needed. So last year, the government provided a new approach of free and immediate treatment for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse and substance abuse without the need to prove the condition was service related. In this budget, the government has gone further. We now commit to provide this for all mental health conditions. It will mean that from now on veterans and defence personnel can get free and immediate treatment without a burden of proof and without the need for a bureaucratic barrier. Most importantly, this policy is completely uncapped, so whatever the demand it will be funded from somewhere in government. The government is also expanding eligibility for the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, which we think is a very important service that does, in fact, save lives. I return to what I was speaking about before: that suicide prevention is a complex issue and, as reports have shown, there's no simple solution. It requires a multifaceted response, and we have provided about $10 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and to improve the care and support available to veterans. This is a useful report, and I have no doubt that the government will appreciate the recommendations and the thought and effort put into it. I do want to emphasise that the government is well aware of them, and that many of the issues that were spoken about in the inquiry are already being dealt with by the government with considerable extra funding and rearrangements in the department taking place.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:56): I won't detain the Senate much longer on this particular report, because I know that there are other matters to come, but I would like to contribute a few remarks. I commend this report to the chamber.

We heard from a large number of veterans and a large number of experts in this area who gave us, at times, shocking evidence. Some of the numbers and facts were very confronting for a number of people. I would very, very strongly suggest and beg the government to look at these recommendations. I've just listened to the contribution from Senator Macdonald, and, yes, the committee is aware of the announcements that the government has made, but there are still significant things that need to be done. I think we made 19 recommendations—we added a few at the end, so I must admit I lost count of the final number but I think I'm right in saying 19. They cover a wide range of issues that urgently need to be addressed. We have a significant problem in this country, and the recommendations, I believe—and I'm sure those on the committee do to—will address it. It is absolutely imperative that the issues that were brought up in our report, in full knowledge of all of the other work that's going on, need to be addressed. If anybody doubts that we have a problem, I urge them to read the report or, better still—because we can't put everything into the report—read the hundreds of submissions that we received and also look at the transcripts from the hearings. Then people will understand why it's so important that we look at these recommendations.

I strongly support this report. It was, I've got to say, quite harrowing sometimes listening to the evidence. If we feel that, imagine what veterans are feeling right now living on a day-to-day basis without adequate supports and still with problems in the way that things are handled, including with the department. I think we owe it to our veterans to make sure that every one of these recommendations is given very close attention. I commend the report to the chamber, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:16): 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 FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017implements the commitment the government made on 20 April 2017 to strengthen the requirements for Australian citizenship. It also incorporates a number of integrity measures introduced into the last parliament.

Australian citizenship is an extraordinary privilege. Pathways to citizenship give new migrants the opportunity to be full and active participants in Australian society.

Citizenship was first defined in Australian law in the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, and came into force on Australia Day 1949. Since then, more than five million people have chosen to become Australian citizens.

Australians come from every culture, every race, every faith and every nation. Together we have built a modern and prosperous Australia. The success of our nation is based on our shared values, rights and responsibilities.

The measures contained in this bill will help us build on this success. It will ensure we continue to welcome new Australians committed to making a positive contribution through the many opportunities our country affords.

As a government, we are committed to maintaining strong public confidence and support for our migration and citizenship programmes – through an assurance of integrity to the Australian public.

We are proud of our heritage and generosity as a nation. We look forward to continuing to welcome new migrants – irrespective of race, religion, national or ethnic origin – who embrace our Australian laws and values, and who seek to contribute to, rather than undermine, our society.

The measures in this bill commencing from 20 April 2017 are the government's response to the 2015 National consultation on citizenship – your right, your responsibility, which indicated strong community support for strengthening the test for Australian citizenship. The Australian community expects that aspiring citizens demonstrate their allegiance to Australia, their commitment to live in accordance with Australian laws and values, and be willing to integrate into and become contributing members of the Australian community.

In accordance with the announced measures, there will be an increase in the general residence requirement. An applicant for Australian citizenship will need to demonstrate a minimum of four years of permanent residence immediately prior to their application for citizenship, with a maximum of 12 months outside of Australia in this time period. This represents a change from the current requirement of a minimum of 12 months as a permanent resident. Strengthening the residency requirement is intended to support integration and facilitate a more thorough evaluation of a person's commitment to Australia, our values and adherence to our laws. It also brings Australia more in line with the general requirements of other nations.

The National consultation found "A residence requirement in citizenship law is an objective measure of a person's association with Australia. It also serves as a probationary period, so that a person's word and deeds across this time can be considered should the person apply for Australian citizenship. Increasing the value and integrity of citizenship by changing the residence requirement from four years lawful stay to four years permanent residence is appropriate…"

The government is also introducing a requirement to have competent English language through listening, speaking, reading and writing skills.

English language is essential for economic participation and social cohesion. The Productivity Commission in 2016 highlighted the importance of English language proficiency for integration and settlement outcomes. There is also strong public support to ensure aspiring citizens are fully able to participate in Australian life, by speaking English, our national language.

Aspiring citizens are currently required to possess a level of 'basic' English. This is indirectly assessed when an applicant sits the citizenship test. Aspiring citizens will now be required to undertake a separate upfront English language test with an accredited provider and achieve a level of 'competent'. There will be exemptions, such as for applicants over 60 years of age, or under 16 years of age at the time they applied for citizenship or those with an enduring or permanent mental or physical incapacity. There will be other exemptions from testing, as is currently the case for skilled migration assessments, such as for citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, the United States of America or New Zealand who hold a valid passport, or for applicants who have undertaken specified English language studies at a recognised Australian education institution.

Applicants will be required to sign an Australian Values Statement in order to make a valid application for citizenship. It will require applicants to make an undertaking to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community. The current Australian Values Statement includes an understanding of:

respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual;

freedom of religion;

commitment to the rule of law;

parliamentary democracy;

equality of men and women;

equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background; and

English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

Applicants will be required to demonstrate their integration into the Australian community in accordance with Australian values.

For example, this may include:

abiding by Australian laws;

attaining competent English;

ensuring eligible children attend school;

seeking employment rather than relying on welfare where there is capacity to do so; or

being involved with community groups.

The bill provides that the minister may determine changes to the text and requirements in relation to the Australian Values Statement by legislative instrument. Values based questions will also be added to the citizenship test.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will assess this information based on documents provided as part of an aspiring citizen's application and may also assess this at interview.

In addition to existing police checks which are undertaken as part of an application for citizenship, an applicant will also be assessed for specified conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values, such as domestic or family violence, criminality including female genital mutilation and involvement in gangs and organised crime.

The pledge will be extended to all streams of citizenship by application, including citizenship by descent, adoption and resumption. Applicants over 16 years of age will need to make the pledge before they can become a citizen. Applicants for citizenship by conferral on the grounds of being born in Papua, born to a former citizen or under statelessness provisions, will no longer be exempt from making the pledge. Exemptions will include permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity.

The pledge will also refer to allegiance to Australia. The government has separately passed legislation to provide for the loss of citizenship of dual-nationals who betray their allegiance through involvement in terrorist related activity.

Consistent with measures introduced in the last parliament by the former minister, the bill contains additional measures to improve the integrity of the citizenship programme.

Currently, only aspiring citizens aged 18 years and over are required to meet the 'good character' requirement – which involves criminal history checks. There is a small minority of people under 18 who clearly do not meet community expectations of good character and have been involved in serious or violent crime, such as gang violence. The bill amends these provisions to require all applicants, including those under 18, to be of good character.

The bill also amends the offence provisions to reflect modern sentencing practices, including where a person is subject to a court order for home detention or where they have not been sentenced to prison but are nonetheless under obligations to a court.

The bill provides that approval must be cancelled if the minister is no longer satisfied of the applicant's identity or if they have become a risk to national security. The minister may also cancel approval if satisfied that the person no longer meets other eligibility requirements. The bill extends the maximum period of time where the Minister can delay an applicant making the pledge of allegiance from 12 months to two years, to better align with timeframes of some complex investigations.

The bill provides for the revocation of citizenship where a person became a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation. The minister must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain a citizen. While law enforcement agencies, for a range of reasons, may not be in a position to prosecute all forms of fraud and misrepresentation in the citizenship process, the government is committed to providing the highest levels of integrity where possible. Each person being considered for revocation of their Australian citizenship would be given natural justice before the minister makes a decision. A decision to revoke citizenship on these grounds would be open to judicial review.

Currently, the act provides that a person is deemed never to have been an Australian citizen where they attained citizenship by descent, but were later found not to have had an Australian parent at the time of birth. There have been difficult cases in recent times in relation to this. There have been people who were registered as Australian citizens by descent, thought they were Australian all their lives, but have been found later in life not to have been eligible in the first place and consequently deemed to have never been a citizen.

The proposed amendments repeal the operation of law provision and insert a discretionary power. This will allow the circumstances of a particular case to be taken into account when deciding if citizenship by descent should be revoked.

Currently under the act, children acquire citizenship automatically if they are born in Australia to an Australian citizen or permanent resident parent, or if they are ordinarily resident in Australia until their 10th birthday. The bill specifies the automatic acquisition of citizenship on a person's 10th birthday applies to those persons who have maintained lawful residence in Australia throughout the 10 years, including maintaining a right to return if they travel outside Australia during those years. These amendments will not affect access to citizenship by children born in Australia to New Zealand citizens or children who are stateless. The changes also remove the automatic acquisition of citizenship on the 10th birthday of a child in Australia born to a parent with diplomatic or consular privileges and immunities.

The provision giving citizenship to children found abandoned in Australia is also amended to be consistent with the original policy intent, which is to reflect Australia's international obligations under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

The bill also amends the definition of 'spouse' and 'de facto partner' to be consistent with the Migration Act and to reflect the policy position that the relationship between the applicant and their Australian citizen spouse or partner must be genuine and continuing.

The majority of applicants for citizenship have come to Australia originally on a visa in accordance with the Migration Act. Personal information is collected through the visa process and is relevant when the person applies for citizenship. Likewise, personal information collected about a person under the Citizenship Act can be relevant if the department is considering whether to cancel a person's visa after a citizenship application has been refused. The bill provides that personal information collected under one act and associated regulations may be used and disclosed for the purposes of the other.

We have seen in recent times a number of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) migration decisions that are outside community standards. This has also occurred in relation to citizenship decisions. Specifically, the AAT has found that people were of good character despite having been convicted of child sexual offences, manslaughter, people smuggling or domestic violence.

The bill seeks to better align the powers in the Citizenship Act with the Migration Act to remedy decisions that may be outside of community standards. The provisions will allow the minister to personally set aside certain decisions of the AAT if it is in the public interest to do so. Consistent with the Migration Act, personal decisions of the minister will not be subject to merits review. However, such decisions would still be subject to judicial review in the Federal or High Court. The new provision does not propose to exclude or limit judicial review.

The bill makes a range of other and consequential amendments to support the integrity of the citizenship programme.

Conclusion

The measures in this bill enhance the institution of citizenship.

As many have rightly acknowledged, we are one of the most successful migrant nations in the world today.

We have prospered and forged a secure and harmonious society. This has been built by people of every possible background, united by common values that include a commitment to the rule of law; freedom – including of religion and speech; support for Parliamentary democracy; equality of men and women; equality of opportunity for individuals; community involvement; and the pursuit of opportunity through education, employment and entrepreneurship.

We should never take our success for granted.

This bill reinforces the integrity of our citizenship programme. This will help maintain strong public support for migration and the value of Australian citizenship in what is an increasingly challenging national security environment and complex global security situation.

The measures in this bill will ensure we continue to welcome people committed to the success of our great nation – enriching our society and building our economic prosperity.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 4 September 2017.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (18:46): Labor opposed this bill because there are significant problems with the bill as it is placed before the Senate. A number of amendments will be moved by Labor to try and make this bill a more acceptable bill, a fairer bill and a more reasonable bill. We will be seeking in our amendments to extend the application of the prohibition of unreasonable demands for money by employers to prospective employees. That's an issue that we are very concerned about. We want to put the AAT and the ombudsman oversight into the compulsory questioning powers. We've got lots of experience with the work of the Fair Work Building Commission and the ABCC and the misuse of compulsory questioning powers and the bias that has been applied by the Fair Work Building Commission and the ABCC over the years. There is lots of evidence about problems in that area, and the need for oversight is essential.

We want to extend franchisor liability to labour hire and supply chains and reverse the onus of proof. All of the principled issues that you've heard that are supposedly applying only to franchisees and franchisors apply to many companies using labour hire companies to steal wages from workers. We don't believe that we should limit this to franchisors and not deal with the wider issue across industry that does the same thing which leaves workers with their wages stolen. Whether it's done by franchisors or by a farmer using labour hire companies to rip off workers in the farm industry, it doesn't matter. Whether it's Caltex or that well-known one, Baiada; whether it's Myers, whose labour hire companies were ripping workers off; whether it's the fruit producers who allow labour hire companies to have some organised crime figures in there ripping migrant workers off, we think that it should be dealt with and we think this is far too narrow.

Our view is supported by submissions from the Australian Industry Group and from the Australian franchisors themselves who ask why they should be picked out and narrowed out in this bill. We agree with those employers that it should be wider. If stealing a worker's wages is a problem in the franchise industry, it's similarly a problem in areas like Caltex, Baiada, Myer and fruit producers. It should be dealt with more widely. Reversing the onus of proof is essential, and I'll go to some of those issues when I go to the amendments in detail.

We want to reverse the onus of proof and claims for unpaid wages where the employer has not kept or produced wage slips. One of the great victories that the minister was boasting about in the last term of parliament was that she was going to make sure that employers kept wage slips. Employers are not keeping wage slips. Some employers are still ripping workers off, mercilessly. We've got a range of amendments that we want to deal with in the second reading. By leave—I move items (21), (24), (27) and (35) on sheet 8144 together:

(21) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraph (i), substitute:

   (i) subsection 325(1) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on employees to spend or pay amounts);

   (ia) subsection 325(1A) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on prospective employees to spend or pay amounts);

(24) Schedule 1, item 22, page 15 (after line 8), after subsection 325(1), insert:

   (1A) An employer (the prospective employer) must not directly or indirectly require another person (the prospective employee) to spend, or pay to the prospective employer or any other person, an amount of the prospective employee's money if:

   (a) the requirement is in connection with employment or potential employment of the prospective employee by the prospective employer; and

   (b) the requirement is unreasonable in the circumstances; and

(c) the payment is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the prospective employer or a party related to the prospective employer.

Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).

(27) Schedule 1, item 26, page 16 (lines 24 to 25), omit paragraph (i), substitute:

   (i) subsection 325(1) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on employees to spend or pay amounts);

   (ia) subsection 325(1A) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on prospective employees to spend or pay amounts);

(35) Schedule 1, item 57, page 30 (line 15), omit "Subsection 325(1) of the amended Act applies", substitute "Subsections 325(1) and (1A) of the amended Act apply".

These amendments are dealing with the issue of extending the application of the prohibition of unreasonable demands for money by an employer to prospective employees. The bill introduces a new civil remedy offence of unreasonably requiring an employee to spend or pay an amount of their money in relation to the performance of work. The Senate committee inquiry revealed stakeholder concerns that this new offence will not cover unreasonable demands made by employers to prospective employees as a condition of employment. Submissions to the inquiry identified the behaviour allegedly engaged in by a Domino's franchise where sponsorship for a working visa and a job was offered on the condition of payment of $150,000, as an example.

While it would appear that that particular pre-employment requirement for an upfront payment linked to the provision of a visa may be prohibited by other legislation, other unreasonable pre-employment requirements are not. These amendments extend the application of the new offence to prospective employees. So, Minister, could you take me to why these amendments are not reasonable amendments and why you would have unreasonable demands still being available to employers? We think the amendments that we put forward strengthen the bill. I'd like to hear your views as to why that wouldn't be a legitimate and reasonable approach.

The CHAIR: Before I call the minister, Senator Cameron, I'm just checking: so we are looking at opposition amendments which are in the fifth box down. But I draw to your attention: it says 21 and then 24 to 27?

Senator CAMERON: Yes. I'm sorry. To clarify—there's 21, and 24 to 27. I'm sorry, that was my—

The CHAIR: Yes, so that's the fifth box down.

Senator CAMERON: Yes, and 35 together.

Senator Cash: They would be the prospective employment—

Senator CAMERON: Yes, that's the prospective employment.

The CHAIR: Just to be clear, leave is still granted?

Senator Cash: Yes.

The CHAIR: Minister, I call you now.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (18:54): In the first instance, in responding to the amendments, could I just explain what a cashback scam is for the benefit of the Senate. A cashback scam is a request from an employer that an employee pay back part of their wages to the employer or a third party. What this effectively does is let the employers undercut the safety net while appearing, at face value, to comply with workplace rules. It is particularly difficult to prove as vulnerable workers are unlikely to make a complaint and there is often no paper trail. The cashback scam was most notably used by some 7-Eleven franchisees, but the scam also emerged during other investigations undertaken by the Fair Work Ombudsman. In the most severe cases, employers have threatened to revoke visas and have employees deported if they spoke about the maltreatment.

In terms of what the bill, as currently drafted, actually does, the bill addresses cashback scams by making it clear that it's unlawful for an employer to demand an employee pay a proportion of their wages back. Cashback scams may attract the higher penalties which apply to serious contraventions under the act. The provisions only prohibit unreasonable requests to spend an amount, not legitimate requests for overpayments to be returned, because there may well be legitimate circumstances in which an employer requests that money be paid back to them.

In terms of the amendments that have been moved by the opposition, this amendment would extend the prohibition on unreasonable requirements on employees to spend or pay an amount, which is referred to as the cashback provision, to include requirements made of prospective employees to spend or pay an amount in connection with their prospective employment. The government is opposing Labor's amendment, as moved by Senator Cameron, that extends the prohibition on unreasonable requirements to spend to prospective employees. The effect of the amendment, as it is currently drafted, would extend the cashback prohibition to include requirements for prospective employees to spend or pay an amount in connection with employment.

The government is unable to support this amendment for two reasons: the provisions, as they are currently drafted—and it may just be very bad drafting on behalf of the opposition—are incredibly broad and are more than likely going to lead to unintended consequences; and the unacceptable conduct the amendment is trying to deal with may often already be unlawful under other laws.

In terms of the unintended consequences—and, again, it may just be very bad drafting—there are many reasons why an employer might require a prospective employee to spend an amount of money. Employees, often required to be located near their workplace, may be willing to relocate to take up a job offer. If an employer tells prospective employees about job location requirements, is it reasonable for the worker to ask the employer for their relocation costs? While this might be negotiated between the parties, it would be unreasonable to create a legal requirement around this. What about asking a worker to pay for their own travel costs to attend an interview face to face? Again, this is captured by the amendment that is being moved on behalf of the opposition.

Whilst I'm sympathetic to some of the cases identified by the Melbourne based community legal centre WEstjustice in their Senate committee submission, I also point out that many of these instances that they themselves describe would likely be captured by other existing laws which come with some very serious sanctions. For example, there was the migrant worker who was allegedly asked to pay a $2,500 cash bond for the use of a work vehicle and to access a building site. The job never eventuated, and the prospective employer disappeared. This sort of conduct is, of course, completely, totally and utterly unacceptable, and it is almost certainly an offence under criminal law. I would encourage anyone who believes that they are the victim of this type of theft or fraud to contact the police.

In terms of vulnerable migrant workers paying for a visa outcome: in 2015, under the coalition government, civil and criminal penalties were introduced under the Migration Act for people who ask for, receive, offer or provide a benefit in return for a visa sponsorship or employment that requires a visa sponsorship outcome. These changes came out of a review into the integrity of the 457 visa program that I announced in 2014 when I was the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I also understand that this issue has been raised in the context of 417: working holiday makers spending money in relation to the 88-day regional work requirements in order to secure an extension to their visa. This continues to be a complex issue, and it is one that I will request the Migrant Workers' Taskforce to consider.

Just by way of further background: in March 2016 the Federal Court handed down penalties against a company that offered vulnerable migrant workers training and sponsored employment in the cleaning industry that would supposedly lead to permanent residency. Many of these workers paid in excess of $10,000 each. The court found that the company never had any cleaning jobs available, and, in any event, cleaning jobs would not have met the skill requirements necessary for permanent residency under the relevant visa requirements. I understand that the fines that were handed down were approximately $700,000 for the employer and $300,000 for the director, so that was a total of $1 million in fines.

Again, in terms of the cashback provisions that the bill seeks to address, these types of scams are wrong, and they need to be stopped, and the bill does that. But in terms of the extension of the cashback provision to prospective employees, in particular in the sloppy drafting that has been presented to the Senate, the government cannot support the amendment, because of the very serious unintended consequences by way of the fact that the provisions presented by the opposition are incredibly broad.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (19:03): This is typical of Senator Cash and this government: go some way to try and deal with an issue but don't actually deal with all of the circumstances that are required to be dealt with. Senator Cash has indicated that she thinks this is incredibly broad and will have unintended consequences. I'll tell you what is broad, and that is the stealing of workers' wages across the economy. And it's not just in franchising; it's in a whole range of areas. The unintended consequence of where we are at the moment is that some of the most vulnerable workers in this country end up having their wages stolen, not being able to feed their family and not being able to put a roof over their head. And people are getting away with it.

This bill sets out the principle that if you are in employment then there is a prohibition on unreasonable demands for money. The same principle should apply if a prospective employee is seeking employment. I know the minister is still a bit embarrassed after the fiasco we had with the last fair work bill we had here, because of the demonstrably sloppy drafting. The minister had to accept amendment after amendment after amendment because the drafting from the government was so bad. That's why tonight we're getting a bit of payback, a bit of rhetoric and a bit of rubbish from the minister on this issue.

What we say in these amendments is that it has to be unreasonable in the circumstances. It is defined, it is qualified and it goes to making sure that we don't have prospective employees accepting a job on a condition of employment that is unreasonable in the circumstances. This is probably where a worker is actually more vulnerable—when they're a prospective employee and they're not on the job, especially if the job has a union on the site. If you are rolling up for a job then this is a bit like the old Work Choices era, where a prospective employee is given a demand by the employer and they either sign or just go because they don't get the job.

This is where workers have specific vulnerabilities. I don't think that restricting this to where the minister wants it restricted to actually deals with the wage theft that is out there. The principle of 'unreasonable demands' remains the same whether you are a prospective employee or an employee. You should not be subject to unreasonable demands. That's the point we are making tonight. That's why we, Minister, think that this is the way to go. This would protect prospective employees. It has to be unreasonable in the circumstances. Minister, have you got a view in relation to 'unreasonable in the circumstances'?

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:08): I want to ask questions, firstly, of Senator Cameron as the mover of these amendments. The minister made the assertion that this could apply to a prospective employee and that a business could be sued or could be subject to prosecution if it relates to something such as the travel costs of going to a job interview. As I read the legislative regime that this seeks to amend, I'm just trying to understand whether Senator Cameron is saying that that's what these amendments are purporting to do. Under what circumstances does he say this will operate? Could I get clarification from the minister about whether it would be that broad, because that would seem surprising in the context of the legislative framework for this bill.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (19:09): I thank Senator Xenophon for the question. What we are saying is that the demand has to be 'unreasonable in the circumstances'. That's the test. We are not saying it is unreasonable for somebody who is going to a job interview to actually have to jump in the car, put petrol in the tank and drive through half-a-dozen tolls, as you would in Sydney. That's not 'unreasonable in the circumstances'. But it would be 'unreasonable in the circumstances' for the employer to say, 'I'll give you a job, at minimum rate, but for you to get that job you'll have to pay me a fee of $500.' That's what would be 'unreasonable in the circumstances'. That is an issue that is clearly an unreasonable proposition. And that's why we say that, if the principle of 'unreasonable demands' applies to those who have a job, you must make sure that prospective employees also don't face unreasonable demands. We are saying the demands have to be 'unreasonable in the circumstances'. That would be the test. It would be tested by the Fair Work Commission; you could go there and say you had an unreasonable demand put upon you. We think it is appropriate to have these circumstances dealt with—that you cannot unreasonably demand money from a prospective employee. That's a problem people have faced.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:11): Thanks for that clarification. I guess one aspect of this is how 'unreasonable' would be determined, because there is an element of subjectivity. Senator Cameron gave an example that involved toll roads—and I get that. But what happens if the job is in Sydney, the applicant is in another state, the prospective employer says the interview can be done on Skype, the prospective employee is willing to travel to Sydney at their own expense and the employer says they would like them to come over but will not cover their expenses? Does that get into the realm of 'unreasonableness'? I'm not trying to be difficult. I think I understand what Senator Cameron is trying to achieve here, but I want to understand the circumstance in which it would work.

The legislation committee inquiry into this bill did hear evidence of one franchisee who was apparently offered a working visa and a job on the condition of the payment of $150,000. Now, that was a prospective employee, but I don't think there would be any question that that would be not just an unreasonable demand but an outrageous demand that ought to be the subject of heavy penalties and sanctions. I'm trying to understand how this would be delineated. Time permitting, could the minister clarify why we wouldn't want to cover those situations where someone is saying they'll give you a job and a visa to stay here, but they want a kickback. That would clearly be outrageous, and I don't think anyone in this chamber would countenance that.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (19:13): Take out the visa, because the visa is covered by other laws, and just have a claim of: 'We'll give you the job if you give us 150 grand'—or $50 or $500. If the minister thinks the language we are using is so bad, I draw your attention to the fact that that is the language used in the bill—'unreasonable in the circumstances'. All we are saying is that if the principle of 'unreasonable in the circumstances' applies to an employee then it should also apply to a prospective employee. I want to make the point that wage theft is rife in this country.

Through you, Chair: you've been on the inquiry, Senator Xenophon. You've seen some of the rip-offs that take place around this country. And we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. We believe, strongly, that the principle that applies in the body of the bill to an employee, using the same words that are in the body of the bill to define it—that is, 'unreasonable in the circumstances'—should be applied to a prospective employee because, and I say it again: when someone is at their most vulnerable is when they are actually applying for the job. That's when they're at their most vulnerable.

We think your concerns should be covered by the position where the government's bill talks about 'unreasonable in the circumstances'—that's the language in the bill. We think you simply apply that to prospective employees. Put your mind back to WorkChoices, where workers were fronting up for a job and being told, 'Sign or go away'—sign away penalty rates, sign away annual leave loading, sign away minimum rates. That's what this government justified under WorkChoices. And this is another example of how we should be protecting prospective workers when they are at their most vulnerable: that is, when they are in a very powerless situation—trying to get a job—and when some of the most ruthless employers in this country would try to rip them off and steal from them. They should be protected.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:16): I've got a question here for Senator Cameron. It's pleasing to see that Senator Cameron now seems to know what the word 'reasonable' means, after the last debate. Senator Cameron says that this only goes some of the way. Well, the Labor Party went none of the way. Now he says wage theft is rife around the country. Why did Senator Cameron and the Labor Party not do anything about this issue when they were in office for six years? Perhaps his focus was on protecting union bosses feathering their own nests?

And why would the Labor Party support the stealing of workers' take-home pay in the form of higher energy prices due to the Labor-Greens climate and energy policies? That has really hurt workers and exported jobs, making more workers vulnerable. This is where all workers are most vulnerable. How can we, let alone vulnerable workers, trust this man and this party and their coalition with the socialist Greens, which is destroying this country?

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (19:17): That was almost as intelligible as most of your contributions to this place! Through the chair, when you go back to the obscurity where you came from, after you're found not to have met the provisions of section 44 of the Constitution, then maybe we will get a focus on the real issues that are important for working people in this country.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Gallacher ): Senator Xenophon on a point of order?

Senator Xenophon: I think it happened in the other chamber yesterday with a very senior member of the coalition, but I am sure there is a standing order that says you can't pre-empt what a court will decide—in this case the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

Senator Rhiannon: The Prime Minister does!

Senator Xenophon: I think that's what I said. The Prime Minister seemed to try to pre-empt it. It is very unsafe to do that. Insofar as there is a standing order saying that we shouldn't be pre-empting the ruling of a court, then I think that Senator Cameron should withdraw that.

Senator CAMERON: I won't withdraw anything I've just said—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Cameron—hang on a sec. Senator Xenophon, I'm advised that there is no point of order, but I do caution all senators with respect to the High Court or other legal proceedings.

Senator CAMERON: Thanks. Obviously, I have been a bit interested in this issue that has just been raised. I didn't find it really difficult, Senator Xenophon, to actually rescind my citizenship. All I did was follow the rules, take the advice from the ALP national secretariat, be professional, make my application in duplicate to the foreign office and have my application acknowledged by the High Commission. I think it was about three months later—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It being 7.20 pm, the debate is interrupted.

Progress reported.