Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (10:20): I rise to speak to the Australian Greens Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020 that I introduced in the Senate during the last sitting. This bill will protect all workers during the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are living through unprecedented times—I don't know how many people have said that or how many times, but it is true: COVID-19 is drastically changing our way of life. This is a global health crisis with no-one left untouched by its impacts. This is a difficult time for all of us, there's no doubt. This is a strange time. This is not a normal time. This is a crisis that touches every aspect of our lives: our wellbeing, our economy, our society and our day-to-day lives.

That's why what we do, how we make sure that we do everything possible so we can keep our parliament going, is absolutely important. People out there, Australians, are relying on their leaders to make sure that no-one is left behind. As our country responded to public health in this evolving situation, the unemployment rate hit 7.5 per cent in July—and that particular survey was completed before the stage 4 lockdown in Victoria. In its mini budget update, the government predicted the rate could hit nine per cent by the end of the year. What is clear is that too many people are being left behind during this crisis, and, whilst JobKeeper provides some support, many people in precarious work, casual employment or on a temporary working visa have been denied access to JobKeeper, and many do not have paid leave to rely on. This makes them some of the most vulnerable workers in Australia. We are on a cliff, and we need the government to make sure that no-one falls off.

This virus is going to be with us for a while. There is much uncertainty around when we will be able to relax restrictions or end shutdowns and reopen businesses. Amongst all this, we must make sure that we act to protect workers. This is our responsibility as elected members, and this is exactly what this bill that is in front of us will do. This bill will provide 14 days of paid COVID-19 leave to all workers, including permanent, part-time, casual and gig economy workers. This leave will be available in full for each 12-month period from the start of their employment, and the leave will not accrue year to year. Paid COVID-19 leave will be available for workers in any of the following scenarios: the employee has been diagnosed with COVID-19; the employee is unable to attend work because the employee's workplace has been shut down because of COVID-19; the employee is subject to self-isolation or quarantine measures in accordance with Commonwealth, state or territory policy relating to COVID-19; or the employee is caring for another person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or is subject to self-isolation or quarantine measures in accordance with Commonwealth, state or territory policy relating to COVID-19. Paid COVID-19 leave is extended to gig economy workers and contractors via a COVID-19 leave order. Workers, unions and corporations can apply for a COVID-19 leave order. In circumstances where the Fair Work Commission is issuing a COVID-19 leave order, the Fair Work Commission must make a determination within two days of the application being made, and the Fair Work Commission must make the order unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. For employees other than casual workers, payment will be made at the best rate of pay for the employee's ordinary hours of work in the period. For other workers, such as casuals and those in the gig economy, payment will be calculated at the daily rate of pay equal to the average of the daily rates of pay paid to the employee over the previous 12-month period.

In addition to the above, I will be moving an amendment to this bill so that paid COVID-19 leave is funded by the government by amending the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020. Employees would be able to receive payments from the federal government for COVID-19 leave payments to their employees.

And it's not just us saying this. The ACTU and Business Council, on 3 August, urged the government to implement a national paid pandemic leave scheme funded by the federal government and, where necessary, state governments. Their letter to the Attorney-General states:

Regrettably, recent events in Victoria have demonstrated that there are insufficient measures in place to enable workers who should not be attending their workplaces to stay home.

They go on to say, 'Paid pandemic leave is now an essential public health measure.' With unions, businesses and public health experts all backing paid pandemic leave, it's time for the government to show that they are ready to treat workers' health and public health with the utmost seriousness that it deserves and vote for this bill.

This bill is a vital piece of legislation that will protect workers, and it will protect our community. Every worker should be able to self-isolate when required without losing their income or their job. But, right now, over 3.3 million Australians cannot access paid sick leave. This bill is about fairness. The public health crisis has only further highlighted the precarious nature of casual employment and the plight of those who work in casual employment and the gig economy. They work largely without benefits such as paid leave, sick leave and other entitlements that are simply fundamental, basic, to work rights. People should not be forced to choose between caring for their health and coming to work.

Recent events in Victoria have shown the public health and economic crisis posed by precarity. Over 1,100 Victorian aged-care workers have contracted coronavirus. One in four Melbourne nursing homes have had a coronavirus outbreak. Outbreaks in aged-care homes have resulted in complete staff shutdowns at aged-care facilities in Victoria, resulting in the national cabinet last week announcing an aged-care preparedness plan with incentives for interstate workers to travel interstate to work in facilities experiencing staff shortages. It is telling that aged-care workers were the first to be given paid pandemic leave during the second lockdown in Victoria. This highlights their exposure to the virus and the need to protect workers across Australia, no matter which sector they work in.

The Victorian and federal governments' responses in guaranteeing paid pandemic leave to workers in Victoria during the lockdown was an admission that granting workers access to this type of leave is vital to tackle the crisis. The federal government now needs to commit to giving all workers—permanent, part time, casual or in the gig economy—timely access to this essential support to avoid more outbreaks in the future and to take care of the people who live here.

The government will say that the purpose of this bill has been fulfilled by their pandemic leave disaster payment. This is not enough. This payment is only available to states and territories who have declared a state of disaster. Every worker, no matter where they live and work, should have access to paid pandemic leave. This will protect their health and their income. The government needs to support Australia's most vulnerable workers and provide a safety net to ensure that everyone has access to at least 14 days of paid pandemic leave, regardless of whether a state of disaster has been declared. We should be acting to prevent disasters now before we see a repeat of the terrible events in Melbourne. The idea that we would wait until a disaster to support workers in crisis is really perverse. Workers are needing to self-isolate during testing and while they're infected, now. The virus doesn't care whether a government has declared a state of disaster or not.

In these difficult times—or really ever—it simply isn't fair that so many Australians are missing out on vital paid leave, left to fend for themselves in this once-in-a-century crisis. We must pass this bill today and look after all workers. This government must step in and support workers and their rights to fair conditions. When wages have been stagnant and the cost of living is rising—literally, going through the roof—it is absurd that this government denies support to workers who are facing weeks, if not months, of under- or unemployment brought on by a global pandemic that few could have predicted.

This bill not only protects workers; it also protects the wellbeing of our community and our economy and advances public health. It's simple: when a worker has no access to paid leave, they are more likely to continue to work when they are unwell or experiencing symptoms of the virus. We must not push workers to the brink, many of whom have been and will continue to be on the front line and in some of the most precarious working conditions. Deputy Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly agreed with this logic back in May, stating:

… there are a number of workplaces around Australia where there are disincentives for people to stay at home when they are sick.

That can be financial or it can be a workplace culture. I just want to make this very clear: people coming to work when they are sick puts others at risk.

We need to ensure that we're not forcing workers into a situation where, by self-isolating, they cannot afford to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. The widespread downturn and shutdown of Australian businesses has caused millions of casual and gig economy workers to be pushed towards the poverty line. We must not stand by and let this continue to happen. The Prime Minister is abandoning casual workers, gig economy workers, university workers and childcare workers. This bill is the government's chance to redeem themselves somewhat—to stand up for working Australians and to protect some of the most vulnerable during this very difficult time. We must emerge from these exceptionally hard times as a society which has shown, without doubt, that we care for each other, that we care for fairness, that we care for equality. The government must lead, support and reassure workers and their employers. Too many have been left behind, and these pressures felt by people with reduced or no access to leave to go to work when the public health advice is to stay home will only continue. We need the government to step in and guarantee 14 days of paid COVID-19 leave to every worker, regardless of their visa status or whether they are a member of the permanent part-time, casual or gig economy workforce.

This bill will save lives. I call upon the government, upon Labor and upon crossbenchers to urgently make this bill law, for the sake of workers and for the sake of our communities. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:33): The government does not support this one-size-fits-all bill amending the Fair Work Act. As proposed, it won't be effective, it won't be scalable and it won't be quick, and so the government will be opposing the Greens' bill, the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020.

I would like to start off my contribution to this debate by talking a bit about how businesses and how Queenslanders have been working and coping with COVID-19 over these past few months. One of the things that I've found as I've travelled around Queensland—and I've been everywhere from out to Eromanga in the south-west corner, up to Windorah, and up to the Far North quite a few times—driving around my home state, is that when I speak to and listen to Queenslanders, they are very much relieved that Scott Morrison is the Prime Minister and that the national cabinet, under his leadership, has worked together and has worked to save lives and protect livelihoods. In particular, businesses, and those who work in the businesses, are so appreciative of what the government has done through the JobKeeper program. The positive impact that JobKeeper has had on protecting businesses and saving livelihoods in Queensland should not be underestimated. It is making sure that, when we get through coronavirus and when there is a vaccine and when Australia is safe, there will be businesses standing up and there will be millions of people working in those businesses. I don't know who can take credit for the JobKeeper program. I don't know whether Mr Morrison or Mr Frydenberg can take credit for it or whether it was a collective effort of the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet, but I'm grateful for what it has done to protect the economy of Australia and I know many businesses and employees in Queensland are grateful for it.

Of course, we mustn't forget that the money that is being used to fund these programs is money that is being spent on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia. It is money that has been earned by those working, whether as pay-as-you-go taxpayers or those working in businesses. Their blood, sweat and tears goes towards these taxes, and any government, whether at a territory, state or Commonwealth level, needs to make sure that the money we expend on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia is spent appropriately and soberly. We should not forget that the money that is being spent at the moment to save the Australian economy is not money that is sitting in a vault of the Reserve Bank. It's not sitting hidden in the Treasurer's office. It is money that we are borrowing. It is money that we are borrowing to ensure that we have a today, but it is money that will have to be repaid by the taxpayers of tomorrow, of next year and of decades time. That's why, to someone who sits on the Right of politics, it is sometimes concerning when you really listen to what the Left say. They're very, very good at spending other people's money. They're very, very good at wanting to spend money—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator McGRATH: without recourse to what the achievement of those taxpayers has been in working to save that money—and I will take those interjections. This government has made sure that the money that we have spent—and it is an eye-watering amount—is money that has been spent to ensure that there will be businesses and employees standing up once we get through this pandemic. However, I do fear that those on the Left might sometimes think that this is a perfect opportunity in which to just spend and spend and spend and borrow and borrow and borrow. The line sometimes does have to be drawn because we do have to stand up for the taxpayers of Australia. We do have to stand up for those who are going to come after us and who will have to pay off this quite large debt. We've got to look at what has been the strategic objective of the Prime Minister and the national cabinet since the coronavirus pandemic began. It is all about saving lives and protecting livelihoods and ensuring that, when we deal with coronavirus, we suppress it as much as possible, so we can ensure that the economy keeps going until a vaccine is found and Australians are vaccinated against the coronavirus.

We're all aware that this pandemic is taking a heavy toll on Australia, on individuals, on families and on communities. We are all aware of the impact, especially in my home state of Queensland, where we have a Labor government that has not just one eye on the upcoming state election in 68 days time, but two eyes on it. Everything that our Premier does is in the context of how she's positioning herself for this upcoming state election, and that is disappointing, especially how she is using the politics of border wars to divide people.

We have a situation in Queensland where those who live in border communities are facing immense stress. I speak as someone who lives broadly in a border community. I live on the Southern Downs. We have seen situations in Queensland where a mum has given birth in northern New South Wales but has been unable to visit her newborn baby who had to be transported to hospital in Queensland. We've seen a situation in Queensland where children were unable to go and see their dying father. My mum texted me over the weekend that one of her friends was unable to go to her own brother's funeral. This is the situation we're facing in Queensland, where we have a government who are quite happy to use coronavirus as an alibi to cover up their failed record on the economy and their failed record in Queensland. We have a state government who had, before coronavirus came along, the highest levels of business bankruptcies and the lowest levels of business confidence. The only thing that has been saving Queensland has been the actions taken by this federal government in relation to the JobKeeper payments and the other payments that have been put out by the government and also through the JobSeeker supplement.

It is somewhat ironic that there are parts of Queensland calling out for workers to come and work on farms, to go and pick the fruit. It is something that I've picked up in my travels around Queensland—that there are jobs going in Queensland, but they are in regional Queensland. I would encourage people to move to regional Queensland. I live there. My office is in a different region. I love all of Queensland. But, for some reason, sometimes people don't want to shift. I'd say to them: There is work there. Go west. Go north. It may not be work that you like, but it is work.

We are supporting people through JobKeeper and JobSeeker, and the government's pandemic leave disaster payment is another such support measure. We have put it in place to support those who don't have paid leave entitlements remaining yet have been directed to isolate for 14 days when they otherwise would have been working. We've put this program in place quickly. It was announced on 3 August. Services Australia started accepting claims on 5 August, and payments started flowing a day later, on 6 August. Already almost 7,000 claims from residents and nonresidents have been received and over $8 million has been paid to those in need. We are doing everything we possibly can to support those who have been told to self-isolate or quarantine. Workers with no paid leave entitlements, such as casuals and contractors, may for financial reasons decide to continue working.

What we have also done is allow people to access their super early. What has been interesting have been the howls of outrage from those on the Left that it is outrageous that this Liberal-National government has allowed workers to access super early. And there have been howls of outrage from Paul Keating, that failed Prime Minister of this country, that Prime Minister who deliberately pushed this country into recession, that Prime Minister who tells the workers of Australia: 'You can't access your own money. I, Paul Keating, know better than you.' This is the arrogance of the Left when it comes to dealing with other people's money. The super contributions that have been put into these super accounts belong to the workers. If people wish to access that, to assist themselves throughout this pandemic, throughout this crisis that is facing Australia, I say they should be allowed to do that. They should be allowed to access their own money to help themselves through this crisis. But oh no—those on the Left don't want that to happen. Those on the Left want the funds to stay in these huge super funds.

Here is a fun fact: my understanding is that about $30 billion has been withdrawn from super funds over the last few months, capped out at $10,000 per financial year. That's about the same amount as administration fees that are charged by these super funds! We've got these multibillion-dollar super funds in a trillion-dollar industry. They are in the pockets of big unions, in the pockets of Labor and big business, but it's Labor and the unions who do not want the workers to have access to their own funds.

The government is doing everything possible, supporting those who wish to employ people and those who wish to continue employing people and supporting through the JobSeeker supplement those who have found themselves, sadly, without work. But this bill and the amendment as proposed by the Greens will not assist the situation, will not help people as the Greens do think. So the government will not be supporting the amendments.

It is welcome to see that employers' ability to bear additional costs during an unprecedented pandemic is acknowledged by the amendment, so they get a tick for that. However, the amendment as proposed by the Greens creates a new obligation on employers and employees. The additional burden of administering payments and seeking reimbursement is not what businesses and individuals need at the moment, particularly those in Victoria but also any around the country that are struggling. It will exacerbate cash flow issues for many businesses.

This is what it comes down to: on this side of the chamber and in my own party in Queensland we have so many people who come from the business world or who speak to the business world on such a regular basis that we understand the issues that are facing businesses in Australia. As importantly, we understand the issues that are facing workers in Australia and we understand what we need to do to make sure that Australia gets through this pandemic. That's why the government's priority since day one has been about saving lives. It's been about protecting livelihoods. It's been about embarking on a strategy of suppressing coronavirus so that our hospitals can cope with any clusters that may erupt. It is all about making sure that Australia is fighting fit for when we get through this, whether it's at the end of this year or into the New Year, having fought and beaten coronavirus.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (10:48): I rise to speak in respect of the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020 and make the point that Australia needs a universal paid pandemic leave scheme to protect workers, public health and the national economy, and we need it quickly. Labor and the unions have been calling for paid pandemic leave since the start of this health and economic crisis nearly six months ago. It was evident to Labor and the unions from the very beginning that, with one in every three workers in the country not having access to paid sick leave, there could be and is a big problem.

The problem is the public health risk of people having to choose between forgoing their income and not being able to pay their bills, and turning up to work sick. We know that an estimated 3.7 million Australians don't have any access to paid sick leave or the other protections of permanent employment. These include casuals, contractors, freelancers, sole traders and gig economy workers. Many permanent workers have exhausted their sick leave entitlements already. The obvious risk Labor foresaw from the beginning of this crisis was that, without pandemic leave, many would continue to turn up to work when they were sick or should have been isolating, thereby potentially spreading the virus to their work colleagues and the broader community. But, just as they did with our early calls for a wage subsidy, the government rejected our calls for universal paid pandemic leave for workers, such as casuals, unable to access such arrangements. Despite being warned, the government stubbornly refused even to anticipate the problem, let alone act on the problem, even when it was clear that Labor and the unions had predicted what indeed has happened.

There is still a very real risk of the second wave extending beyond Victoria, although the good news today, of course, is that the numbers continue to fall in that state and are getting close to 100. Given that what was originally feared has become reality, the government needs to act now and introduce a universal paid pandemic leave scheme to ensure that every Australian worker who needs to stay home knows that they will not be financially penalised for doing so. Not addressing this issue will only lead to the continuation of the community spread of the virus and its devastating impact on our community. Universal paid pandemic leave will help stop the spread of the virus and reduce the chances of a full second wave. If Mr Morrison had listened six months ago, the second wave experienced by Victoria might have been far less severe. Paid pandemic leave is meant to prevent an outbreak. We need a national scheme now to prevent a repeat of the Victorian outbreak in other states. Workers cannot be forced to choose between paying their bills and protecting their colleagues, customers and patients.

That being said, while Labor support the bill we cannot support the amendments. We take this position on the basis of previous advice that, should this bill pass this house amended in this way, the other house would likely rule it out of order. Labor want the government to introduce universal paid pandemic leave now. We also believe the government should contribute to the cost of such a scheme. We believe payments should be wage-like—that is, paid by the employer as they normally would pay any other kind of leave. Unless we get a universal scheme, we will have more community transmission, leading to more outbreaks and an economy-smashing lockdown. We cannot afford not to do this.

Madam Acting Deputy President, the bill before you isn't perfect—nothing that the Greens ever do is. It isn't necessarily the way Labor would do it. Fourteen days does not properly provide for the circumstances in which a worker may have to isolate several times. Given the economic circumstances in which businesses find themselves, we believe the Commonwealth should contribute to the cost of the paid pandemic leave, but, as we say all too frequently these days, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (10:53): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020, brought before this chamber by the Greens. As I do, I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speakers and the passion that they have for this issue. Like those of many in this place, through the course of this challenge my office has assisted countless numbers of individuals and organisations who have been hit with the full force of the economic shock from this pandemic—those who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in a tough position; individuals who were suddenly without work and business owners who had tough decisions to make about their future and that of their employees.

In my first speech in this place I remarked that I wanted to ensure that all Western Australians had equitable access to our democracy through the course of this challenge, and that is what I've endeavoured to do. I've taken this opportunity to travel around my home state, to find out how this pandemic has impacted people on the ground. Only the week before last, my team and I hopped in the car and embarked on a 6,500 kilometre listening tour from Perth to Western Australia's far north. I've spoken with business owners, not-for-profits, charitable organisations, chambers of commerce and countless individuals, including those in the gig-sharing economies, in some of the most diverse and remote parts of WA.

There were some tough stories from some of the people hit by the full force of this economic shock. There are also some really inspiring stories of ingenuity, reinvention and adaptation. But the message which consistently underpinned each conversation was that the Commonwealth government backed them when they needed it most. JobKeeper was and continues to be a game-changer for so many. It makes sure employees are able to maintain that connection with their employer, something that is an incredibly important factor for those in regional and remote WA, where, if you lose someone, it really is a challenge to rehire for that position. For those not able to get the JobKeeper payment, JobSeeker has been there for them. It's available. This means that people can continue to provide for their families, pay their bills, and prepare to re-enter the workforce, as conditions allow.

I know many of my colleagues in this place have taken the opportunity to do the same in their own home states. They have listened to the stories and those stories will have helped them inform their position on this issue. I know Senator McGrath did a very similar trip. He spent a lot of time travelling around Queensland speaking to people about these very issues and hearing firsthand accounts of the impact of the federal government's response to the coronavirus pandemic. As a government we continue to provide the required support to Australians as they need it. To reflect the economic challenges, both the JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments will be extended as has been announced.

In addition to this, there is a range of other support measures, such as allowing people to access their own money through their super fund, and the pandemic leave disaster payment for those in Victoria who are unable to earn an income if they must quarantine or self-isolate. The programs the Commonwealth government have put in place are designed to be simple. They are able to be implemented. They are scalable and they are delivered through existing mechanisms. Services Australia is able to have that relationship with so many Australians through their existing systems. This was incredibly important. If we started this process by trying to create our own unique, bespoke implementation, we would probably still be in the process of designing it and there would no doubt be flaws involved. But we used existing systems to ensure that the support got to people where they needed it at the right time. The Australian Taxation Office already has mechanisms in place to deliver payments to businesses. The pandemic leave disaster payment follows a well-established process already in place for the worst natural disasters our nation has faced, like the bushfires and floods.

This bill does not meet any of these principles. It seeks to work outside of what is achievable and what is workable. As such, the government does not support this bill. Amending the Fair Work Australia Act as proposed will not be effective. We know all too well that the impacts of coronavirus vary widely across borders, regions, sectors, businesses and individuals. That means we need a targeted approach. That is why the pandemic leave disaster payment has been put in place. This payment is available to support all Victorian workers, including casual workers, who are required to self-isolate and quarantine and cannot take personal leave.

These $1,500 payments could not be any easier to access. They're available through Services Australia by simply picking up the phone and dialling 1802266. Payments can be claimed on multiple occasions as needed. In addition to this, the Prime Minister has written to each of the states and territories offering similar commitments where a jurisdiction declares a state of disaster.

The Greens bill, by contrast, doesn't adopt the measured approach commensurate with the need within each jurisdiction. No matter whether an employer operates in Western Australia or in Victoria, the bill will impose significant additional costs on those who are already dealing with the most significant economic impact in generations. The proposal to ask the Fair Work Commission to make COVID-19 leave orders on application will create tremendous complexity and ambiguity for everyone involved as they have to navigate the new application process and understand when an order might apply.

Some businesses and individuals are more exposed to the risk of coronavirus than others and are affected on more occasions than others. The government's payment is available on multiple occasions if a worker needs to self-isolate under a health order or gets sick. But the bill provides only 14 days of leave, which may mean that, in fact, some workers could even miss out. The best the Greens can do—while slamming those of us on this side and while claiming to have a monopoly on compassion—is to come into this place with a bill that might actually provide less support for those who need it.

Let's contrast this with what the government has already done and made available to other jurisdictions as they need it. Workers with no paid leave entitlements, such as casuals and contractors, may for financial reasons decide to continue working. The federal government's pandemic leave disaster payment provides a lump sum payment to limit the financial hardship for eligible individuals who are directed to self-isolate or quarantine. We put this program in place quickly, in rapid time—record time, possibly. It was announced on 3 August. Services Australia started accepting claims on 5 August, and payments started to flow the following day, on 6 August. Already more than 6,800 claims from residents and nonresidents have been received. Over $8 million has already been paid to those who need it. This is what's possible when you use an established process and the systems that are already in place. If we'd tried to do this through new systems, we'd still be designing them and still be testing them, and, importantly, the impact would not be where it's needed. The support would not be going to where it's needed. We'd still have IT people in back rooms designing a system and robustly testing it, and it would just take forever. We had to use existing systems to make it work.

The Greens cannot be trusted with the simplest of ideas. They cannot be trusted with managing a pandemic. They cannot be trusted with informing an economic response. They cannot even be trusted with supporting those who are actually most in need and hit by the worst effects of this economic shock. The government will not be supporting this bill, because we believe that the appropriate measures have been put in place, and they encourage individuals who are in that position of need, who are desperate or who need support that they've got a system that is there to support them and that's responsive, is timely and is right where it's needed. I encourage the chamber to vote against this bill.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (11:03): I'd like to make a short statement about my position on this proposed legislation from the Greens, the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020. We can't ask people to take leave if it means that they're going to lose everything. A global pandemic is forcing people to not turn up to shifts. People who want to work aren't able to do it, out of a commitment to public safety. We're asking them to go broke so the rest of us don't get sick. If you've been in contact with someone with COVID-19 and you are required to self-isolate, you're losing money by not turning up for your shifts. If you've got leave saved up, that's what it is there for. What if you don't have any leave? You're on your own. You have to hope you have some savings put away for a rainy day, because I can tell you now that it is pouring and it's not going to stop for two straight weeks.

The Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020 starts from the same place I do. It is all about helping people who are going broke to keep strangers safe from harm. If you're asked to self-isolate, it's not for your own benefit; it's to keep people safe—people you may never meet but whose lives depend on what you are doing and what decisions you are making. Those who are doing the right thing are going broke for our benefit and to keep us safe. If there's something we can do to help them out, then I want to be able to help them. My problem is that, in order to help them, this bill throws a blank cheque at everybody.

In its current form this bill pays too much to the wrong people. We have no idea how much more it's going to cost our grandchildren to repay in the future. There are better ways to stop people from going to work sick. This bill will force the government to cover the cost of a person's wages when they have time off work because of COVID. People who earn more would get more. People with a steady job, annual leave and sick days would actually get more. The Commonwealth would end up paying thousands and thousands of dollars to already well-off people just so they don't have to dip into their leave or sick days when they take time off because of COVID. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why should we pay the wages of a wealthy banker just so they can use their annual leave on a few days at their beach house? Why should we chip in so that a management consultant can still afford to chuck a sickie now and then? Why should we be paying for that? I reckon those people can look after themselves.

The PM keeps saying that we're all in this together. The lucky people in Australia who have a steady job right now can afford to do their bit. They're going to have to do some heavy lifting—we all are—because we're going to have to cover the others. They have the choice to do the right thing. They should give up a little on their end when it's good for the community and their country. Sometimes you just have to do that. I know it sucks, but guess what? That's life and that's just how it is right now under the circumstances we're all living in.

The other thing that scares me about this bill in its current form is that the Greens don't know how much it will cost. They're asking me to sign a blank cheque. I can't do that in good conscience. I will never, ever do that. We could run up some big numbers pretty quickly. In Australia about 12 million people have a job at the moment. It would cost the Commonwealth over $16 billion if half of them took two weeks off at the average wage. There are a lot of people out there who could use that kind of support from the government.

People on JobSeeker are facing a cut to their payments next month. People on JobKeeper will get that too. We're running into the Christmas period. I don't want that to happen. It is not right. Victoria right now is in the middle of the second wave and is still in lockdown. We don't know how long that's going to continue. Why would we cut hundreds of dollars out of JobSeeker when right now some states are in a worse position than they have ever been in? Why would we cut JobKeeper when small businesses are on their knees? Things have changed since the government announced those cuts.

There is not a soul in this parliament that thinks we're all going to be hunky-dory four weeks from now. If you do, you are delusional and you probably shouldn't be sitting in parliament. Those support payments have to be extended till after Christmas. We can't be cutting people off from $1,500 a fortnight when everybody is saying that we're yet to break the back of the economic depression we are in. That's where my priorities are right now. That's where we should be spending our money. We shouldn't be paying billions of dollars just to take away the inconvenience of COVID restrictions for people who have a job and earn good money. They're going to have to start doing the heavy lifting. Someone warn them. This is the problem. I don't think we've thought this through enough and I don't think we've weighed the trade-offs.

I am on board with the idea that casual workers without leave entitlements or a high income need more help. I agree that there should be government support in place for people who could lose their job or have to skip rent payments because they need to self-isolate. That's why I suggested to the Greens that we cap the payments at a sensible level. If you want something done in this place, you've got to compromise. The way I see it, we should set the cap at $1,500 a fortnight—that's the same amount as the current rate of JobKeeper—and maybe we can negotiate with the government at the same time to keep jobseeker and JobKeeper at the rates they are now until after Christmas. Wouldn't that be a better way to do politics in this place? That way, it's a win-win for everybody.

A rate of $1,500 has been broadly accepted as enough to get people through when their income has taken a hit because of this virus. The beauty of it is that people on lower incomes would still get their whole wage. We know they're the ones that will have the most trouble staying home if they're sick because they can't afford to go without a penny. That's where we're at. They would get the help that they need to stop that from happening. People earning more than that could top up their payments with their annual leave, sick leave or savings. Like I said, we're all having to do the heavy lifting—tough, suck it up; these are unprecedented times. It's a much fairer model. It's better targeted to people who need the most help. It also happens to be very similar to the model brought in by the Victorian government at the height of the second wave. It's working there, and it should be expanded to other states before any new outbreaks get out of hand. We need to get one step ahead. We need to start telling people what's coming down if the second or third waves hit, and you should be up to that by now as a coalition. You've now had the second wave in Victoria. There are no excuses anymore for having things in place when outbreaks happen in other states.

I want to give money out to the Australians who need it most. I want to stop people from having to choose between going to work sick or paying their rent. I know how hard that choice would be. Unfortunately, this bill in its current form gives more to people who need less help, and it isn't fair or sensible. So I propose a compromise. The Greens don't want to set the rate of COVID leave at any amount. They think it should be whatever you were earning before what you get now. I think it should be set at the rate of JobKeeper for everybody—except those on jobseeker, for obvious reasons. One of the biggest problems is that it's all getting cut off way too soon, and we need to balance fixing that against fixing this. So I've proposed to the Greens an amendment that I think strikes a reasonable balance.

The Greens don't want it set at JobKeeper, but I don't want it set at an infinite amount where people like Clive Palmer and Twiggy Forrest can be forced to self-isolate—and you think Western Australia is having problems right now—and be given 15 million bucks for the fortnight. Come on! This bill is not being done very well. So let's say that it should be capped at something reasonable, and let's say that that cap should be set by the only ones in this debate able to say what the cost of each level of the cap should be. My proposal is that the government be required to set a cap on the amount a person can receive for COVID paid leave. My amendment doesn't say what the cap should be, it just says, 'You've got to draw the line somewhere, so let's draw a line.'

What I'm proposing is fairer, goes further, is more affordable and should be supported by the Senate. If it's more reasonable and supported then maybe you could look at extending jobseeker and JobKeeper at the current arrangement until after Christmas. That would be a win-win for everybody. This is not something that we saw going on when you set that amount two or three months ago when you decided you were going to change it. Things have not got better, and things will not get better tomorrow. We need to think forward, and we need to think on our feet a little bit quicker than what we've been doing. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:14): The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 is a significant private senator's bill for the people of the Northern Territory. I stand here enormously proud to represent the people of the Northern Territory here in the Senate. I stand just as proudly with my fellow Territorians—Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon, and also Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari. I thank very much the CLP senator for the Northern Territory, Sam McMahon, for standing with us in putting this private senator's bill to the Senate for debate today.

The Constitution allows for five members of the House of Representatives for each original state but leaves it to parliament to determine the number of seats in the territories. In some ways, I wish that we didn't have to have this particular bill, but the Australian Electoral Commissioner has declared that the Northern Territory will lose one of its two seats at the next federal election. This news has been met with great despair in the Northern Territory. We have only four voices in a parliament of over 220 parliamentarians. The Northern Territory is growing. The Parliament of Australia says, 'Let's develop the north.' And, when we talk about developing the north and its economy and infrastructure, we must also talk about developing the north in terms of the voices of the people of the north. Removing a voice diminishes all of our voices. I am urging senators to get behind this bill.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides for a minimum of one member each for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. A single seat in the House of Representatives would mean one member of parliament representing more than 250,000 Territorians in an electorate of over 1.4 million square kilometres—an electorate which is 30 per cent First Nations people and which has a population undercounted in the census.

I introduce this bill in the Senate along with my Labor colleague—our shadow special minister of state, Don Farrell. It has been co-sponsored by fellow NT Senator, Dr McMahon, and all the Nationals senators. We understand the importance of fair representation for regional, rural and remote Australians and we understand that the Northern Territory has 72 remote Indigenous communities, 500 homelands and 40 Indigenous languages. In fact, there are more than 40. They're the strong ones. There are actually over a hundred Aboriginal languages in the Territory. The case for the two seats in the Northern Territory is about fairness for remote and regional Australians. It recognises the huge geographical area of the Northern Territory, which is six times the size of Victoria and almost double the size of New South Wales. It recognises that, with two seats, the population in each is still not far below the national average and is significantly more than the five seats in Tasmania. This is by no means intended to disrespect my colleagues in all of the other states, but it's important in terms of justice and fairness in terms of democracy. That's what this bill is about.

This bill has been referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which gave us an opportunity to hear from those Territorians who will be affected by this change. The inquiry is considering more than 50 submissions on the issue and has heard from more than 20 witnesses. The overwhelming majority of these support maintaining our two seats in the Northern Territory. They included submissions and evidence from the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory; the four land councils of the Northern Territory—Central Land Council, Northern Land Council, Anindilyakwa Land Council and the Tiwi Land Council; Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory; Australian Nurses and Midwifery Federation of the Northern Territory; the Chinese Literary Association of Christmas Island; the CPSU; the Multicultural Council of the NT; the Australian Greens; the Leader of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory, Lia Finocchiaro; and many more. Greg Ireland, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, who gave evidence, said:

… bringing in a floor of two members is what we're seeking. We'd actually love it to be law. But that would at least allow a stronger voice inside parliament to assist with those challenges that we face.

Marion Scrymgour, the CEO of the Northern Land Council, said that returning to a solitary seat would heighten the effective disenfranchisement amongst Aboriginal Territorians. Sarah Cook, from the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, said that a single electorate would 'undoubtedly' limit the representation of remote communities and remote families in federal parliament. Sarah said:

Lingiari is a massive landmass. There are many, many layers of need and disadvantage. We are already competing for air in those factors. We really think it's unreasonable to further limit us by reducing it to just a single person.

Sarah Cook gave evidence over the phone from her car in Katherine and told the committee she was about to drive home—10 hours sitting on an open highway.

Let's not forget the most important Indian Ocean territories that come under the Northern Territory: Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. From Christmas Island, Chris Su wrote that travelling across a single Northern Territory division 'would take more than two weeks and no less than four international airports' and two ferries. He said:

The distance from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Alice Springs as the crow flies is 4,113km.

Dublin to Cairo is 3,975km.

4000km is one tenth of the circumference of the Earth.

These are the passionate submissions coming from people right across the Northern Territory Lingiari electorate.

Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation—based in Maningrida, Arnhem Land, one of the most remote corners of the current electorate of Lingiari—put in a powerful submission. I'd like to read quite a bit from their submission. They say:

…the suggested redistribution of the NT electoral boundaries illegitimately diminishes Indigenous Territorian's right to representation and ultimately justice.

The idea that one MP could be an effective voice for the most disadvantaged Australians in an electorate spanning 1.4 million square kilometres makes a mockery of representation

…   …   …

The census data is not accurate and underestimates the number of people living in the region

Many local Aboriginal people are not registered to vote. Even when they are, voting rates are low compared to the rest of the country.

This means that our local people are already disadvantaged when it comes to representation.

I also want to share with the Senate the voices of individuals who have spoken to me about this issue and who have signed the Labor petition on this matter. I've spent the past month travelling across vast areas of the Northern Territory. I have been speaking to people from Yirrkala and Baniyala in north-east Arnhem Land and to people from Timber Creek and Yarralin, towards the Western Australian border. I have been speaking to people in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. In particular, I have been speaking to people in Kalkarindji, the home of the Gurindji, the site of the 1966 Wave Hill walk-off, which at the weekend marked its 54th anniversary.

Some of you may have seen an article in The Australian newspaper last week, a plea from the grandchildren of Vincent Lingiari to the Prime Minister. In a letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison the grandchildren of Vincent Lingiari, Debra Vincent, Sonny Smiler, Rosie Smiler, Jocelyn Victor and Lisa Smiler, called on the Prime Minister to support this bill in the Senate, and in particular when it reaches the House of Representatives, which we seriously hope that it does. They wrote:

In 2000, we gave permission for the Australian Electoral Commission to use our grandfather's name for the electorate of Lingiari. We were proud to see the achievements of Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji people recognised in this way. Losing a seat will make our voices softer not louder.

…   …   …

Right now we ask you to listen to our voice, and help us to protect our voice.

…   …   …

The voice of remote NT will be diminished without strong representation.

It's really important for the Senate to recognise the significance of that letter to the Prime Minister in particular, and the importance, from a cultural perspective, of First Nations people giving permission for a name like Vincent Lingiari to be used in the parliament for a seat in the House of Representatives. The families had no idea what this decision meant in terms of the Australian Electoral Commission. No-one had spoken to them. No-one had explained why the name of Vincent Lingiari may not be going forward.

In my travels I do explain to Territorians what we're fighting for—for fair representation in the Northern Territory, for a voice for remote and regional Territorians, for democracy—and they are absolutely quick to get behind me. I say to the people of the Northern Territory: let's stay strong on this. We deserve to grow in every aspect of that word—grow in the economy, grow in our infrastructure, grow in our population and, most importantly, grow in our democratic rights here in the Australian parliament.

Labor has garnered over 3,000 signatures from across the Territory and from across Australia on its petition, and we are not stopping there. We will continue with that petition. I will table that petition to the Senate later in the year. Petitioners include Erin Lucas from Lajamanu: 'One representative to service the whole of the Northern Territory is unreasonable, unrealistic and, put simply, unfair.' This is what John Boffa from East Side, Alice Springs, and our Chief Medical Officer Public Health at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress says: 'The population counts are not accurate, and marginalised people need to know their politicians if they are going to be motivated to vote. We must retain two seats.' This is what Raquel Nicholls-Skene in Brinkin says on the petition: 'The Northern Territory has the most disadvantaged people in Australia and being further stripped of representation will only contribute further to their disadvantage. As a territory not a state we already currently miss full participation in our governance—that is, not even a full vote in a referendum.'

Johana Iren from Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt said: 'The NT is already underrepresented with two seats. It's crucial to the Northern Territory to retain these two seats.' Gregory Thomson from Stuart Park in Darwin said simply, 'One seat is an insult to democracy.' Beverley Genat from Pine Creek said, 'While population density is normally the primary consideration, geographical distance must also be given just and fair consideration.' Werner Appel from Tennant Creek said, 'It's a disgrace.' Ann Grattige in Darwin said, 'It's not all about population size. The complexity of the issues needs to play a part in decision-making.' I would absolutely love to go on, and perhaps I will one day. From interstate we've had Beth Cummings from Millbrook, Western Australia, who said: 'We all need to stick together to do what's best for the Northern Territory.' Barbara Greensmith from Port Pirie in South Australia said: 'NT definitely needs two seats. It's such a huge area and it's totally unacceptable to believe that one person could possibly cover the whole area.'

There are so many. Go on my Facebook page and you will see all the comments. These people—these everyday Territorians and everyday Australians—get it. They understand what federal representation is meant to do and they can't believe the Northern Territory could possibly be represented by one person. They get that a single electorate for the Territory would not give adequate recognition to the differing communities in the NT. They get that a single electorate for the Northern Territory would not recognise the strategic and economic importance of the Northern Territory to Australia as a whole.

Labor gets it. The Nationals get it. I thank Senator Sam McMahon, Senator Bridget McKenzie, Senator Matt Canavan, Senator Perin Davey and Senator Susan McDonald for co-sponsoring this bill. The Greens get it. Independents Senator Lambie, Senator Patrick and Senator Griff get it. Even the leader of the Northern Territory CLP gets it. So does the Northern Territory Labor Party. With all of these senators supporting the bill, we're hopeful it can pass the Senate. Now I call on the Prime Minister to do the same. The only thing we need now, Prime Minister, is for you to get it, for you to support the voices of the people of the Northern Territory, for you to assist in passing this legislation to enable the Northern Territory to have two seats, at a minimum, in the lower house. Yamalu.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (11:29): I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge the great festival of democracy that was held on the weekend in the Northern Territory. In particular, I want to thank and congratulate all the candidates who stood for election and acknowledge the work of Lia Finocchiaro, the leader of the Country Liberals. I worked for the Country Liberals back in 2012 as their campaign director, when we were very fortunate to come to power after being in the wilderness for a number of years. Lia is one of those brilliant politicians who has what I call the X factor. Congratulations to her and Sallyann Innes and everybody involved in that campaign. I'll have more to say about that at a later time.

This bill, introduced by Senators Farrell and McCarthy on 11 June of this year, would amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to provide for a minimum of two divisions for the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives. The introduction of this bill was predicated on research that projected the possibility that the Northern Territory would lose one of its two seats in the House of Representatives, caused by its population falling below the entitlement quota for the second seat. On 12 June of this year, Minister Cormann, as Special Minister of State, wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to ask it to inquire into and report back on this bill early in the spring sittings to ensure a timely deliberation before redistribution processes for the Northern Territory could become too far advanced and that senators hear from appropriate experts and from members of the community, including government agencies, on the administrative and legal implications of this bill. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I want to briefly update the Senate on this inquiry and on some of the evidence that has been received.

On 17 June, after Minister Cormann's request, the committee resolved to adopt an inquiry into the bill, which was subsequently publicised by media releases and in the form of invitations to interested parties. It was only during the inquiry—this was on 3 July—that the Australian Electoral Commissioner formally made the determination to increase the number of seats in Victoria from 38 to 39, to decrease the number of seats in Western Australia from 16 to 15 and to decrease the number of seats in the Northern Territory from two to one. This was based on the most recent official population figures for the Commonwealth published by the Australian Statistician. What I will do is go into a bit of detail in terms of how this has come about.

The population quota for one member is 172,537 people, to be precise, with partial quotas over 0.5 rounded up. Unlike the states, the territories are afforded an additional calculation process to account for the margin of error related to the population at the last census. This margin of error calculation was introduced by the Howard government through the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Representation in the House of Representatives) Act 2004, following the recommendation of JSCEM's 2003 territory representation inquiry. The NT population shortfall for a second member was 11,526. This was more than its population margin of error of 7,440. As such, it did not retain a second seat. The ACT population shortfall for a third member was 1,784. This was less than its population margin of error of 10,694. As such, it retained its third seat.

The 31 December 2019 estimated resident population data was published by the ABS in June of this year. These were the most recent statistics required to be used by the Electoral Commissioner under the Electoral Act for the calculation of entitlements ahead of the next election. The determination of reduced entitlement for the Northern Territory to one member only applies immediately for the purposes of enrolment. The members elected at the 2019 federal election, representing the division of Lingiari and the division of Solomon, will continue to represent those electorates up until the next election.

Part III of the Electoral Act specifies the process to be followed to determine the number of members of each state and territory, when it is to be conducted and by whom it is to be conducted. The number of members in the House of Representatives for a state or a territory is based on the population of that state or territory relative to the population of all other states and territories. Some margin-of-error adjustments are made to the territories to account for the accuracy of their census population data. So enrolment is not relevant to the entitlement to members in the House of Representatives. The allocation of members by jurisdiction involves a calculation that divides the population of the state or territory by a population quota. Partial quotas, as I indicated earlier, over 0.5 from this calculation are rounded up. So, in essence, the population quota equals the number of people of the Commonwealth as ascertained by the Electoral Commissioner, divided by twice the number of senators for states.

In calculating this quota, the number of people of the Commonwealth does not include the people of the territories. The Electoral Act requires the Australian Statistician to supply the Electoral Commissioner with the populations of the states and territories, which have been compiled and published in a regular series under the Census and Statistics Act 1905. The information to be supplied by the Statistician is required to be published immediately prior to the day for the calculation—that is, one day after the House of Representatives has been sitting for 12 months following an election. The ABS also publishes the estimated resident population each quarter.

Adjustments may be made to the ACT and NT populations as follows: the ACT to include the Jervis Bay territory and to include Norfolk Island where the latter is not entitled to a member in its own right, and the Northern Territory to include the Christmas Island territory and/or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands territory when either or both of these territories are not entitled to a member in their own right. In both of these cases, the population of the smaller territory is added to the population of the ACT or the Northern Territory and the number of members to which the ACT or the Northern Territory is entitled is recalculated. This is an additional calculation which is made where the entitlement for the ACT or the Northern Territory is a whole number and a remainder that is less than or equal to one-half of the population quota. Depending on the outcome of this calculation, a further adjustment may be made to the population and the number of members recalculated. This is the margin-of-error calculation that was introduced in 2004.

Section 24 of the Constitution does specify that five members at least shall be chosen in each original state and, as has been pointed out by speakers, Tasmania is guaranteed a minimum of five members of the House of Representatives as an original state of the Commonwealth of Australia. Section 122 of the Constitution allows the parliament to make laws for the territories and provides that the parliament may allow the representation of such territories in either house of the parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit. Subsection 48(2B) of the Electoral Act requires that at least one member of the House of Representatives shall be chosen in the ACT and the NT at a general election. This provision was introduced through the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1989. Prior to the 1989 act, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 fixed representation at two members for the ACT and one member for the Northern Territory.

I think it is important that we also look at the historical representation in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory was first represented by one member in the House of Representatives in 1922 through the Northern Territory Representation Act 1922, but it should be noted that the voting and participatory rights of the NT member were initially restricted. They could not vote on any question or be counted in any situation where numbers mattered—for example, a quorum or an absolute majority—and they could not hold office as a Speaker of the House of Representatives or a chair of a House of Representatives committee. In 1936, the Northern Territory member was granted the right to vote on any motion to disallow any Northern Territory ordinance and on any amendment to such a motion. In 1959, the Northern Territory member's right to vote was extended to include any proposal relating solely to the Northern Territory. In 1968, the Northern Territory member was afforded the same rights, privileges and immunities as members for the states. The Northern Territory Representation Act was repealed and replaced by the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act in 1983, which transferred Northern Territory representation privileges in the Electoral Act and retained the Northern Territory's fixed entitlement to one member. I think it's very important to be aware of the historical background of representation in the Northern Territory but also to be fully aware of the legal background upon which redistributions take place in Australia and the basis upon which redistributions do take place.

Since the inquiry into this bill was established some months ago, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has received written and verbal evidence from over 50 individuals and organisations. While it was the committee's original hope to travel to the Northern Territory to hold in-person hearings, the committee secretariat received advice that this was probably not appropriate, considering the coronavirus pandemic that is currently sweeping Australia, and so the committee instead agreed to hold a hearing via teleconference on 21 July.

At the hearing, the committee heard from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and—as Senator McCarthy indicated—we heard from Senator McCarthy along with the federal members for Solomon and Lingiari. We heard from the Australian Electoral Commission. We heard from officers from the Department of Finance and from election analyst Malcolm Mackerras AO—for those who might be listening along at home, it is Professor Mackerras who came up with the Mackerras pendulum. We heard from the ABC's Antony Green as well as from a number of other representatives including from the Chamber of Commerce NT, the Isolated Children's Parents' Association and Indigenous organisations, and from other individuals. Some were supportive of the bill. Others called for amendments or changes to the formula. In saying so, responses to questions on notice arising from the hearing were due last week, and there are some submissions that the committee still needs to consider before publication. It is my understanding that the committee secretariat now is working through the evidence that we have received. The committee had agreed to consider the report in early October; however, it is my preference—and I'm looking across at my Labor colleagues over there—that, subject to the view of other committee members, and without wishing to step on their toes, and considering the workload of the secretariat, I would hope that we can report back sooner than that, given the formal determination by the Australian Electoral Commission in July.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Senator McGRATH: We do need to consider the evidence soberly and with due consideration, Senator Farrell. In closing, there has been an important and longstanding convention that electoral legislation should generally only be changed based on bipartisan consensus and after appropriate opportunity for scrutiny of legislation. And I do hope that the Senate considers the committee's forthcoming report and recommendations prior to any vote on this bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): Senator Waters, you have the call.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:42): Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land that I am dialling in from here in Meanjin, or Brisbane, the Turrbal, the Yuggera and the Yugarabul people, and that sovereignty was never ceded, so we are on stolen land. I'm very proud to be first senator using our remote facilities, as the chamber finally enters the 21st century. I hope that we can continue that trend to modernity with, maybe, some more women in cabinet and a more representative chamber, and that is, of course, what the bill is about today.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 is a bill that the Greens are very proud to support, and it goes to the ability of this chamber to represent its constituents and to the ability of the House to represent its constituents. The reason for this bill is that in early July the Electoral Commissioner determined that population changes in the Northern Territory meant that the electoral entitlement for the NT was for one lower house seat only. If the parliament doesn't act, then this small change in relative population will lead to the Northern Territory losing half of its representation in the House and going from four federal representatives down to just three. The resulting lower house electorate would cover the entire Northern Territory and the Christmas and Cocos Islands, so it would be by far the largest electorate in the country by population, at almost a quarter of a million people.

The Greens strongly believe that halving the number of seats in the Territory would be a massive injustice for First Nations people living in the Territory—who are, frankly, already unrepresented and underserved by our parliamentary system. It would also lead to major underrepresentation for rural and remote communities across the Territory and the islands. These diverse and disparate communities already share one rural electorate, despite the diversity of issues that the electorate has to cover. To combine an already stretched electorate with an urban centre would just further marginalise rural and remote issues. That is, of course, the reason why we are in strong support of the bill.

In the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the bill there was broad consensus expressed, both by those making submissions and those giving evidence, that returning to just one member and one electorate would seriously diminish the representation of people in the Northern Territory. I note that the Territory is 27 per cent First Nations people, which is the highest proportion of any state or territory. Lingiari, which is the seat that would be abolished, has the highest proportion of First Nations voters, at about 40 per cent, so its amalgamation would seriously and disproportionately impact the representation that First Nations people are able to get in the House of Representatives chamber in this federal parliament.

I've already mentioned how the NT is huge in its geography and covers a disparate range of constituencies. Currently, the urban and industrial issues are concentrated around Darwin, in the seat called Solomon, while most regional areas are represented in Lingiari. As I've said, amalgamation of those into one seat, we fear, would give priority to those urban areas over regional, remote and First Nations issues and voices. In relation to fracking, for example, which is, of course, quite topical, city voters who might have bought the spin that somehow there'll be some economic benefits flowing from gas—which, frankly, is dubious and disputed by the experts—might vote differently to people in the regional and remote areas, who will have to live with the impacts of a destroyed water table and other incursions onto their land. So it will be very difficult for a representative to balance those competing interests and concerns.

Of course, in order to represent an electorate properly you should get around and visit the place. Part of the reason I'm dialling in remotely is so that I can do that in the 14 days after this fortnight of sittings, rather than being in an appropriate level of quarantine to keep my fellow Queenslanders safe. But, because of the size of the NT, making it one seat makes it thoroughly impractical for the representative to get around and actually listen to the community and then represent those interests here in parliament. I want to note that in federal voting statistics the Northern Territory already has a lower turnout than other states and territories. If voters already feel unrepresented due to the size of the existing electorates and, further, the lack of an elected representative to get around and see them personally, there's potential for even less engagement and even more disenfranchisement. That would be a tragedy for our democracy.

The fact that the NT population fluctuates with a clear margin of error and that the census data is sometimes unreliable given the transient nature of the population means that it's preferable to have a guarantee of two seats, rather than changing between one and two seats every few terms. There is a whole range of ways this could be achieved, and some of the submitters to the inquiry on the bill went through them. Antony Green proposes a harmonic mean apportionment. It all gets very 'wonky' and interesting. We're very open to considering those methods in the future, but for now we think this bill is a necessary safeguard to protect our democracy and protect the interests of First Nations people through their being properly represented in the House of Representatives and the federal parliament.

Now is a crucial time in our relationship with First Nations people. The Greens, of course, believe that we need a treaty, we need truth, we need justice, we need healing, we need reparations and we need sovereignty acknowledged. All of those issues should be dealt with by this parliament and by our community, but, if we are to start off by reducing representation of First Nations people in federal parliament, that sends absolutely the wrong message and could set back progress on those other crucial issues of how we respect and acknowledge our First Nations people and their rights.

While we're on electoral reform, I have said that this bill is important, and the time for dealing with these issues is now, but there are also a lot of other reforms that our democracy is crying out for. We need more diversity of representation in our chamber and we need the voices of the community to be properly represented. Now, I have a private member's bill of my own, which will, hopefully, come on for debate at some point this century, which would remove the influence of private money on our democracy. It would say that, actually, you shouldn't be able to buy influence and that particular industries should not be able to make massive donations that then buy tacit favours or tacit policy outcomes that suit the bottom line while community interests, the public interest and the interests of the planet get put second, third or last. We think that's a crucial electoral reform as well. It has long been the Greens' view that we should get dirty donations and their influence on our democracy right out of the picture, so I'll be hoping to bring that bill on at some point. It would cap donations from everybody at $1,000 a year. That's for individuals; that's for community groups. That's for everybody, because we don't think that big money should be running our democracy; we think it should be about the public interest and the interests of the planet and the future.

That is, of course, the biggest electoral reform that the Greens will continue to champion and to push for, and we hope to have some support for that, but we note that, sadly, both of the big parties do accept very large corporate donations—to the tune of, I think, $100 million now since 2012. So, sadly, we're not yet confident that that bill will have the numbers it requires to pass, but we live in hope.

In terms of other reforms that are needed for our democracy to remain in this century, remote participation is, of course, at the top of the list. I'm really pleased that we are here and that things seem to be working. I haven't had my phone buzz, Mr President, to say that you can't hear me or see me or that things aren't working, so I assume that all is tickety-boo. I'm very grateful for that, but it's six months too late. We've been in this global pandemic for six months now and, really, we should've seen this process expedited at the beginning of that time. I'm glad we're here now, but it did take an awfully long time. Let's hope that the system holds up for the coming fortnight.

In terms of other reforms, the parliamentary code of conduct and, of course, a federal corruption watchdog, which go hand in hand, are desperately needed. I'll be speaking about the parliamentary code of conduct later today because the reporting to the inquiry into my bill to set one up is being tabled this afternoon, but suffice to say I think we need to make the parliament a more attractive workplace so that people actually want to enter politics and seek to make change, improve people's lives and work for the betterment of us all. The way that they see many senators and members conducting themselves really doesn't endear the profession to people who might be interested in a career in politics. If we're talking about democratic reforms and making our chamber more representative, then things like parliamentary standards so that conflicts of interests are properly managed and people act in the public interest are really very basic stuff that should have been legislated an awfully long time ago.

In terms of other democratic reforms, ensuring government decision-making and advisory bodies have broader representation is very crucial and very topical. We've seen the COVID commission stacked with industry representatives who have vested interests in pushing particular industries or particular resources, even particular projects, and there are very lax conflict-of-interest rules about how to manage those flagrant conflicts between what could be advocacy for the public interest through a public commission and what could be advocacy for the private interests of the personnel who are on that commission. Again, in this broader context of making our democracy work better, it's the community that needs to be represented, not people's private interests, so making sure that those government decision-making or advisory bodies are more representative and have better conflict-of-interest rules is well overdue.

There are a whole lot of other initiatives that we would love to see trialled as we take these tentative steps towards the 21st century in our teenage democracy. Things like citizen-initiated matters of public importance, citizens' assemblies and participatory budget-making—actually involving people in their democracy more systemically and more successfully—would lead to better outcomes. We would all be better informed and the system would do its job better. So we're really excited about the prospect of progress on those issues. We've learnt to become very patient, so I am not sure how long it will be until we see some real action on those things, but I am proud to be in a party that's pushing those issues and I know that there are many people in the chamber that agree on these issues, so there's hope for reform.

These are the reasons we support broader democratic reform, and in this particular instance we support this bill. I want to pay tribute and credit to Senator McCarthy, who has really championed this issue and has done, as always, an excellent job on it. I acknowledge that this legislation would entrench malapportionment, but we think it's fair enough in this case. You can't have a single Representatives seat representing an entire territory that is 27 per cent First Nations people and say that that's good and fair representation because there has been a slight change in population numbers. That could potentially lead to a really unfair and, I think, undemocratic outcome. So we need this fixed. We've got the bill before us today to fix it. I don't think it's coming on for a vote. I hope I'm wrong about that. We will certainly be supporting the bill if it does, and I do hope that the government take this on board and take the strong feedback of all of the submitters on board along with the rights, wishes and desires of First Nations communities to be properly represented in this chamber and in the other chamber.

With that, I conclude my remarks. It seems the tech has held up, so I'm grateful for that. I say thank you to everyone who has been involved in getting these remote facilities set up. There have been a lot of people working very long hours. We're very grateful for that and we thank you for it.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (11:57): I rise as one of the co-sponsors, along with Senator McCarthy and Senators McMahon, McKenzie, Canavan, Davey and McDonald, to support this legislation to ensure appropriate and fair representation for the people of the Northern Territory in the federal parliament. At the outset I will follow the lead of Senator McGrath in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition for last weekend's election in the Northern Territory. I extend my congratulations to the Chief Minister, Mr Gunner, who we hope has, in the most difficult of circumstances, been returned to majority government. I can see Senator Smith nodding there. I had the great privilege of working with Mr Gunner in the 1990s when he was an official of the shop assistants union—that great union—and it does appear that at some time either today or tomorrow, when the counting is completed, we will find that he has been returned with a majority government in the Northern Territory and will continue the terrific work that he's been doing, particularly in the circumstances of the pandemic.

As I said, I am a co-sponsor of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 and support very much the legislation in terms of its extension to the Northern Territory or maintenance of the current position. I note that one of the people who made a very clear submission to the inquiry into this bill was, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, who made it very clear that she would like to see the continuation of two seats for the Northern Territory. I am aware that there are other people who would like to speak on this topic who are from the Northern Territory, so I am happy to associate myself with the remarks of Senator McCarthy and complete my comments at this point.

Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (12:00): I rise today, strongly on behalf of Territorians, in my support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. I'm not surprised, reading through the submissions to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into this bill, at the vocal opposition to the Australian Electoral Commission's move to reduce the number of the Territory's lower house seats from two to one. Given the strong opposition from community groups, Indigenous land councils, political analysts such as Antony Green, professors, the Northern Territory government, Territory opposition, federal members and senators in this place, I have to wonder why we allow a blunt mathematical equation on population to get it so wrong.

That leads me to the purpose of this bill. Through this bill we are seeking to ensure a minimum of two seats for the Northern Territory. Let's not forget that as a Territory we have only two senators; that's four representatives in total, and it's proposed to go down to three. Since 2001 Territorians have been served by two members of parliament. Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data, overlaid by an arbitrary Australian Electoral Commission formula, the Territory is set to lose a seat. This would mean 250,000 Territorians would be represented by just one member of parliament—and, I might add, that doesn't include unenrolled voters. At 31 March, the Northern Territory government believed there were approximately 24,000 unenrolled voters in the Territory. Many of the Territory's unenrolled voters are Indigenous. I myself, having just been through some of the gruelling remote-area mobile polling, have seen firsthand how many people in remote communities are not enrolled.

Without this bill, the Territory would become the largest seat in the country, seeing an extra 30,000 people spread over an area more than 35,000 times as large as the electorate of Melbourne, while, on the other hand, we have Tasmania. I love my Tasmanian colleagues. But Tasmania is, as we've heard, guaranteed five seats, regardless of its population—five members in the House of Representatives, with a population of about 535,000 people. And let's not forget: Tassie gets 12 senators. So, for double our population, Tasmania has over four times our representation. Without this bill, Tassie would have over five times our representation. It doesn't sound fair, and it's not.

But leaving fairness out of it for a second, if it is deemed that an MP can adequately represent a certain population, then why doesn't that apply in the NT? As Territorians, we like to think we're different. But are we? It is an area of approximately 1.4 million square kilometres, has a population of approximately 250,000 and has a population density of approximately 1.75 people per 100 square kilometres—fewer than two people per 100 square kilometres. It's currently the second-largest division in Australia, behind Durack in WA—but let's not forget, WA has many more MPs, and 12 senators.

We have cosmopolitan Darwin and Palmerston, covered by the seat of Solomon. The rest of the NT is covered by the seat of Lingiari. This contains the towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Timber Creek, Pine Creek and so on. We also have reasonably large-sized towns that are incredibly isolated, such as Groote Eylandt, sitting in the gulf, and Gove, up on the tip of Arnhem Land, that is inaccessible by road for much of the year. We also have some of the most remote communities in Australia. Lingara is out in the Victoria River district, out towards Halls Creek in WA. I was there just last week. It's an eight-hour, one-way trip to get to Darwin. Lingara had three voters last week, but those three people deserve representation.

Let's not forget the NT also includes Christmas Island and the Cocos Keeling Islands out in the Indian Ocean. You cannot even fly there from Darwin. You have to go via Perth or Malaysia. There are 2,000 people out in those territories. It takes an entire week to do a trip out there. Imagine that you have to travel to another state or overseas to visit your constituents. It's unimaginable for the rest of Australia. The Territory is six times the size of Victoria and almost double the size of New South Wales. Not only that, as we've heard, the Territory is home to a culturally rich and diverse population, with 27 per cent of Australia's Indigenous population calling the Territory home. Roughly 40 per cent of the population of Lingiari is Indigenous. Most of these remote communities which contain our Indigenous population are only accessible by unsealed roads and are impassable during the Territory's wet season. It makes the work of scheduling for a Territorian MP very challenging.

In July, our government reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people overcome entrenched inequality through the national agreement and set 16 new targets across key challenges, including health, education, employment, justice and housing. At a time when we are seeking to elevate the voice of our First Nations people to address these issues, our Indigenous Territorians deserve effective and efficient representation, and this is best served by ensuring at least two MPs in the Territory.

The seat of Solomon focuses on the Darwin-Palmerston areas. In that seat is Darwin Port, the closest port to South-East Asia. The port is vitally important, not only to Australia's defence capabilities but for trade relationships with the rest of the world. The seat also contains major defence assets and is home to the US Marine Rotational Force. Tourism, education and manufacturing are other important activities for this hub.

As you can see, these two seats have very unique characteristics, opportunities and challenges, but both share in the challenge of the tyranny of distance. Without this bill, there is no doubt the Territory's strategic and economic importance will be undermined. Now, more than ever, in the light of COVID, this is not in Territorians' best interests, and it's certainly not in our nation's best interests. COVID has seen a number of the Territory's key industries and businesses put at risk. The timing couldn't be worse, with an NT Labor government debt forecast to be $8.2 billion. The ramifications of this will see many Territorians seeking access to their local MP, whether that is to help locate opportunities for community funding grants, provide assistance to small business in accessing small business loans, or to help constituents deal with human services.

Despite the challenges, we also need to be looking for the projects capable of ensuring economic recovery. In the Territory, we are blessed with many opportunities. Some of those opportunities are in tourism, mining, gas, minerals, manufacturing and education. MPs are often the first go-to on these project proposals, and ensuring that they are briefed helps them advocate successfully in Canberra. With just one MP—an MP who would undoubtedly spend more time travelling than meeting with Territory constituents—my fear is that the Territory's potential may never be realised and our people, particularly Indigenous Territorians, will continue to be left behind.

In closing, I would like to particularly thank my co-sponsor, Senator McCarthy, for her strong advocacy on behalf of all Territorians and the contribution we make to this nation. I implore all of my colleagues to consider the role our MPs have in representing in Canberra each and every part of their electorates, and to ask themselves: is it fair to give 250,000 culturally, economically, and geographically diverse Territorians just one MP? I hope the answer to that question is an unequivocal no.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:10): Today I rise to support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 in the strongest possible terms. 'One vote, one value' is an important principle in our democracy, and we know that periodic electoral redistributions take place to make sure that this principle is maintained. But it is not the only principle that is important in Australian democracy. Indeed, given its growing population, should the current electoral redistribution go ahead in the Northern Territory, the very principle of 'one vote, one value' would be undermined because of the extraordinary number of people who would end up in the one and only Northern Territory lower house electorate.

Our Constitution enshrines a minimum level of representation for each of our states in the House of Representatives. The low population of a state may fall, but the number of seats in that state can never fall below five. Our founders knew that states have distinct interests and that those states must be represented not only in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives. Indeed, the point that has just been made is that states' interests are well served not only by the minimum of five lower house seats but also by the fact that there are 12 senators for each state—a luxury that the Northern Territory does not enjoy.

There are other principles that the Australian Electoral Commission applies when redrawing electoral boundaries, and they include community interests within electorates. That's an important principle as well. Our democracy recognises that people cast their votes according to what is important to them and their community, and the Electoral Commission recognises, and our Commonwealth Electoral Act is designed to recognise, that this can differ extremely widely between the city and the bush, between one part of the city and another, and between communities built around manufacturing or around a service sector or agriculture. Democracy is how we negotiate all of those different values and different interests. For that to work, they have to be represented in both houses of our parliament.

All of these important parts of making our democracy work will be disregarded if the Northern Territory has only one electorate. One single parliamentarian will represent nearly 250,000 Australians. It will be, by far, the largest electorate in Australia. On the figures for the redistribution from last year, the Northern Territory falls short of two seats by fewer than 5,000 people. If the Territory retains two seats, each of them will have more electors than any of the five seats in Tasmania. What's more, the Northern Territory's Department of Treasury and Finance predicts that, by next year, the Northern Territory's population will be more than 251,000 people. By the time the election is held, it will have even on the single criterion of population more than enough people to deserve two seats. If the Northern Territory loses a seat then in that election one Northern Territory vote will have one-half value. That is an extraordinary way for the current Electoral Act to override the principle of one-vote one-value.

Here in our nation we must look to the principles of democracy. Those future figures and the figures now are not even taking into account the significant barriers to enrolment in remote Indigenous communities. I myself know from experience in the Kimberley that there are many more eligible voters in many places around the country than are on the electoral roll. The Commonwealth government doesn't do nearly enough work in the remote communities of our country to get voters on the roll. This government makes it difficult for people who don't have ID and who move frequently to stay on the roll. This has a disproportionate effect on Australia's remote communities.

It's certainly well within the bounds of possibility that, if enrolment in remote areas matched the national average, the Northern Territory would be entitled to two seats right now. While I note that it is based on population, we need also to look very clearly at the enrolment levels of those communities. The representation of distinct interests of each jurisdiction that makes up our federation is clearly being overridden by reducing the Northern Territory to one seat, and that must be prevented. Other senators have made remarks about the huge distances that are covered in seats like Durack. Indeed, the Northern Territory would have the largest seat in our federation. It is absolutely extraordinary that this seat be taken from them.

I support the guarantee of a minimum number of seats for each state regardless of population because I absolutely agree that properly representing a state's common interests in parliament and caucuses needs a baseline number of members. Our democracy currently does not extend that same principle to our territories. It absolutely should. One of the reasons it absolutely must in the case of the Northern Territory is that it is by far a very distinct electorate and territory compared to the rest of our nation, which has large numbers of suburban seats. Representation of each state is made up of large numbers of suburban seats, whereas the Northern Territory essentially has a remote seat and a city seat. Here we're expecting even them to be rolled together. We cannot countenance the idea of the Northern Territory and all those remote voters being bundled together with a city seat when their voices are so incredibly distinct.

In what fundamental way is the Northern Territory different to a state besides the administrative and legal accidents of history—or perhaps should I say the racist accidents of history? The Northern Territory was not historically treated as a state, because of its low population size at a time when its population was not even counted. That was when the accidents of history actually occurred. The Northern Territory became a territory at a time when the Australian human population of the Northern Territory were not properly counted even as citizens. They may not even have been counted in a population census at the time these administrative decisions were made.

If we were forming the Australian federation today, wouldn't the chief ministers of the territories be at the table with the premiers of the states? When our nation mobilised to combat COVID-19—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The time allotted for this debate has expired. Senator Pratt, you'll be in continuation when the matter comes back before the parliament.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:20): Labor does not oppose the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. The bill amends the governance structures of the Australian Skills Quality Authority, the national VET sector regulator, and enhances information-sharing arrangements between ASQA and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Key amendments in this legislation before the chamber today revise ASQA's governance structure, replacing the existing chief commissioner/chief executive officer and two commissioners with a single independent statutory office holder, in this case a CEO. It establishes the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Advisory Council. The advisory council is intended to provide ASQA with access to expert advice regarding the functions of the regulator.

On this side of the chamber, in Labor, we know the value of TAFE and of union representation. Their views need to be heard and considered when it comes to our vocational education and training sector. That's why today in the Senate we'll seek to move amendments to ensure the public provider has seats at the table. We support a fair and considered approach to these reforms and we support changes that improve ASQA's capacity to ensure responsiveness to students, communities and employers, but we'll reject changes that attempt to weaken ASQA's regulatory framework. We in this chamber need to ensure that the reforms to ASQA audit processes don't allow any drop in quality. In the past, we have seen this government be slow to act on quality issues. In Labor's view, this has done serious damage to the sector. There is considerable need for reform. But, more broadly, in the case of reform, the bill before us today is just another tweak from a third-term government that has refused to deliver genuine reform that overhauls our vocational training sector. Today the bill before us does not come close to fixing the mess that the Liberal government has made of Australia's TAFE and training system.

In our nation we have, very clearly, a skills shortage which existed before COVID-19 hit. The coronavirus outbreak has highlighted that more than seven years of Liberal government has left Australia facing a crisis in skills and in vocational training. The most recent figures show a 73 per cent drop in the number of apprenticeships advertised. Indeed, I have spoken to small businesses that say they've been struggling to keep their apprentices on. This government did offer a subsidy for apprentices. That's a step in the right direction, but this is a critical problem for our nation. Much more needs to be done in offering support to newly starting apprentices and trainees. If we as a nation fail on that score, we will have a much deeper and greater skills shortage in the years to come.

We had a skills shortage before COVID-19 hit. The government spent seven years neglecting our TAFE and training systems. It has spent seven years ignoring the vital role that TAFE plays in the growth of our young people and the vital role it plays in the growth of our economy. We have had seven years of cutting funding from the sector while there has also been underspending in the meagre amount that the government promised to the vocational education and training sector. So rebuilding our skills and training sector will be crucial and critical to getting our economy going again.

We absolutely need to be properly funding our TAFE and apprenticeship programs. We've seen $3 billion worth of cuts in recent years to TAFE and to training. This government must restore the funding that they've cut. The government must invest in training the next generation of tradespeople in their areas, and we need them to take some responsibility in doing that.

We've seen a litany of skills and vocational training failures under this government. More than seven years of Liberal government has left Australia facing a crisis in skills and vocational training. As we learned last year from the federal education department's own data, the Liberals have failed to spend $919 million of their own TAFE and training budget over the last five years. All this money is sitting in the government's bank account—all in addition to the more than $3 billion already ripped out of our system.

We have TAFE campuses falling apart in our country. We've got state governments closing campuses and ending courses. All the while, money remains unspent. Why? Because the government says that there's been less demand than forecast. The Liberal Party has said this every year since it came to office. I'm sorry to say that this simply does not stack up when underemployment is at near record levels at the same time as employers in our country are crying out for skilled workers. What's the result of this underspend? There are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees and there's a shortage of workers in critical services, including plumbing, carpentry, hairdressing and motor mechanics.

In our country, the number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower today than it was a decade ago. The Independent National Centre for Vocational Education Research recently found that, over the past year, 20 per cent fewer people were signing up to trade apprenticeships and traineeships. This was even more extreme in a number of very essential trades. The number of Australians starting an apprenticeship or traineeship in construction—including carpentry, bricklaying and plumbing—has dropped by an alarming 40 per cent. In some areas, there are more people dropping out of vocational courses than there are finishing them. This doesn't happen by accident.

There has been a $1 billion underspend from this Liberal government. That funding included incentives for business to take on apprentices and support to help people finish their apprenticeships, and there was a fund designed to train Australians in areas of need. The government's proposals to support education and training in our country are simply not working. This brings us to a skills crisis in an era of rising youth unemployment. We have, simultaneously, a crisis of youth unemployment and a crisis of skills shortages. One of these is bad enough, but to be faced with both at the same time is hard to imagine, particularly at this time. But here we are confronted with both.

There's been nearly a 10 per cent increase in the number of occupations facing skills shortages, while the Australian Industry Group says that 75 per cent of businesses surveyed are struggling to find the qualified workers they need. There are almost two million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed. We see businesses struggling to fill the skilled positions they have on offer. At the same time, we have young people desperate for work who can't fill those positions because they haven't been given the chance to gain the skills that those roles require.

Why isn't the Morrison government training these people for jobs in industries where there's a shortage of workers. Why? Because this Liberal government has cut funding to TAFEs and training. And, even though this is the case, and it's plainly obvious that it is, the government still refuses to properly fund the sector. It refuses to give it the proper reform that it so desperately needs. Young people in our country have been very clear about what they need. They need a skills and training sector that is properly funded. They need that sector to be properly resourced. They need it to have educators who are properly trained and able to skill-up young people as a pathway to meaningful employment. This nation needs that now more than ever. This government has not delivered on a single one of those requests.

We have a Liberal government that has no plan to fix our nation's skills crisis. It doesn't care enough or have the capacity to do the hard work that needs to be done to build a better post-school education system. Our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has no plan to fix the skills crisis he has created. He has no plan to create more jobs for those who are unemployed. He has no plan to lift wages for those who are employed. As always, this Prime Minister would rather hide from problems than do the hard work that is needed to fix and resolve them. We have from our Prime Minister spin and deflection, bringing in marketing teams and celebrity ambassadors to distract from the real issues that confront our nation on skills.

We have in JobMaker another marketing slogan with no substance. JobTrainer goes nowhere near replacing the funding the government has stripped out and we still don't know what it will do. A government that is fiddling at the edges of our current system will not address the profound problems that undermine vocational education and training and consequently the productive performance and international competitiveness of our economy. Unlike Labor, this government does not understand the critical role of TAFE as a public provider, the value in skills and apprenticeships or the real value of the hardworking and passionate public providers in TAFE, our TAFE teachers. If we continue down this path we, as a nation, will be severely jeopardising our future, including our future economic growth. We will also undermine the opportunity of individual Australians to meet their full potential and, most importantly, compromise our ability as a nation to compete with the rest of the world, using the skills, knowledge, discovery and invention of our people.

We know that nine out of 10 jobs created in the future will need a post-secondary school education, at either TAFE or university. So we need to increase participation in both our universities and our vocational education sector. We need to make sure our young people are prepared for the world of work—a world of work that we have all seen recently changing so very quickly. If we do not value the role of an appropriately funded VET sector for the training, skills and apprenticeships it provides so many Australians, its vital role in driving the economy and enhancing industries will be overlooked. This is a third-term government that simply refuses to deliver genuine reform that overhauls the higher education sector and that properly funds both vocational training providers and our nation's universities to deliver the services that their students need.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:34): I rise to make a contribution to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. The bill makes substantial changes to the Australian Skills Quality Authority's governance structure, establishes the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Advisory Council and revises arrangements for data sharing and access pertaining to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. The Greens will not oppose this bill, but we are not without concern.

Any regulator should be empowered and resourced to do its job without interference from the government. As I've said before in this chamber, ASQA's ability to operate effectively relies on having the resources that it needs and on having strong independence. The bill before us, like past changes to vocational education and training regulation, is concerning in that it expands the scope of directions that the minister can give ASQA. We must not open the door to the kind of ministerial interference we saw in Minister Birmingham's Australian Research Council meddling with recommendations or the Prime Minister and former Minister McKenzie's rorting of sports grants. This bill also continues the government's disquieting pattern of avoiding appropriate scrutiny of executive decisions in this chamber by adding to the number of non-disallowable legislative instruments under the act.

This is from a government that is allergic to scrutiny, with a history of mismanagement of vocational education and training and utter disrespect for the public training system it's worked systematically to undermine. Any such move is alarming. We'll be watching closely how these changes play out over the next few months as the government pursues its purported skills reform.

The establishment of an advisory council in this bill is welcome, although it is unsurprising from the Liberals that the sensible thing hasn't been done upfront by making sure the voices of our public training providers and our trade unions are included in the council, so we will join our Labor colleagues in supporting an amendment to that end. I urge my crossbench colleagues to support us in this.

It was extraordinary, I must say, to watch a Liberal prime minister attack the very vocational education and training system that they created. They created the system by destroying TAFEs and public training in Australia with the help of the Prime Minister's state Liberal colleagues. And yet the Prime Minister offered no new funding at the Press Club earlier this year. There were more than 4,000 words and not one single mention of TAFE, the bedrock of our training system.

We need free TAFE and uni for all and new investment to rebuild publicly delivered training in our TAFEs. Those would be the crucial first steps of any skills overhaul. Instead, all we got from the Prime Minister was hot air, a push to renegotiate funding without offering a single extra cent to the system he is underfunding and all the language of competition and marketisation that will rightly send a shiver down the spine of Australians, who know public education and training are the closest thing we have to a ticket to a more fair, equal and just society.

We saw that language again from the Productivity Commission's interim report, which urges more of the same marketisation that has led the VET system into disarray and scandal, while suggesting that little priority to TAFEs be given and that state funding should be unwound. What's more, the total of government loans repaid to students who have been ripped off by shonky for-profit VET providers has now surged past $1.2 billion, but the government is once again entertaining extending loan programs to private providers—the same kind of extension that got us in this mess in the first place.

The importance of TAFE and the risk we run in neglecting it cannot be overstated. A report from The Australia Institute released on National TAFE Day this year tells us the system creates $90 billion in economic benefits annually and well-funded TAFE is essential for delivering the workforce needed for post-COVID reconstruction. Altogether, the benefits that come from TAFE are 16 times more than the investment. How amazing is an investment that gives you 16 times more than you put in? That's our TAFEs and that's why we must support them. These are enormous benefits for Australia, yet, as the author of the report, Alison Pennington, puts it, that house is now crumbling from neglect and policy vandalism.

The report also finds that the TAFE system increases employability and lowers unemployment. TAFE graduates enter the labour force with better employment prospects and skills. The increased labour force participation and employability of TAFE graduates correspond to additional employment of 486,000. The report finds that the TAFE system promotes wider social benefits critical to addressing inequality. TAFE helps bridge access to further education and job pathways in regional areas and for special and at-risk youth groups. TAFE students are more likely to come from low-income households and identify as Aboriginal, compared with students of private vocational education and training providers.

The lesson we should have learned once and for all in the debacle of the Labor-Liberal VET loans program is that, as with all stages of education, in vocational education and training there is no place for private profit. For the future of young people seeking training—indeed for the future of our country—we need to understand that their skills should not be the domain of profiteers seeking to juice what they can from the taxpayer while meeting their minimum obligation to students and then banking the difference for their profits. Time and again we've seen the exploitation resulting from that business model. Nearly 40 per cent of young people don't have a job or enough hours of work. Youth wage growth is the flattest it has ever been. Those figures are only going to worsen, and enrolments in education and training are going to skyrocket as the economy continues to deteriorate. If we are to help them and if we are to build a more socially and economically just society after the pandemic, we need massive investment in a Green New Deal, including making TAFE and uni free and providing significant new government investment to make sure that we don't leave whole generations behind.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (12:42): I too rise to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. Australia's skills and education system has always been a very strong passion of mine. I've spent my working life getting people into work, and having the right skills and training packages, which respond to industry needs, is a critical enabler of that. I've seen the life-changing impact that this government's focus on skills and training continues to have, and I'm proud to stand here on this side of the chamber to speak on this bill, which is another demonstration of how important this issue is to our economic agenda.

Skills, education and training have never been more important to our nation than right now in the recovery phase of this challenge. Our national economy and the businesses within it will continue to see significant upheaval. I don't believe there has been another point in our recent history when the labour market in Australia has experienced such a high level of fluidity. The ability of our skills and training system to adapt to this environment so as to respond to the rapidly changing needs of industry will be critically important as we recover, and this bill goes some way to addressing that. It is a critical piece of our economic response to this coronavirus challenge. We know that skills and training will be crucial to Australia's economic recovery. That is why VET reform is a key pillar of the Morrison government's JobMaker plan. We know we need to move quickly to position the VET sector to support Australia's economic recovery. The jobs created as we come out of this crisis will not be the same as the jobs that were lost, and it's critical that Australians can access high-quality and relevant training to reskill and upskill.

The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Government and Other Matters) Bill amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 to reform the governance structure of the Australian Skills Quality Authority. The main function of the bill will be to replace the current governance structure of a chief commissioner and deputy commissioners with a CEO and advisory council. This will modernise the regulator so that it can take on a greater educative role and have a more effective regulatory approach. This bill also enables ASQA to engage external help as required and ramp up information-sharing, among other reforms. This means the organisation will be more adaptive and responsive to the needs of industry and the demands of the broader Australian economy.

As part of our recovery plan, the government have announced we will partner with state and territories to establish a $1 billion JobTrainer fund. This fund will rapidly provide around 340,700 additional training places that are free or low-fee in areas of identified skills need for jobseekers and school leavers. We must always ensure that any funding is directed to training for jobs that exist or for jobs that are in need, and that's what this package is designed to do. We're not interested in just funding training for training's sake. We're not going to fund underwater origami courses—courses that won't actually lead someone to a job; we're going to fund training that matches the needs of industry and matches the needs of employers. Senator Faruqi said the Greens have a great opposition to funding private training providers. Well, I've just been through the Pilbara, and I've met businesses that are providing their own training. And guess what? Those businesses are the best people to train people for their jobs, and we should be doing everything we can to support that, not just have the government provide the training. When the industry know what they want and industry know what they need—that is something that I'm always going to support because we know that it yields even better results.

To access the JobTrainer funding, states and territories need to sign the Heads of Agreement for Skills Reform, which sets out immediate reforms to improve the vocational education and training sector and provides the foundation for long-term improvements. I understand that there are discussions going on right now with the Western Australian government and, while I'm not privy to those discussions, I know that my home state in particular is experiencing a lot of churn in critical sectors, some of which power the national economy. I hope that they are able to conclude those negotiations very soon so that we can get on with the task of providing necessary training to meet the needs of the jobs that are ahead of us. The priorities in the heads of agreement are all aimed at ensuring that the VET system is delivering for students and employers.

In addition to this, we've announced the $2.8 billion Supporting Apprentices and Trainees measure, which commenced on 2 April 2020. The most recent figures demonstrate the government has provided over $462 million to support over 50,000 businesses employing more than 87,000 apprentices and trainees. This has been a game changer for the apprentices and the businesses which employ them. For us there was no other option. It is absolutely critical to the success of our nation coming out of this pandemic that those who are completing their apprenticeship are able to continue to do so and that more apprentices should be taken on. I completed an apprenticeship between the 1996 and 1999, and I'm so grateful that my employer stuck with me and gave me the opportunity to complete it, even though there were times where it was difficult for that employer because the business was going through some structural change, and they could have easily let me go. But they stuck with me. Now, as an adult looking back on those years when I was an older teenager and a young adult, I'm so grateful for the support that was provided to me. This government is working with industry, working with employers, to ensure that they are able to keep their apprentices, even during this time, and encouraging more businesses to take on more apprentices, because we know that that is going to be critical for the future.

Eligibility for the subsidy will be expanded to include medium-sized businesses with 199 employees or fewer and who had an apprentice in place on 1 July 2020. The duration of the wage subsidy will also be extended by six months to cover wages paid up to March 2021. The JobKeeper payment will also support many apprentices and trainees to remain connected to their employer as a result of the pandemic.

Substantial regulatory and fee relief has also been provided to the vocational education and training sector. Fees charged by ASQA will be refunded or waived. This is important. These measures put some $100 million back into the cash flow of Australian education and training businesses so that this money can be used to retain employees, reshape education offerings and support domestic and international students. There will also be a six-month exemption from the loan fees associated with VET student loans in a bid to encourage full-fee paying students to continue their studies despite these difficult times.

We are focused on delivering the skills for the future. We have a $585 million skills package designed to strengthen Australia's vocational education and training system. We have a $48.3 million National Skills Commission which provides independent, evidence based advice on the labour market trends and industry driven demand. Industry led skills organisations are also preparing us for jobs of the future, giving us information we need to see what skills are required, what type of qualifications will be most suitable and how our education and training system should adapt for us to take full advantage of the next great industrial opportunities.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more that this government is doing to give Australians every possible opportunity to embark and retrain for their career of choice. There is no doubt that the coronavirus challenge has changed the way Australians live, work and study, and the ramification of this change will exist for some time to come. These measures will make sure that we as a nation are well prepared for the future. I'm proud to be a member of this government, which is prepared and which is future-proofing our VET system.

Those opposite often like to forget that we are paying to fix their failed VET FEE-HELP scheme. Since 2016, over 91,000 students have had their VET FEE-HELP loan debts of over $1.5 billion recredited by the Commonwealth. Australians haven't forgotten what Labor did to the VET sector went they were last in government. Apprenticeships fell by 110,000 between July 2012 and June 2013 after they ripped out $1.2 billion in employer incentives—the largest ever annual decline. We are working with states and territories to reform the system and clean up the mess that was left by federal Labor.

The government is investing more in a better system. To commit more funding we need to have confidence in a VET system that will deliver what the economy needs. The coalition government is committed to ensuring that we are equipping Australians with the skills that they need for good, secure and long-term jobs. So I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (12:53): I rise to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. No matter how many times I stand in this place and speak about the value of vocational education, I am yet to be assured that those opposite are actually listening, because their policies aren't demonstrating that they truly understand the importance and needs of the sectors. The Liberals have slashed funding to TAFE and training, let apprentice numbers fall and presided over a national shortage of tradies, apprentices and trainees. We are not just talking little cuts; the Liberals have cut TAFE and training by over $3 billion. I'll repeat that: $3 billion. We have in those opposite a third-term government who simply refuse to deliver a genuine reform package that overhauls the vocational training sector. We need to stop the cuts to TAFE. We need to properly value the educational sector, from early education right through school and tertiary education. We need to recognise that education is something that benefits all of us, not just those who are studying. It's something that we need to invest in as a society for the benefit of society. We need to compete in this century with our partners and competitors overseas as the smart country, not via a race to the bottom on wages and conditions.

Particularly in my home state of Tasmania, we have seen that there is a desperate—absolutely desperate!—need for more skilled workers across many sectors of the economy. To grow or even just to continue their operations, businesses need skilled workers. Skills training is especially important for young Tasmanians. I understand the importance of vocational education. While working for the Australian Services Union, I set up the first union job skills program, which obviously included a component of vocational education. I also represented the union on many industry training advisory boards. I know these kinds of training programs can transform the lives of young people. The youth unemployment rate in Tasmania is 15.1 per cent and since March this year 6,400 young people have lost their jobs. Upskilling young Tasmanians is a fantastic way to create jobs and employment opportunities.

Tasmanian Labor will take to the next Tasmanian state election a policy that advocates for free TAFE and VET education, and I welcome that. The government cannot use COVID-19 as an excuse for reduced numbers of apprenticeships and trainees; there were certainly skill shortages long before COVID-19 hit. Much more needs to be done right now to support apprentices and trainees. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government spent seven years neglecting our TAFE and training system. In Tasmania, we need to train more Tasmanians because we don't have enough of the skilled workers that we need. Many kinds of workers are still being allowed into Tasmania, despite our border restrictions, with claims that there are no suitably qualified Tasmanians available to fill these positions. While I suspect that there are Tasmanians who could do the work if we looked to find them, it still highlights the desperate need to significantly increase the number of people completing vocational education in Tasmania.

We need real leadership and a real commitment in this sector. However, the bill before us today does not do that. It makes minor, technical changes to the governance arrangements regarding vocational education. It is just another tweak from the third-term government who simply refuse to deliver a genuine reform package that overhauls the vocational training sector. While the bill is welcome—Labor won't oppose it—it is disappointing that the best the government can do is tinker around the edges in a sector which is struggling due to massive funding cuts. This bill does not come close to fixing the mess the Liberal government has made of Australia's TAFE and training system.

The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020 amends the governance structures of The Australian Skills Quality Authority, or ASQA, and enhances information sharing arrangements between ASQA and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, the NCVER. The legislation builds on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019 and responds to the Braithwaite and Joyce reviews, which both called on ASQA to adopt a greater educative role alongside its regulatory role. The changes also respond to initial findings from the rapid review of ASQA's governance, culture and processes. Key amendments will revise ASQA's governance structure, replacing the existing chief commissioner or chief executive officer and two commissioners with a single independent statutory office holder, and will establish the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Advisory Council. The advisory council is intended to provide ASQA with access to expert advice regarding the functions of the regulator.

Having previously been a member of many Tasmanian advisory committee boards, I feel that an important feature of an advisory council is that it takes advice from a wide range of people, including those who have experience in, or in representing, the sector. Labor knows the value of TAFE and union representation and believe their views should be heard and considered when it comes to the VET sector. Labor's amendments will ensure that the public provider has seats at the table. I hope the crossbench will support our amendments. The reforms in this bill are needed, and we support a fair and considered approach to ASQA reforms. We will support changes that improve ASQA's capacity to ensure responsiveness to students, communities and employers, but we'll reject changes that attempt to weaken ASQA's regulatory framework. We need to ensure that reforms to ASQA's audit processes don't allow any drop in the quality of training.

In the past we've seen that this government is slow to act on quality issues, and it has done serious damage to the sector. More than seven years of Liberal government have left Australia facing a crisis in skills and vocational training. As we learned last year from the federal education department's own data, the Liberals have failed to spend $919 million of their own TAFE and training budget over the past five years. These funds are just sitting in the government's bank account, when they should be used to improve our TAFE system. This is in addition to the more than $3 billion which has already been ripped out of the system. State governments are closing campuses and ending courses; TAFE campuses are falling apart and in desperate need of repair—all while this funding remains unspent.

The government claims that there has been less demand than forecast every year since the Liberal Party came to office. This comment doesn't stack up when unemployment and underemployment are at near-record levels while, at the same time, employers are crying out for skilled workers. Under the Liberals there are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees and a shortage of workers in critical services, including plumbing, carpentry, hairdressing and motor mechanics. Each of us relies on these services in our lives. We cannot simply close our eyes and wish for problems in the training sector to vanish. Proactive government policies are needed to turn things around.

The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower today than it was a decade ago. The independent National Centre for Vocational Education Research recently found that, over the past year, 20 per cent fewer people signed up to trade apprenticeships and traineeships. This drop was even more extreme in a number of essential trades. The number of Australians starting an apprenticeship or traineeship in construction, including carpentry, bricklaying and plumbing, dropped by an alarming 40 per cent. In some areas there are more people dropping out of vocational courses than there are people finishing them. That doesn't happen by accident; it's a consequence of this government's neglect. That's just not good enough—we've got to do better.

The Liberal government's underspend of almost $1 billion has affected incentives for businesses to take on apprentices, support to help people finish their apprenticeships, and a fund designed to train Australians in areas of need. We're simultaneously experiencing a crisis of youth unemployment and a crisis of skills shortages. One of these would be bad enough, but here we are confronted with both. To be faced with both at the same time is pretty hard to imagine, especially when there's an easy solution which fixes both: better funding for training in the vocational education sector.

There has been an increase of nearly 10 per cent in the number of occupations facing skills shortages. While the Australian Industry Group says that 75 per cent of businesses surveyed are struggling to find the qualified workers they need, there are almost two million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed. While businesses are struggling to fill the skilled positions they have on offer, we have young people desperate for work who can't fill these positions because they haven't been given the chance to gain the skills that the roles require. Why isn't the government training these people for jobs in industries where there's a shortage of workers? I'll tell you why. It's because the Liberals have cut funding to TAFE and training. I don't know whether it's ideological, whether they're just short-sighted or whether they're maybe a bit snobby and there's a stigma about university and vocational education, but the government refuse to properly fund the sector. They simply refuse to give the sector the proper reform that it so desperately needs.

Young people have been clear with what they need. They need a skills training sector that is properly funded, is properly resourced and has educators who are properly trained and able to skill these kids up as a pathway to meaningful employment. Why is this so hard for the government to understand? This government hasn't delivered on a single element of those requests. The Liberal government doesn't care enough or have the capacity to do the hard work that needs to be done to build a better post-school system. Scott Morrison has no plan to fix the skills crisis he created. He has no plan to create more jobs or to lift wages for those who are employed. We've seen a continuous attack on pay, conditions and workers' rights from this government. As always, the Prime Minister would rather hide from problems than do the hard work needed to solve them. He would rather spin and deflect, bringing in marketing teams and celebrity ambassadors to distract from the real issue, because we all know this Prime Minister is all about surface over substance.

JobMaker is another marketing slogan with no real substance. JobTrainer goes nowhere near replacing the funding the government has stripped out, and we still don't know what it will do. Fiddling at the edges of the current system will not address the profound problems that undermine vocational education and training, and, consequently, the productive performance and international competitiveness of our economy.

Unlike Labor, the government obviously doesn't understand the critical role of TAFE as the public provider, the values in skills and apprenticeships, or the value of the hardworking and passionate public TAFE teachers. If we continue down this path we will severely jeopardise our future economic growth, undermine the opportunity of individual Australians to meet their full potential, and, very importantly, compromise our ability as a nation to compete with the rest of the world using the skills, knowledge, discovery and invention of our own people.

We know that nine out of 10 jobs created in the future will need a post-secondary school education, either TAFE or university. So we need to increase participation in both universities and our vocational education sector to make sure our young people are prepared for the world of work, which is changing ever so quickly.

This third-term government simply refuses to deliver a genuine reform package that overhauls the higher education sector and that properly funds both vocational training providers and universities to deliver the services that their students need. This government has spent seven years ignoring the vital role TAFE plays in the growth of our young people and the vital role it plays in the growth of our economy. It has spent seven years cutting funding models, underspending the meagre amount it promised the sector. Rebuilding our skills and training sector will be crucial to getting the economy going again, and the government needs to properly fund our TAFE and apprenticeship programs.

We've seen $3 billion of cuts in recent years to TAFE and training. As I said, Labor won't oppose this bill, but the government can and should be doing much, much more to reverse the dreadful effects its cuts have had on the TAFE and vocational education sector. The government must restore that funding that they've cut. The government must invest in training the next generation of tradespeople in our country, because a strong economy relies on a skilled workforce. Young Tasmanians, young Australians, deserve this and the wider Tasmanian and the wider Australian economy needs this, as does the rest of Australia.

Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (13:08): It is a pleasure to rise in the Senate today to speak in favour of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. Australia's vocational and education training sector, or the VET sector as we like to call it, provides students across the country with skills and hands-on training for skilled jobs that Australia needs. It's important that we continue to ensure we prioritise quality improvements for VET, including ensuring that regulation of the sector is reasonable, transparent and effective through the Australian Skills Quality Authority, or ASQA. With the onset of COVID-19 it's more important now than ever that we ensure our VET system is working for students, working for employers and working for the wider Australian community.

The bill that we are discussing here today amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 to reform the governance structure of the Australian Skills Quality Authority. The bill will replace the current governance structure of ASQA of a chief commissioner and deputy commissioners with a CEO and an advisory council. This will modernise the regulator so it can take on a greater educative role and have a more effective regulatory approach.

A review announced by the Morrison government in October 2019 and recommendations from two previous independent reviews have informed the changes within the bill that we're discussing today. The amendments support consistent, fit-for-purpose and effective regulation and will enable stakeholder engagement in Australia's VET sector. The government believes that this improved organisational structure will enable better regulatory decisions, better facilitate internal review and ultimately allow ASQA to be a fit-for-purpose regulator of the VET sector. And, as I alluded to earlier, coming out of the coronavirus crisis, this is absolutely what we need to ensure that our VET sector is fit for purpose and strong and to conserve the needs of the Australian economy.

It is somewhat fitting that the Senate considers this legislation during National Skills Week. National Skills Week works to raise the profile of and present prospective students with the benefits from undertaking vocational education and training. The career pathways for students undertaking VET are numerous, from cooking to mechanics to building and construction to engineering. Students are provided with the training and hands-on experience they need for their chosen area of expertise.

We know this virus has wreaked havoc on our economy and has cost so many Australians their job and their income. The Morrison government recognises the stress this unprecedented crisis has placed on Australian workers and their families, and we have acted to ensure that we support Australian through this crisis, through programs, including JobKeeper and jobseeker, and by providing targeted investment to stimulate economic recovery. We know ensuring that Australians are equipped with the right skills and training will be crucial for the next step of our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The jobs created as we move to a staged focus on recovery will be different to the jobs that were lost when the pandemic took hold. Skilled jobs in growth or expert areas like building and construction, agriculture and renewable energy development will be critical for our economic recovery and will have the potential to place our country in a stronger position than when the crisis commenced.

The government has announced that it will partner with states and territories to establish a $1 billion JobTrainer fund. This fund will rapidly provide around 340,000 additional training places that are free or low fee in areas of identified skills need for jobseekers and job leavers. We are absolutely taking this COVID-19 crisis seriously. We know skills and training is going to be an incredibly important element of our recovery, and that is why we are making this investment.

I also want to talk today about skills and training in my own state of Tasmania, because just last week I had the pleasure of visiting the Huon Valley trade training centre in Huonville. This is one of a number of centres I've visited across Tasmania, including the Sorell trade training centre, and I've been so impressed with the hands-on training and skills that these centres are providing to their students. Trade training centres are specialised training facilities established in regional locations in Tasmania for both school students and adult community members to undertake accredited training in purpose-built facilities. The objectives of the trade training centres are to increase the proportion of students achieving a year 12 or equivalent qualification, to address national skill shortages in traditional trades and emerging industries by improving the relevance and responsiveness of trade training programs in secondary schools, to improve student access to industry-standard trade training facilities, to improve the quality of education offered to secondary students who are undertaking trade related pathways, and to assist young people to make a successful transition from school to work or to further education and training.

One of the most important things I've observed about these trade training centres, particularly in Tasmania, is the alignment they have with the local industry. These trade training centres are not directing students into areas where they think there may not be a job at the end of it. Indeed, they're engaging with local employers, understanding what skills and training local employers will require in their future workforce and ensuring that those relevant training courses are available at the local trade training centre. It really is a case of linking local job requirements with the training institutions that are in that area.

The feedback I've received from students at our trade training centres is overwhelmingly positive, with the students I've spoken to not only achieving great outcomes during their training but feeling very positive about the prospect of going out in the future and finding a job, once their training is complete. To learn and be able to apply hands-on skills in areas like building and construction, mechanics or cooking gets students excited not only about the skills they are learning but about their future in the workforce. It is amazing to hear some of the stories coming out of trade training centres in Tasmania—positive stories where students are being recruited by local businesses for jobs and apprenticeships, and where students who may have seemed lost during their time in the traditional classroom discover their passion for cooking, building or working on cars. Indeed, many of the students I have been speaking to recently are undertaking multiple training qualifications because they're not necessarily sure of exactly what part of the workforce they want to go into. They've had one experience, they've got one certificate and they understand the value in having a multitude of skills, so they're building on what they're learning and trying to get a diverse understanding of relevant skills that they might need at some point in the workforce. It's a very well balanced education that these kids are receiving at trade training centres. These are amongst some of the skilled jobs that we need for the future, and providing students with access to skills and training in these areas will ensure that they are ready for the workforce.

Speaking of jobs for the future, Tasmania has an immense competitive advantage over other states when it comes to energy security. Our hydro and renewable energy sector is the envy of other states. The potential to expand our renewable energy resource will require new and skilled workers to work on these nation-building projects. The proposed second interconnector across Bass Strait, the Marinus Link project, has been identified recently as one of the 15 major projects that the Morrison coalition government has given priority status. This project will enable another generation of hydroelectricity development and other energy developments, providing a huge economic and job creation boost for Tasmania. Again, we know that we are going to need skilled workers to undertake these projects. So, to ensure we have the skilled workforce that we need, the Morrison government has committed $17 million through the Energising Tasmania project to equip Tasmanians with the skills to support the Battery of the Nation and Marinus Link initiatives. Energising Tasmania will deliver up to 2½ thousand fully subsidised training places, including traineeships, apprenticeships and preapprenticeships in areas of identified skills need. The deal will ensure assistance of up to $1,000 per learner, also available to cover costs associated with training, such as books and materials. Energising Tasmania is part of the Morrison government's $585 million Delivering Skills for Today and Tomorrow package. As I said, Marinus Link and Battery of the Nation are very exciting projects for Tasmania. I have spoken many times before in this place about just how excited I am as a Tasmanian that we are investing in these projects locally. As I said, we know that we will need skills within our workforce to do these projects, and that's why this government has invested in training locally—to make sure that our local workforce is appropriately trained to deliver on Marinus Link and Battery of the Nation.

The Morrison government has also committed, locally in Tasmania, $7 million to assist in the construction of a new Trades and Water Centre of Excellence in the state's south to support more Tasmanians to take up careers in trades and electrotechnology. This investment complements the $14 million already committed by the Gutwein Tasmanian Liberal government, which has been a champion of renewable energy development in the state alongside the Morrison coalition government. The campus in the south will expand its training platform to train students for building and construction, plumbing and water, refrigeration and air conditioning, and smart building technologies. This is a very exciting investment in the south of Tasmania that will make sure that our VET sector continues to be strong and continues to align with the skills that we know our workforce is going to need coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

When I gave my first speech in this place, I referenced the fact that I stood for the Senate because I've seen too many Tasmanians have to leave our island for job opportunities. They don't feel that they have job opportunities locally at home. Since the Morrison coalition government was elected, I've seen the change in the culture of Tasmania. We are looking more to opportunities at home. I certainly wouldn't want to see the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our local economy being that young Tasmanians feel that they can't have opportunities locally, that we go back to the dark old days where everyone used to leave our island for work. So I'm certainly glad to see this government taking seriously the issues of skills and training in our local areas, particularly in our regional areas, to make sure that young people have the skills they need to be able to work locally so that we don't see another generation of Tasmanians leaving our island for work, to make sure that young Tasmanians can work at home if they want to.

I certainly hope that COVID-19 hasn't completely railroaded our plans. I'm a proud Tasmanian. I want to see more opportunities for young Tasmanians at home. I think strengthening our VET sector through legislation like that we are discussing here today is a really important way to do that. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator WALSH (Victoria) (13:20): It seems appropriate to be talking about national vocational education and training during this week, National Skills Week. This is a chance for us to acknowledge just how important TAFE and training are for our communities. Right now, as we face a jobs crisis in this country, we must acknowledge that TAFE and training are a key part of getting our country back on track. But this bill is just another tweak, and it's a tweak from a third-term government which has actually spent seven years undermining and underfunding our critical TAFE system. While this bill largely implements the recommendations of independent reviews that have been supported by the sector, there are still some concerns. There remains uncertainty as to how some of the changes contained in this bill will work in practice. This isn't helped by the lack of consultation that many stakeholders in the sector have reported on this bill.

But let's look at the real issue here, which is this government's record of failure and neglect on skills and training—seven years, three terms, three prime ministers, each of them just as responsible as the last for the skills crisis that Australia currently finds itself in. This is a skills crisis that existed before the COVID-19 crisis, a skills crisis that will hold back Australia's economic recovery. In this country, we have a serious mismatch between the skills that workers have to offer and the skills that businesses need. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, more than two million people were unable to find enough work. At the same time, businesses couldn't find workers with the skills that they needed. That has got a whole lot worse. Today over 2.5 million Australians are unemployed or underemployed. This is a number that we know, tragically, is predicted to keep rising.

If you look at the government's own skills shortage list, you will find that as a country we are lacking people with the skills to become bakers, nurses, electricians, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers and so many more. Employers are actually crying out for people for these roles. So why is it that so many children finishing school today cannot count on their government to deliver them the skills, training and education that are needed to fill those vacancies? These are core jobs, essential jobs, and yet as a country we can't fill them. This is just one example of how the government can barely manage today's economy, let alone manage the recovery and the future that we need to grapple with right now.

Why do we have those skills shortages? It is because of seven years of cuts, seven years of neglect. In Victoria, my home state, we've seen the loss of 35,000 apprentices and trainees since the coalition came to government. That's a loss of over one-third of Victoria's apprentices and trainees. Across the nation, over 140,000 apprentices and trainees have been lost. The Liberals and Nationals have cut $3 billion from TAFE and training. We've heard today that Treasury expects effective unemployment to reach 13 per cent by the end of the year. We currently have over one million Australians unemployed—the first time in Australia's history that that figure has been reached. TAFE, training and apprenticeships are going to be crucial in ensuring that Australians have the skills for the jobs that become available as we recover from this recession. So we cannot afford for the Morrison government to continue down this path of cuts to and neglect of our public TAFE and training system, a path that will undermine our recovery, a path that will undermine the opportunity for so many Australians to get the education they need to secure the jobs that they need today and for the future.

These cuts are locking Australians out of TAFE and training, and that is locking Australians out of jobs. This is what it should be all about right now for this government—jobs, saving jobs, creating jobs and making sure Australians have the skills to do those jobs. At a time when unemployment and underemployment are at record levels, this government cannot tell us what its plan is for jobs. This government has no plan for our recovery. Right now, the government is far more interested in photo ops, another press release, another press conference and another reactive announcement, without the follow-through that is really needed.

What is the JobTrainer program? What is it going to do to make up for seven years of cuts to and neglect of TAFE and training? What is the HomeBuilder program? It's a program that is not building any homes. And the JobMaker program? If someone in the government could tell us what that is we would really appreciate it. It's another program, another slogan, another name without a plan and without anything real that Australians can get behind to know that they are going to have good, decent and secure jobs with the help of this government. This government is too busy announcing plans that are all talk and no substance, plans that are so light on detail they don't really make it past 24 hours in the media.

When it comes to TAFE, training and skills, this government vacated the field when it came to power seven years ago. A government without a plan for education and skills is a government without a plan for the future. Right now, it screams of a government without a plan for our economic recovery either. Now, more than ever, we need a government that is serious about creating good, decent and secure jobs and one that will provide Australians with the skills they need to do those jobs. No more nonplans, no more empty announcements and no more tweaks to legislation—we need a real plan for jobs and we need it now.

Unlike the Liberals, Labor understand the value of TAFE and training. We know that vocational education is a key part of Australia's recovery. We will always back a strong, comprehensive regulatory compliance and education framework for ASQA. We'll support a fair and considered approach to ASQA reforms. We'll support this bill. But this bill in the current environment is just more tweaks to a vocational training sector that needs a national plan and needs proper support from this government.

We know that we're going to need skilled workers to recover from this recession and that people desperately need good and secure jobs that are supported by quality training. The Labor team are focused on this and we have always been focused on this. Last year, Labor leader Anthony Albanese announced our intention to establish 'Jobs and Skills Australia', and this is the type of reform we should be talking about right here, right now, today. An independent statutory authority would provide a genuine partnership with business leaders, state and territory governments, unions and education providers, bringing everyone together to make sure that workers have access to the skills and jobs that they need and that businesses have access to the skilled workers that they need and are seeking as well. This will be a model of genuine partnership and collaboration, investing in the skills of Australian workers. That is the sort of reform that we should be talking about here today in the Senate and in this parliament in the middle of this crisis, in the middle of the first recession in almost 30 years. We need this kind of plan now, more than ever, as we look forward to a recovery post COVID-19. On this side of the chamber, in the Labor team, we have a vision for decent and stable jobs that are supported by quality training. This is in Labor's DNA. We see education and training as an investment in our future, and we will always support hardworking Australians who want a quality education. We will always support good, secure jobs for all Australians.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:30): I rise today to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020, and I do so with the great pleasure that my good friend and colleague Senator Michaelia Cash is in front of me in the chamber, because no-one is a greater advocate for jobs—and, particularly, VET jobs—in this place than Minister Cash. I have been lucky enough to be out and about with Minister Cash on a few occasions over the past couple of months, and one of the key focuses of our visits together, particularly into regional WA, has been the needs of businesses in attracting and training high-quality VET graduates and apprentices. It's great to see, through this measure, the government again building on the strong commitment we have to making sure that our VET sector is as strong as possible.

Nobody doubts and nobody would argue—certainly not Minister Cash—that there are some major challenges ahead of the VET sector in the current circumstances. But the Australian government's commitment to a skilled economy—to boost our economic recovery—has never been stronger. In fact, it is one of the key ways in which we are going to be able to build our economy out of this pandemic induced economic downturn, one of the ways we will be growing our economy into the future and one of the ways we will be making sure as many Australians as possible—all those Australians who want a job—can get a job.

We as a government are contributing an additional $2 billion to the new $2½ billion JobTrainer package dedicated to reforming the vocational education and training sector and keeping apprentices in jobs. There will be $1 billion allocated to set up the JobTrainer fund, with 50 per cent to be funded by the states and territories in recognition of the economic benefits that flow to those state and territories from a strong job-training sector. This will mean more Australians will have access to free or low-cost training places, particularly in areas of need, and we certainly see that out and about in rural WA. A further $1½ billion will be allocated to expanding and extending the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy, which was first announced in March of this year. The package responds to the challenges of the labour market because, as I have said, of the COVID-19 pandemic and is the next step in the sector reform process outlined by the Prime Minister as part of the government's JobMaker agenda.

Skills reform and strengthening our VET sector is central to the government's JobMaker plan to support Australia's economic recovery and our future growth. An unprecedented number of Australians are without work—many for the first time in their lives—due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On top of this, around 250,000 students will leave school at the end of this year. In that environment, obviously, it will be difficult for many of those students or ex-students to find employment immediately, in which case the VET sector particularly will become an increasingly important source of training opportunities.

As I said, I have been out and about with Minister Cash over the last few months. I want to highlight a few of the opportunities that are out there in regional Western Australia in particular and also some of the challenges we do face. Most recently, I was at the Bunbury Jobs Fair with Minister Cash. Jobs fairs are an extraordinary opportunity, and, at that particular jobs fair, the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Industry came down to Bunbury. Kalgoorlie has a particular challenge at the moment. It has a significant number of employment opportunities available but not the people willing to relocate to Kalgoorlie to take them up. It faces a particular set of challenges. This is quite ironic at a time when we're seeing, unfortunately, the unemployment rate increasing. I give a shout-out to all those who can get to Kalgoorlie and have the skills required, although there's a lot of training available for upskilling into those jobs.

One of the great things Minister Cash and I heard at that job fair was that, as a result of the previous job fair in Kalgoorlie, a number of individuals have entered full-time employment. So we are seeing actions linking individuals with training and directly resulting in job outcomes for those individuals. That is a key driver of the future economic growth we all want and need to see for Australia to recover strongly from the pandemic. It also gives individuals hope and opportunities that were not necessarily there before. These job fairs are a great way of linking people not just with a job but with training and a job. That's one of the key things we need to keep reminding all the people out there who want a job and are looking for an opportunity.

The job fair program is certainly great. Obviously these are challenging times for large events like that to proceed. I know the minister's department put an extraordinary amount of effort into making sure that the event itself was COVID safe. There were a large number of participating exhibitors who had jobs or training on offer and also a large number of individuals keen to see what opportunities are out there and to talk about the potential work and training opportunities that are available. So even with the COVID-safe requirements that we are all currently living under we saw a large number of people turning out and learning about those opportunities and talking to businesses and training providers face-to-face.

We saw a large number of businesses. There were some Indigenous-owned cleaning businesses, for example. One business we met started up in the last couple of years and has gone from strength to strength. It has grown from two employees to 20 employees in the space of a couple of years. This is the kind of activity want to see in our economy. We want to see training available to enable people who are unskilled or who need to reskill to enter those growing job opportunities.

More recently I was at De Rosa's Highway Motors in Waroona in south-west WA. Nick and his team are one of the premier farm machinery dealers in the south-west of WA. They service dairy, sheep and beef farmers as well as orchardists in the district. Nick is a salt-of-the-earth character from the bush. He's really passionate about giving local youth a go. He wants local youth to take up the opportunities that are available in his hometown. This business has been there for the vast majority of my life—I'd hate to say how long it has been there. When we drove to our own farm in Pemberton we passed De Rosa's Highway Motors in Waroona on many hundreds, if not thousands, of occasions. They are an institution in that part of the world. As I said, Nick is dedicated to giving local kids a go in mechanical apprenticeships. One thing I hear constantly throughout regional Western Australia is the need for people to take up mechanical apprenticeships and to have an opportunity to do diesel mechanic training in the VET sector.

AFGRI, another large farm machinery dealership throughout the Wheatbelt of Western Australia, has a significant training program of its own. It has something like 25 ongoing apprenticeships in any given year. It trains a lot of people in the full knowledge that the skills are highly sought after. A lot of those young men and women will end up being poached by mining companies. That's the reality of the training they do, and they train more than they need on the basis that many of them will go elsewhere. That's great for those individuals. It's a great opportunity. Those kinds of businesses are putting that effort into local training because it means they can continue to grow their own businesses, it means they can give locals an opportunity to get some high-quality skills, and it gives those young people an opportunity to develop a base of skills that allow them to move, to seek opportunities elsewhere and to advance their own life prospects—by perhaps going to the mining industry for a few years before coming back to the Wheatbelt, or perhaps going to the mining industry permanently. There are some challenges, absolutely, but also some wonderful opportunities out there for young Australians and Australians who are seeking to retrain.

Finally, on the situation in WA, a couple of months ago, Minister Cash and I visited John Fitzhardinge at Dongara Marine—again, a wonderful success story in regional WA. This is a boat-building company that has been building boats in Western Australia since 1975. Situated in what is a tiny coastal community, Dongara, just south of Geraldton, it's a regional business that is absolutely punching well above its weight, taking on a wide range of projects for both the private sector and government clients. It's building, for example, six-metre tenders for ecotourism in the Abrolhos Islands region, rigid inflatable marine rescue vessels and the 20-metre Berkeley class pilot boats in service in the Fremantle Ports. This boat has been described by one Fremantle pilot as the Rolls-Royce of pilot boats. Dongara Marine are also involved in building the new Transperth catamaran, the MV Tricia, which plies the Swan River, just down from the CPO, if anyone is ever over in Western Australia—I know it's a bit hard these days for us all to move around. The Swan River Transperth 'cat ferries' are very well known to all Western Australians and are very much a feature of the city. The fact that that new vessel, the MV Tricia, was built just north of Perth in a small regional town is a great credit to Dongara Marine and to John and his business partners, who continue to support the opportunities for young local apprentices in that industry.

When we were up there, Minister Cash and I saw a number of young Australians who had recently arrived in apprenticeships or were just about to complete apprenticeships—again, across a range of fields, from boat building to diesel mechanics to electrical engineering. So the opportunities are out there, particularly in the regions, and this government is committed to doing everything it can to support those opportunities. It is a difficult time for those who do not have a job, but the key message from today is that the opportunities are out there. Maybe you have to think a little bit differently about what those opportunities may be for you, going forward, but when you see the number of people who go along to events like the jobs fairs in Kalgoorlie and in Bunbury you know that there are opportunities for training and for jobs. There are also many, many people out there seeking those opportunities. I think that is a very positive thing for the future.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (13:44): I rise in support of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. Australia's vocational education and training sector is a vital driver of our economy. The VET sector provides education and training for key industries and services through a network of private and public registered training organisations. Having a high-quality VET sector is fundamental to keeping our workforce skilled and our economy productive. However, due to the debacle of Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme, the quality and reputation of Australia's VET sector have taken a significant hit, where once the sector was regarded as among the best in the world. This bill comes as one more essential step in a long line of amendments brought by this Liberal-National government to repair the damage done by Labor and get vocational education and training in Australia back on track. The bill deals specifically with the national VET regulator, ASQA, making several changes and improvements to increase its efficiency and transparency in regulating the sector.

You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the VET FEE-HELP scheme was introduced in 2008 and operated as a HECS type loan for vocational education students, where the government paid tuition costs and students would start paying off their loan once their income reached a high enough threshold. At the time, the loans were quite limited and were not widely used, which led to a further overhaul of the scheme in 2012 by the Gillard Labor government. The revised version of the scheme dropped many of the earlier restrictions in an attempt to open the scheme to more students and trainees. This weakened the dam wall, so to speak, and opened a lucrative niche for a flood of private registered training organisations to move in and take advantage of the loan scheme as a government funded cash cow, in many cases with little regard for student outcomes. The RTOs maximised their profits simply by maximising their enrolments, irrespective of the circumstances or background of the students they enrolled. By signing up as many students as possible, unscrupulous RTOs could quickly establish huge cash flows, as the government paid based on the number of student enrolments, regardless of whether or not students finished the course, qualified or even were able to meet the requirements of the course.

To rake in as much taxpayer money as possible, some RTOs went to great lengths to trick, coerce and bribe students into signing up for their courses. A common and quite blatant inducement advertised by RTOs was to offer free laptops or iPads simply for signing up to a course. In making their sales pitch, shonky training providers would often deliberately target uninformed people, implying there were no upfront costs and misleading them about their liability to pay fees and service the debt. Brokers were hired to recruit the most vulnerable people, including the old, unemployed, less educated and disadvantaged, using the marketing tactics of cold calling, handing out leaflets, setting up shopping centre booths and selling door to door. On top of this, many courses were of very poor quality and extremely overpriced. In one instance, an online business course from a private RTO with no reputation to speak of cost a jaw-dropping $8,000 more than a similar course offered by a prestigious Melbourne university.

Yet the Gillard government just kept paying. There was no quality control and there were no audits or checks and balances—nothing. Labor just kept shovelling taxpayers' money out the door. This behaviour from RTOs was outrageously unethical and, due to the poor design of the scheme, far too easy to get away with. The total value of loans jumped from $25.6 million in 2009 to $2.9 billion in 2015. Many of the students who received these loans will never reach the income threshold, meaning that the costs will be forever borne by hardworking Australian taxpayers.

This catastrophe was entirely due to the Labor government's negligence and mishandling of the scheme. An audit of the scheme published in 2016 found that the government did not establish processes to ensure that all objectives, risks and consequences were managed in implementing the expanded scheme. In effect, the quality and integrity of much of the available education and training was trashed in the name of expanding the sector. Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme simply did not have an appropriate level of accountability and regulation to balance the systemic risk of abuse that comes with such a scheme.

There is invariably a great deal of risk involved when it comes to the government handing out so-called free money, so strict regulation is needed in order to mitigate those risks. Legislation must always be designed to account for the lowest common denominator, with all the contingencies provided for, because if there is an opportunity for exploitation there will always be someone out there to do it. Government should never be in such a hurry as to let enthusiasm for change take pre-eminence over accountability, transparency and due diligence when it comes to good and effective legislation.

The coalition has been working for several years to clean up the mess caused by the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Reform in this area has occurred incrementally and methodically to limit disruption to legitimate RTOs and to protect the many students who use the loans scheme. The point needs to be made that, despite the financial abuses that occurred, unscrupulous RTOs made up only a relatively small portion of providers, and students shouldn't suffer any further because of bad policy. Most significantly, in this process the VET FEE-HELP scheme was entirely scrapped in 2016 and replaced with a new system, the VET Student Loans scheme, which is far better designed, with stricter vetting and enforced loan caps.

Today the government is introducing this bill in order to further improve the national VET regulator, ASQA, to keep RTOs in check so that widespread abuse of the system won't be possible in the future. Having an appropriately governed regulator means that skills training will be delivered in a more efficient manner. This is important—the high-quality sort of skills training that is needed to help us come up with the best possible post-COVID workforce. The new governance structure within ASQA means that a CEO and advisory council will be able to take a greater educative role and have a more modern approach to regulating the VET sector. The new expert advisory council means that those who are best placed to understand the nuances of this highly diverse sector are best positioned to help guide it into the future.

Important privacy safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the data of vulnerable students is not shared inappropriately and will also help buttress the vulnerable against potential abuse such as we saw under Labor. It is tremendously important to recognise that at a time like this skills and training are more important than ever. VET reform is a key pillar of the Morrison government's JobMaker plan. We on this side of the chamber know that all jobs are worth supporting, not just those of tertiary-educated Labor and Greens voters in the inner cities. We have announced $2.8 billion to support apprentices and trainees since the COVID pandemic hit, and we will continue to keep pushing to ensure that vocational education has a strong backbone of funding and rigorous and appropriate oversight. It is and always will be core to our economy and should never be considered an afterthought. A stable, well-functioning VET sector that continues to turn out skilled, appropriately qualified workers is essential to Australian industry. It is essential to the strength of our economy and essential to the wellbeing of our society as a whole.

This bill will make the necessary improvements that are needed in order for ASQA to fulfil an effective certification and oversight role, providing the checks and balances needed for the vocational education and training sector to flourish. A good and effective regulator was one of the key elements missing from Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme. It was a vital missing ingredient that almost guaranteed that rampant misconduct and poor quality would infect many RTOs. With the passage of this bill ASQA will take a giant step forward to be the highly effective regulator our VET sector needs. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:55): I rise to speak about the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I will be voting for this bill. Everyone knows that ASQA needs reform. Australia needs ASQA to be a cop on the beat. We've seen too much evidence of what happens without one.

We've seen providers take our kids for a ride, charging them tens of thousands of dollars for qualifications worth little more than the paper they're printed on. Some of those kids, by the way, are still waiting for their money back. So, if someone could get onto that for about the third time since I've been in here, that would be good. Some of these guys have really ripped off our kids. So, if we can get onto it, that would be great. It's about time the government started doing something about that. Those qualifications are not worth the paper they're printed on.

The fact is that the government is tinkering at the edges here. What's new? They're doing the bare minimum they need to. What's new? It makes me sad to say this, but they just don't care enough to make our TAFEs thrive. It's all just lip-service. Our tradies and the people they work for need so much more. They need a vision. They need support from government to get kids trained up and into jobs that will rebuild our economy. Don't tell me we're going to start rebuilding our economy, we're going into manufacturing and we're going into infrastructure, when our kids out there have got no jobs and no apprenticeships because the TAFEs are not up and running. This is the problem. And it's becoming a bigger problem. I've got people down there in Tasmania waiting 18 months to get new houses built because we don't have qualified tradesmen and we don't have the apprentices because we don't have the TAFEs open. That's the problem. That's what the economists and the government tells us that we need to make our way out of this economic crisis.

Everyone knows that construction, manufacturing and care work will get us through. That's what our economy and our people need and they need it now. They needed it yesterday. My question to the government is: how will we do that when our TAFEs are on their knees? They are sick of the lip-service that's coming from the coalition. They have absolutely had enough of it. This bill is a bit of nothing, basically. That's all it is. It is a waste of bloody time in this Senate chamber. Maybe the regulator's board's operations could be improved. Do you know what else could be improved? Literally everything about the way we do trades and training in this country. Trades and training, that's my problem with this bill. It's a bit like fixing the roof when the foundations are already dodgy. What's the point? We have states announcing record spending on infrastructure but we don't have the tradies to get it done. How about that? That's what happens when you rely on all these 457s and everything else in the past. Things are going to change and no-one's changing with them. We're not changing in here. We're still not ready to give our kids an opportunity through TAFE. We're still not spending the money in there.

TAFEs are where our fireys, our paramedics and our aged-care workers are trained. They are meant to be essential workers. If these jobs are classed as essential, how come it's not essential to fix where they are being trained? How do you get them trained if you don't have the facilities prepared to train them? Don't even start me on not having the teachers prepared to train them, because you don't have that either. It is shameful. Here we go with the government once again making a big song and dance about this so-called JobTrainer program. It is just a reworded something else; that's all. I'll tell you what, this government does slogans pretty well, but the trouble is you've been doing them that well, the Australian people have caught up with you, and they're onto it.

What I want to know is: what is the government actually doing to make sure our kids can get a decent vocational education after they've finished school? How are we going to get those unemployed workers out there retrained and into a decent job? Our TAFEs should be there to do that for people. Australians should be able to rely on their local TAFE to give them the skills they need to contribute to rebuilding our economy. But I'll tell you what these big talkers have done so far. They've brought out their fancy marketing campaign to try and hide—

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Lambie! You will be in continuation when this debate resumes.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:04): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:04): I rise—digitally—to take note of item 12, which is the ANAO follow-up performance audit on the Lobbying Code of Conduct. As people probably realise, the Australian federal lobbying system is widely considered to be incredibly weak compared to international standards, and to state and territory standards for that matter.

The system is made up of the lobbying code and the public lobbying register and it has been criticised for having only limited transparency and imposing rules that are relatively loose, and not comprehensively or independently policed and which carry little serious punishment. That's why the ANAO looked into this two years ago. They issued some recommendations that were ignored—my words, not theirs. They have subsequently done a follow-up audit two years down the track to see if anyone took any notice of their recommendations the first time around. Sadly, the short version is: no.

So the ANAO found in June that the government does not adequately assess conflict-of-interest risks or monitor compliance with the Lobbyist Code of Conduct. Frankly, the lack of transparency about who ministers are meeting with is staggering. It is no wonder the community has lost confidence in the impartiality of its representatives and think that politicians are simply for sale to the latest person that took them out for lunch. It has almost gotten to the stage where the lobbyist might as well just be running the chamber, to cut out the middle person. It's incredibly disappointing, because we have these codes of conduct and registers and the ANAO has found that they are not properly enforced, that in the hand-over from PM&C to the Attorney-General's Department—who are now in charge of the lobbying code and the register—there was a litany of bungles and a continued failure to advise anyone what the rules are and a failure to implement them.

It's pretty tragic that there have been two ANAO reports and still we have very little action from the government. The ANAO used—for them—incredibly damning words. They said that governance arrangements to oversee the implementation of the ANAO recommendation were 'limited in their effectiveness'. They said there was no implementation planning in the transition from PM&C to Attorney-General's, that the Attorney-General's Department did not develop a strategy to raise awareness of the code and that there were limited activities undertaken to inform lobbyists and government representatives of their compliance obligations under the code. The Attorney-General's Department did not systematically assess risks to compliance with the code and did not advise the government about the sufficiency of the current compliance framework. Lastly, they did not develop an evaluation framework or performance measures.

You could not get a more clear criticism of this administrative bungle. Perhaps it's deliberate. We know this government are not big fans of transparency. They are big fans of lobbyists. So who knows? But we have had two ANAO reports now. The government needs to clean up its act. It needs to get rid of this revolving door for advisers, MPs and lobbyists. That's why the Greens have pushed for an awfully long time now to have a properly enforced lobbying code including a proper cooling-off period of five years for former ministers before they go off and work for the people they were meant to be regulating while they were sitting in parliament. That cooling-off period should be expanded to include other people. We have pushed for a proper parliamentary standards commissioner who is actually responsible for enforcing rules like this.

I think we all acknowledge that the community deserves better representation. The people want their democracy back. They're sick of it being held hostage to big donors, vested interests and lobbyists. So we have a chance now. There are some clear directions and recommendations from the ANAO, once more, for reform. Let's hope that this time they actually get the attention they deserve. Thank you.

Debate adjourned.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:13): I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is report No. 9 from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, dated 18 August 2020. This report covers two highly draconian pieces of legislation which erode fundamental human rights in this country. Those two bills are the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 and the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020.

The first of these bills will allow ASIO to detain and interrogate people as young as 14—that is, children—for politically motivated activities and to use tracking devices without a warrant issued by the courts, and contains many other draconian elements. The second bill will ban detainees inside immigration detention facilities from having access to a range of items including mobile phones and will allow, in fact, for a blanket ban to be put on mobile phones in the possession of detainees inside immigration detention facilities. That bill will give staff inside immigration detention facilities greater powers—with less oversight—than police have when dealing with the general public. That bill is designed to silence the capacity of detainees to record and publish human rights abuses perpetrated against them and will have a chilling effect on their capacity to participate in political debate in this country.

Because this report considers those two bills, which engage so many fundamental human rights, it beggars belief that the chair along with government members of that committee have once again chosen to ignore the independent legal advice received by the committee. Human rights are under sustained attack in Australia. We are the only liberal democracy in the world without a charter of rights or a bill of rights, which makes this committee one of the most important committees in the parliamentary system. The committee's job is to provide a technical assessment of whether proposed legislation complies with Australia's international human rights obligations. It should never be run for political purposes. But, unfortunately, the chair and Liberal and National party members of this committee are doing just that. The only reason for LNP members to so blatantly ignore the committee's independent legal advice is that they are embarrassed that the government holds human rights in such contempt.

Australia is becoming a police state and a surveillance state, and the LNP members of this committee are aiding and abetting the government on that dangerous journey. They are doing so by masking the legitimate scrutiny of these bills by ignoring the independent legal advice to this committee when it suits them, thereby undermining the important role that the committee plays in scrutinising legislation. The blatant and rampant politicisation of this committee by the chair and other government members enables the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms and liberties in Australia. It assists the government as it frogmarches this country down the dangerous path towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism. This is how fascism starts.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:18): Yes, I'm seeking leave to address item 69, which is a committee report into one of my private members' bills.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They are not normally available for debate at this point.

Senator WATERS: Yes, that's why I'm seeking leave.

Leave not granted.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (17:19): I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Water for Fodder program.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Brockman ) (17:19): The President has received a letter requesting changes to the membership of a joint committee.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (17:19): by leave—I move:

That Senators McKim and Waters be appointed to the Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media as participating members.

Question agreed to.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (17:21): There's an important principle that should be stated clearly at the outset of this debate: the government should not be using COVID-19 as a sneaky back door to cut services or implement pre-existing agendas. Labor sends this message loud and clear. The postal service changes before parliament began as an opportunistic cost- and job-cutting exercise. These changes do not arise from circumstances that are brought about by the pandemic but, instead, were planned well before the pandemic and are intended to be snuck through by the government at a time when people are looking to the government for trusted responses. These are not intended to be temporary changes but permanent cuts that bypass normal consultation.

The structural direction of the long-term agenda is outlined in the $1.3 million Boston Consulting Group report that was commissioned by the finance minister and handed to the government on 21 February. We understand that that report proposes cuts to service standards, cuts to jobs and the closure of post offices. The secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications has even revealed that the cabinet had already resolved to continue the recommendations of the report prior to COVID-19 and, indeed, that that report did recommend cuts, cuts, cuts and closures. This is what Mr Atkinson, the secretary, had to say:

My recollection was it was commissioned by cabinet to come back to cabinet for consideration, and it came back in its normal scheduled time. That just happened to be in COVID-19.

That's pretty clear, isn't it? The government had been planning to consider recommendations to cut the postal service well before COVID-19.

The tricky foundation—and it is tricky—of this approach and the regulations that are before us has been made clear by the number of untruths the government has felt compelled to tell to justify this position. First, they said Australia Post was going to go broke and would have to cut costs because of declining revenues. They laid all that out in an article in The Australian on 31 March under the headline 'Australia Post forced to slash costs as coronavirus hits revenues'. This story happened to be dropped on the very same day a formal request was made to shareholder ministers for the regulatory changes. There's a problem with that story—quite a big problem. Overall revenues were going up. They were not going down, as was asserted in the story, and the Senate has learned that, in fact, Australia Post was forecasting more revenue as a result of COVID and this, in fact, is what occurred.

Evidence to the Senate established that parcel volumes were 37.2 per cent higher in April 2020 than they were in March. It makes sense, doesn't it—if you think about it for even a moment before you drop your story to The Australian? Of course revenues will go up. Parcel volumes have gone through the roof, and Australia Post is the primary carrier of parcels in Australia. So, once that narrative fell apart, they then tried to claim that addressed letter volumes had collapsed by 50 per cent. Uh-uh. In response to written questions on notice by Labor senators, Australia Post submitted that addressed letter volumes went from 139 million in February 2020 before the pandemic to 155 million in March, when the lockdown began. That's a 12 per cent increase. That's another misleading narrative taken apart by Senate scrutiny. Then, in the third attempt, the minister tried to claim that postal delivery workers were not busy enough and that, through these regulations, he was giving them work to do. What a disrespectful and ignorant thing to say. Frontline postal workers have never been busier. That is a statement of fact. They are incredibly busy. And they have been working endlessly for our communities throughout COVID—busier than ever. They deserve respect, not insults from an uninformed minister.

The minister then wrote to a Senate committee and claimed that posties were previously dedicated to handling and delivering letters and that he was liberating them for redeployment to deliver parcels. That is also not true. There is no such thing as a postie dedicated to delivering letters in Australia. Posties deliver parcels and letters, including essential medicines, and they have done so every day of the week for years. And, if the minister won't take advice from the representatives of workers, perhaps he should read what the executive general manager of deliveries at Australia Post said to the Senate back in 2018. Mr Barnes said:

Today we see nearly 45 per cent of all parcels delivered by posties. So when you think of the context of the letters declining at 10 per cent per year, that's been a big boost for our posties in keeping them busier out there. We expect to see that close to 50 per cent within a year and a half.

The critical point is that, when a postie visits your home five days a week, they're also carrying parcels five days a week. So why would the government feel the need to make unnecessary and incorrect assertions that posties only carry letters? The minister has used this language to imply that postal workers have less and less to do as letter volumes decline. But, in fact, as letter volumes decline, postal workers deliver an increasing volume of small to medium-sized packets and parcels.

Finally, Australia Post wrote to members of parliament last week saying that the alternate day delivery model was only just coming into effect on 31 August. If the changes were so urgent that the minister, as he claims, couldn't have undertaken any consultation, why take four months to implement them? The answer is that the reduced delivery model was designed on the assumption that one in four postal workers would not have a job. We've had unions and postal workers give evidence to the Senate that postal workers across the country were being told that one in four wouldn't have a role. So my colleague Senator Green asked this question:

Can I just be clear so that this is understood: there is the document that you were briefed with, which shows that Dan … no longer has a round to perform. And what you're saying today is that that information was not only briefed to you, it was also briefed to senior management and also out to workplaces?

The witness, Mr Murphy, says:

Correct. They were briefed at workplaces similar to Lisarow … that one in four posties no longer had a job to do.

Senator Green asks the other witness to confirm that that was the briefing, and Mr Morton says:

Yes, from our management at our delivery facilities.

So once the government had to give up on the idea that, in the middle of a pandemic, they were going to implement massive job cuts at Australia Post, they were forced back to the drawing board and spent months trying to figure out how to integrate the fourth postal worker into a model that was designed for three. This government have been making this up as they go along. The foundations of their arguments and their policy rationale were dishonest to begin with. That's why they tried to use COVID-19 to bypass consultation with workers in the community. This is a joke, and it's also not the standard that the community expects from their government at this critical time.

We have a minister unwilling to be straight with the public. We have a $1.3 million review into Australia Post that the government refuses to release. We have a government making it up as they go along. The Labor Party will seek to disallow these regulations because the government needs to get a clear message: COVID-19 should not be used as a cover to sneak through existing agendas. It's an important principle, and one that's at stake in a number of areas of public policy.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (17:30): Australia Post is not immune to the difficulties posed by a global pandemic. To support Australia Post to continue providing the postal services Australians need during the COVID-19 crisis the government has granted it temporary regulatory relief until 30 June 2021. These changes provide Australia Post with the flexibility to redeploy its workforce to manage the dramatic increase in parcel volume and decrease in letters accelerated as a result of COVID-19. Australia Post have made a commitment that there will be no forced redundancies or across-the-board reductions in wages due to the temporary arrangements. The government will review the changes before the end of the year.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate order of the day No. 1 be agreed to.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:38): I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BROCKMAN: By leave—I wish to make a few points. This is a private senator's bill from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. Senator Roberts is the initiator of this bill. I want to make a couple of quick remarks on the report and some clarifications that need to be made. This is to do with the so-called 'bail in' possibility of banking institutions bailing in depositors that has gained some traction in the community. I rise this afternoon really to make one key point: that there is, and the report makes clear that there is, no ambiguity in need of rectification by this private senator's bill. It is not possible under current law and regulation for APRA to require banks to bail in deposit accounts. The Reserve Bank, APRA and Treasury all agree that the Banking Act does not imply that losses could be imposed on deposit holders or give APRA any additional powers that could be used to the detriment of retail depositors.

Depositors are already safeguarded under a range of protections such as the Financial Claims Scheme, which the Treasurer may activate in the event that a bank fails. Upon activation, APRA provides depositors with access to their deposits within seven days, up to a $250,000 cap. This covers around 99 per cent of deposit accounts in full, and around 80 per cent of household deposits by value. There is a depositors' preference system which applies to deposits above the FCS cap and means that, in the event a bank fails, the claims of depositors rank above all equity holders and creditors. There are numerous layers of prudential regulation and interventions APRA can make to resolve financial institutions in distress, such as recapitalisation, statutory management and the transfer of powers.

Much of this comes down to the question of the phrase in the relevant laws, 'any other instrument'—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Order, Senator Brockman. A point of order, Senator Urquhart?

Senator Urquhart: This bill is pursuant to the selection of bills. I understand that leave was given, but normally we don't debate bills that are pursuant to the selection of bills, so we would withdraw our support for leave.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In that case, Senator Brockman, you no longer have the call. We will return to government business orders of the day.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (17:42): I resume my speech on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I'll tell you what these big talkers have done so far. They've brought out a fancy marketing campaign to try and hide the fact that they've taken a sledgehammer to our TAFEs. It's been happening for years under both majors. That's what they've been doing. They very quietly ripped $4 billion out of TAFEs last year. That's our government. That's supposed to be a party of the fair go, but apparently not for tradies and not for apprentices. No fair go for those guys. And the ALP, the supposed party of the worker, helped them do it. The hypocrisy of it drives me absolutely nuts and actually makes my blood boil.

Just imagine what we could have done with that money. It could have gone to desperately needed upgrades to the equipment that we should be training our kids on. That money could have fixed the holes in the windows, the leaks in the roof, the asbestos throughout those buildings. We could have used it to fund new courses so that students in the regions don't have to move away from home to get any choice in what they want to study. This is the situation that our TAFEs are in. This is the sad reality. They are getting by on the smell of an oily rag. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that my local TAFE is training students on machines that date back to the Cold War. Yet these guys are still supposed to be able to go straight into a new job with new machines that actually work off IT systems, not something from the Cold War. That's what the government are setting them up for—they are setting them up for failure. The majors have been letting the TAFEs struggle along for years, to the point of no return—God forbid! God help our children that don't want to go to universities. I tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, there are a lot that don't.

Now that the government are in crisis, they turn around and expect TAFE to be able to help pull us out of this. Well, you're kidding yourselves. You've absolutely trashed them. You've trashed them for our kids, you've trashed them for our apprentices and you've trashed them for the teachers who want to teach our kids. You want to turn this around, saying we need it turned around before Christmas time. Come on. Be realistic. Be honest with yourselves. You've gutted the sector, you've turned a blind eye and you've put us in this mess. We aren't going to get out of it with a bunch of governance bills to make tiny changes to the way the sector gets regulated. I mean, hello! You are shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic. Our TAFEs are sinking under a weight they were never going to be able to handle, and the people who need TAFE are being let down.

I got an email last week from another young apprentice, just one of many, who can't finish his degree because—guess what?—he can't access the teachers to finish his course and start working. He can't go any further with his apprenticeship. How many more students end up at university because they know they won't have the support they need at TAFE? The support is no longer there. How many people are winding up on the dole queue because they can't get retrained? And yet the federal government announced they were fast-tracking 15 critical infrastructure projects, putting $1.5 billion—that's right—into the economy in July. In the last two weeks, Queensland, Western Australia and my own home state of Tasmania announced record spending on infrastructure. The government's HomeBuilder program is rolling out now and it's supposed to keep the construction industry going. But will the sparkies, the chippies and the scaffies be there to make those renos happen? I don't think so. There's your problem. The follow-through just isn't there. That's the problem with this whole government idea of yours. You are so out of touch. When it is election time, those politicians can't wait to get into some high-vis jackets. Let's be honest: you all love having cameras on you on high-vis day. But, when it comes to making sure our next generation of tradies have the equipment, the facilities and the teachers they need you actually don't give a stuff.

We need to get our TAFEs cranking for our kids—not next year, now. If you haven't started already you've failed, so I guess you've failed. This is not just about our kids. It is not just about our TAFEs. This is for the hearts of our communities. This is for our economy. This is why we need to get this moving. Properly sourced, we could make our TAFEs what they were a generation ago—community hubs that offered our young people trade skills that would actually get them good jobs, supporting them, their families and their communities for years to come.

Three generations of my family went through the Devonport TAFE. It got my mum off the factory floor, it got my son his tradie ticket and it got me a business degree. It was a place where we went to find a new future. It was the heart of the community. Everyone keeps saying we're in this together, but are we? Are we really in this together? Or is it just more lip service? For Australians who want to be able to upskill at their local TAFE, it sure doesn't feel like we're in this together. Devonport's TAFE is teaching student nurses on floorboards that let in paint fumes from the floor below. You guys have been very aware of that. Your Tasmanian Liberal counterparts have been very aware of that and still nothing has been done. I raised this with you guys well over 10 months ago. It hasn't been fixed. You are not showing any initiative; I can tell you that much.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Order, Senator Lambie! I would just remind you to address your remarks through the chair.

Senator LAMBIE: We're teaching kids trades on equipment that's older than they are. Some of it was made during the Cold War. Floors are rusted through and roofs are falling in. Yet the coalition, the ones in government, are arguing over who is to blame. Great! It doesn't matter how much TAFE costs if the qualifications it offers aren't valued. I want TAFE valued, I want it honoured and I want it fixed. You are all arguing that it is the other guys who need to do something about it. Get real. Show some initiative. Just show some initiative. Make some good, solid decisions. Get in there and fix it. Instead of paying lip service, actually fix it.

Voters don't want to know who to blame for the collapse in the training and trades sector. They are not interested. They don't care. They just don't care about that. Voters want a trades and training sector that isn't collapsing, full-stop. Let's be honest: that is what is happening. Wall to wall, floor to ceiling, it is crumbling in front of our eyes, and yet the coalition in government are arguing about how many commissioners should sit on a board of an ineffective regulator. It's just another board sitting on top. It's just another one that will get nothing done. It's just to make it look like you are actually achieving something. That bothers me terribly. As soon as you can't get something right and make it happen, you put up a board. That is what you do. That is the normal Liberal way.

If you care about our trades, care enough to save them. Until then, spare us the speeches about how bad the other guys are. I won't waste a second arguing who is worst. I just want what's best, because I went to TAFE, like my mum and like my son, and I see what it did for my family and what it has done for the people in my part of town and my community and what that heart and soul meant when it was up and running and pumping at 110 per cent.

I've seen how much that meant to our community and how much was achieved for our kids, and all I see now is that it's got a boot on its neck and it's struggling. It is struggling to breathe, and we've got the time in the Senate to give it some breathing room, but instead we're spending hours debating who gets to be on the board of a regulator, getting overtime and no doubt paid an arm and a leg—to do what? Another regulator? Another board? To do what? To do the job that, apparently, ministers on that side are not able to do, because, if they were, they wouldn't be paying their mates to try to get the job done, which they don't either.

This is where parliament in this country has got to these days. A minister can't get the job done. They pay their mates to do a board; that's how it works. Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves. If that's what you're doing—and that's what you are doing—you should not be a minister in this country.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (17:50): I rise to sum up the debate on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020 and I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate. Delivering excellence in training lies at the heart of the coalition government's skills agenda, and that can only be achieved with a regulatory approach that is fair, transparent and effective and with a regulator that continually evolves, builds organisational capability and engages with the vocational education and training sector.

This bill before the Senate ensures that the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, otherwise known as ASQA, has a more effective, modern and fit-for-purpose governance structure. It responds to both the Braithwaite and Joyce reviews, which called on ASQA to adopt a greater educative role and to improve its regulatory approach. Further, it aligns with findings from the rapid review undertaken by regulatory experts into ASQA's governance, culture and processes. The government released the final rapid review report on 30 April 2020.

The reforms before us will ensure that ASQA is well positioned to support the VET sector with navigating the current COVID-19 environment and, more importantly, to guide the sector's recovery and regrowth once the pandemic abates. In this context, on 12 April 2020 the Australian government announced measures that provide regulatory fee relief for the VET sector. Certain fees and charges between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2021 will be waived and relevant fees already paid will be reimbursed. This will assist the financial viability of registered training organisations, support business operations during the pandemic and foster recovery once travel and operational restrictions are relaxed. The revised governance model in the bill will also assist as it draws on best practice for Commonwealth regulators and will enable ASQA to better allocate and clarify operational roles and responsibilities and to improve regulatory decision-making.

The existing three-commissioner model will be replaced by a single agency head to be known as the Chief Executive Officer of ASQA, who will lead ASQA's strategic direction and improve efficiency. Starting reform at the top and working down ensures a positive impact on the agency's culture and supports a revised and revitalised organisational structure anticipated as part of the agency reforms.

Further, the bill establishes a statutory advisory council consisting of diverse multidisciplinary experts who will provide ASQA with access to strategic guidance and direction. These appointments will be based on experience and/or knowledge rather than representing particular stakeholder interests. It is critical that the independence and expertise of the council is maintained and that one stakeholder group is not preferenced over others. This mechanism for selecting the advisory council is based on recommendations from the rapid review and accords with best-practice regulation in similar settings, thus ensuring the CEO of ASQA is provided with high-quality, independent expert advice.

Significant reform is anticipated in the VET sector over the coming years, and these changes will position the CEO to make the necessary changes to ASQA's internal practices, enhance its educative role and address future challenges. The information-sharing provisions in the bill support the disclosure of data collected by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research to a range of bodies.

It is the intention of the bill for the National Centre for Vocational Education Research to be able to disclose information to state and territory departments that have responsibility for vocational education and training, even where they are also listed on the national register as a registered training organisation. Enhanced information sharing helps governments and vocational education training regulators so that the diverse needs and requirements of all Australians are considered in policy, funding and regulation.

This bill is further evidence of the government's commitment to VET sector reform. It is the next stage of measures that will strengthen ASQA to engage more effectively with stakeholders while continuing to improve its regulatory approach and enhance student outcomes. A strong national regulator supports access to quality vocational education and training, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:56): It's my pleasure to rise this evening and move Labor's amendment to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020 on sheet 8900, which is:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 15 (after line 24), after section 177, insert:

177A Membership—TAFE sector and union representatives

The membership of the Advisory Council must include representatives of the following:

(a) public technical and further education (TAFE) sector;

(b) trade unions.

The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that there is TAFE, union and employer sector representation on ASQA's advisory council. Labor very much believes—and we look for the chamber's support on this issue—that it is critical that there is a public provider at the table and that the legislation before us today should mandate that this is so. Given the important role this council will have in providing strategic advice about regulatory matters, it is indeed an imperative that the council represents a cross-section of the sector while also providing essential expertise.

We know that TAFE, as the public sector provider, plays an absolutely critical role, and it should be properly represented on the council. TAFE is the mainstay of our VET education across the country. We need strong institutions in the VET sector, and it is TAFE that provides that institutional strength, and indeed TAFE should be directly represented on the ASQA Advisory Council. It is the pillar of quality in vocational education, and its advice and guidance will be invaluable to ASQA. So it does not benefit anyone in our nation to have the expertise of TAFE educators sidelined in the event that TAFE does not have a recognised seat at the table. I understand that TAFE appointments could be made, but they might come from a diversity of places, a diversity of TAFEs. But it's really important that someone is seen to be mandated as a TAFE representative on ASQA. People in this sector can wear many hats, and in my view it's critically important that TAFE is formally recognised as being represented at the ASQA advisory council.

We also want an advisory council that is not unduly weighted to representing private providers. We very much believe that this could undermine ASQA's regulatory approach. Equally, trade union representation, balanced also by representation from employer groups, is vital. Labor understands this, on both sides, from hard-earned experience in the sector. Regarding the voice of trade unions, trade unions work very hard to understand and represent their professions when it comes to regulatory advice and, indeed, advice regarding our skills agenda and ASQA. What's critically important here is that skills relate not just to the skills being taught today but to the existing skills of people who are already in the workforce and who have already acquired that education. As ASQA regulates, it needs to not only look to the current and future skills but also look back to the skills that people already hold and how they interface with each other. Trade unions are in an excellent position to assist in doing that.

Industry, of course, is central to the operation of an effective skills formation system. Unions and employers have an important role in providing feedback and advice on the regulator's activities and rules, and we really want to see employers and industry directly represented on the advisory council of ASQA also. Union members—the workers—are at the coalface of training, and they know the system and its problems all too well. Union representatives get these issues fed through to them, so unions are indeed in a good place to be able to contribute that to ASQA. Indeed, trade unions, through union representation through the ACTU and other employment groups, are very good at triaging information from a diversity of points across unions, just like employer representatives do. They can triage the information that comes across the sector up into the representative advisory council of ASQA.

Unions have been at the forefront of developing occupational standards, career path, safety and the quality of skills development in workplaces. Again, they deserve a place at the table. I would like to say to the chamber and to the government: to not have a voice for those at the coalface of work and training—that is, the people being trained and the people who hold qualifications that come from the sector—would diminish any work that ASQA do. I commend Labor's amendment to the Senate.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (18:02): As I highlighted in my second reading contribution, the Greens will be supporting Labor's amendment. The amendment requires the minister to include representatives from TAFE, from unions and from employer groups on the advisory council that is established by this legislation. This will make sure that the voices of our public training providers, as well as our workers, are heard in any VET policy that is made.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (18:03): The government will not be supporting the amendment that has been moved by the opposition. The 2020 rapid review recommended that members of the advisory council be appointed based on their experience and/or their knowledge, rather than representing a particular stakeholder interest. This approach is consistent with best practice regulation in similar settings. The national VET regulator needs to be supported by experts to ensure continuous improvement, strategic advice and meaningful sector engagement. Choosing a representative from a stakeholder group, whether that stakeholder group be an employer group or a TAFE, is no guarantee of individual experience or knowledge of TAFE, as is envisioned by the legislation. The mechanism for choosing members outlined in the bill is appropriate and will lead to an independent skills based advisory council with members who bring expertise across a range of disciplines. This will ensure that the CEO of ASQA is provided with high-quality advice.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8900 revised, moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (18:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:12): The Labor Party supports a safe and secure transport sector in our nation. It needs to be managed by the right legislation and regulation to stay one step ahead of criminals and terrorists. We of course know the threats facing our transport sector are constantly evolving. It's critical that we revise and refine our laws to keep Australia's transport sector one of the safest in the world. The safety and security of all Australians is paramount. We in the Labor Party will always take the advice of our national security agencies. Labor has a consistent track record of working cooperatively and in a bipartisan manner on all matters of national security. Of course the bill before the chamber today—the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019—is no exception.

The bill today amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the aviation act, and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, the maritime act, to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports. The bill before us aims to improve transport security in two important ways.

Firstly, the bill before us clarifies the ability of aviation security inspectors to test aviation industry participants' security systems, including by specifically allowing inspectors to conduct system tests with the test pieces at locations beyond screening points in an airport terminal. They will be able to do this without the risk of committing an offence under other laws. For example, following the passage of the bill, aviation security inspectors will be able to expand their testing regimes to include air cargo examination and, importantly, catering facilities.

The bill before us also establishes the framework needed to introduce a national standard of competency for aviation and maritime screening personnel. The thousands of security screeners who work hard at our airports and seaports perform a vital role. I personally am grateful—as, I'm sure, all senators and staff in this place are personally grateful—for the work they do to keep us safe in our skies. These people, our security screeners, prevent weapons, firearms and explosives from making it onto aircraft and cruise ships, ensuring we can all travel safely and securely. To me it's notable that, because they're there to make sure people aren't carrying such items, they do this largely without discovering them. It highlights the significance and importance of the screening role they play, which means that in large part people don't even attempt to get such items on board. Indeed, we're all happy to comply and participate in such screening.

The legislation ensures that the education, training and testing requirements for screeners will remain flexible, effective and relevant in an increasingly complex security environment. It gives us the framework necessary so that screeners are well-equipped to respond to threats both now and into the future. The bill introduces measures allowing the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to prescribe the requirements associated with screeners' training, qualification and accreditation. This is with the aim of enabling screener requirements to be adapted efficiently and in response to rapid changes in the security environment, meaning that we will have a workforce that is more flexible and agile in responding to these issues.

I'd like to draw particular attention to the important work of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to this legislation. The original bill had a number of gaping holes which were identified by the committee. I'm sad to say that they do speak to the lack of due diligence that has become commonplace under this Liberal-National government. It is particularly alarming to see these issues arise within a security context. Firstly, the unamended legislation would have permitted an aviation security inspector to test an aviation industry participant's security system 'including by using an item, weapon or vehicle'. Of course, this means real weapons and, therefore, real explosives in testing the detection of such items. While the legislation notes that tests must be done in accordance with any requirements prescribed in regulations, we don't believe that delegated legislation should be used unless a sound justification is provided. As no such justification has been provided, despite the scrutiny of bills committee calling on the government to explain this lack of clarity in December, Labor will therefore move an amendment that seeks to prevent this legislation coming into force until the testing requirements are prescribed via regulation.

Secondly, the explanatory memorandum clearly states that any test pieces, such as 'imitation firearms and simulated improvised explosive devices', are designed to be inert and not to cause harm. However, as the scrutiny of bills committee noted again, this requirement does not exist on the face of the primary legislation, and Labor believes that this must be fixed. What kind of government, I ask the chamber—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—omits a requirement like this from the legislation? This is about keeping people safe in their workplaces and safe in our skies, plain and simple. In what context should people who are testing the robustness of screening be asked to use live firearms or, for example, real explosives?

We appreciate that the government has heard Labor members' urgent calls for the legislation to be amended and for an assurance that live firearms and improvised explosive devices won't be used. We are pleased to say we will, of course, support this amendment to correct this glaring oversight.

Lastly, the legislation allows the secretary to determine training and qualification requirements for screening officers by legislative instrument. However, the secretary is also empowered to exempt the class of screening officers from one or more of the requirements if exceptional circumstances exist. We acknowledge that there might be valid situations where exemptions might need to be applied. Labor believes that the application of these exemptions must be reported transparently. We thank the government in advance for their commitment to accurately and transparently answering questions in relation to these exemptions during Senate estimates. And I'd like to draw Senator Cash's attention to these remarks, which were to say to the government: we have very forthrightly argued that, for any exemptions to the training qualification requirements for screening officers—anyone who is exempted—the government should report those transparently. We're looking to the government to provide that information during Senate estimates in relation to the use of any such exemptions.

The Australian people put great trust in the parliament to ensure that we enact the right legislation to protect Australia's national security. We do this while also balancing any new laws with openness and transparency. So it is in a spirit of continuing to build trust with the Australian people that Labor will move these amendments. We welcome the amendments that the government will move today. We will support the amendments, as they go some way towards fixing problems with the bill. In addition, we look to moving our own amendments to fully capture the recommendations of the scrutiny of bills committee and to solve these issues in this very important bill. I have to say, a lack of due diligence and accountability has been the calling card of the Morrison government. I commend the scrutiny of bills committee for their work on this important piece of legislation.

We used to be able to trust the Morrison government with our borders. But, sadly, that does not appear to be the case anymore. In March this year, with the arrival of the Ruby Princess, Prime Minister Morrison said: 'The Australian government has also banned cruise ships from foreign ports … from arriving at Australian ports.' The Prime Minister said on that same day that there 'will be some bespoke arrangements that we put in place directly under the command of the Australian Border Force to ensure that the relevant protections are put in place'. Four days later, after the Prime Minister's remarks, on 19 March the Ruby Princess was allowed to disembark its 2,700 passengers in Sydney. As we know, they included sick passengers who were allowed to spread across Australia and the globe.

So, despite banning cruise ships and putting Border Force in direct command with bespoke arrangements, our Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, did not stop the one boat that mattered—the boat that he promised to stop. And Australians have lived with those consequences. The Prime Minister has made light of this by pointing to the fact that the Commonwealth didn't have ultimate responsibility for these issues, and so he let himself off the hook. What does not let him off the hook is the fact that he made these very public undertakings to the Australian people. In the context of this debate about safety and screening at our borders, I call on the Prime Minister to put this debate in the context of COVID-19, and I call on the Prime Minister to apologise to the hundreds of Australians who've contracted COVID-19 because of the Ruby Princess, as well as to the family members of Australians who've lost their lives. The Ruby Princess is a disaster which has spread COVID-19 across Australia and the globe. It's responsible for over 1,000 cases of COVID-19; 30 tragic deaths; the north-west Tasmanian outbreak, which included 11 deaths; and 127 of the cases that I spoke about before. We cannot forget that allowing the Ruby Princess to dock in Sydney, despite the Prime Minister's undertakings that he would manage the situation, has been a big human tragedy. Over 30 Australians have lost their lives as a result of it.

In the short time that's available, I want to draw attention to issues around the Commonwealth and the ABF. When it comes to our borders, the buck should and does stop with the Commonwealth. No amount of buck-passing by the Prime Minister or his ministers absolves them of this responsibility, a responsibility which is outlined within the Constitution. We've also seen the disaster of the number of aeroplane arrivals claiming asylum, with an absolute explosion of over 100,000 aeroplane arrivals in Australia claiming asylum. We've seen Peter Dutton's half-a-billion-dollar Paladin blunder and we've also seen a litany of other Home Affairs failures. In concluding this debate today, I want to reflect that, when we're looking at standards of security at our borders and a robust system of training and testing, it's right that we have a government that pays attention to the issues in the legislation that's before us today. But we can see in that legislation significant holes that need to be fixed by amendment today, and we have seen a litany of other Home Affairs failures at Australia's borders.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (18:26): It's really good to be here today, from my electorate office in Brunswick, to join this debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. I'm very glad that we've got the virtual parliament access working so I'm able to contribute to this debate.

As Senator Duniam noted in his second reading speech, this bill 'improves the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports'. We support that, so the Greens will be supporting this bill. I'll come to some specific comments about this bill later. First, I want to take the opportunity, given we're talking about airports, to speak about the state of aviation in these difficult times that we're currently in. The COVID-19 pandemic is, of course, having massive impacts on our society. My heart goes out to people who have lost loved ones, people who are still suffering with the illness, and people who are finding getting through this pandemic really, really tough.

In particular, COVID-19 has had, and will continue to have, significant impacts on our aviation sector, from the people who will be employed doing security checks at the airports through to people who are employed in the airline industry. We've seen a massive drop-off in flights, and, of course, one of our airlines is currently under administration. It is a travesty that our government have refused to support Virgin. They should have taken meaningful action to support one of Australia's two largest domestic carriers during the crisis. Instead, they allowed it to go into administration and we still don't know what state—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Griff ): We'll go to Senator Stoker and we will return to Senator Rice when we can.

Senator STOKER (Queensland) (18:28): That's an excellent adaptation, Mr Acting Deputy President. I rise to speak in favour of the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. Before the advent of COVID-19, 38 million people travelled through Australian airports and marine ports annually. Like the many Australians who work for our airlines, our airports, tourism operators and business travel companies, I'm really looking forward to seeing that level of movement, that kind of volume of passengers, return once the restrictions we currently face are eased. So many livelihoods, and indeed lives, depend on Australia maintaining its reputation and its record for being one of the safest places in the world to travel. That's why, as technology develops and the risk landscape evolves, as those who would seek to do us harm come up with ever more creative ways to go about it, the coalition government is doing all that is necessary to maintain that reputation for being a secure, trusted destination.

Let me explain what this bill does to contribute to that important result for all Australians. The first thing it does, and this is quite significant, is create powers for aviation security inspectors to engage in covert testing of aviation industry participants' security systems. That is a whole lot of industry speak for saying that it's really important that people who work in, particularly, aviation security, but it is also true of maritime security, are able to run tests—

Senator Rice interjecting—

Senator STOKER: It's really important that people who are working in the security space in our airports are able to conduct tests that reflect the nature of the items that might be smuggled through our airports. They need to be able to test the kinds of scenarios that might arise in the event of a terrorist scenario. And they need to be able to do it in a way that is real enough to equip the people working in these roles with the skills they need to be able to respond swiftly and with confidence in the event that the worst did happen.

The bill also makes for sensible precautions. It means that, for instance, the weapons that would be used in conducting these types of test scenarios are dummy ones. They're not actually live weapons. They aren't live bombs. They're dummy devices. They're able to be used within airports and in mock-type scenarios to help the people who need to work in these environments, using ever-evolving new technology, to learn the skills they need to be able to adapt when it really matters. What pops into the mind of many people when they hear that is, 'Well, hold on, we've got plenty of laws in this country that say you can't have a bomb hoax at an airport. That itself is a crime,' and that is a good pick-up by those people who noticed it. So one thing that this bill also does is to make it clear that when people who work as security officers engage in these training exercises, or when training officers or inspectors come to airports and run these types of exercises, and in doing so introduce items that look like they pose a serious threat and could be construed as a hoax, they aren't actually liable under civil or criminal law for the fact of that mock scenario. So that's another important thing that the bill does.

It also clarifies and aligns the legislative basis in a consistent way across the country for training and accrediting people with qualifications for undertaking these important screening roles. As I've mentioned, the shifting technology landscape is important in security screening, and so it's important that there are opportunities for people who have been doing this work for some time to access professional education that continues to update their skills as time passes. It's also important to make sure that the training that people are receiving is sufficiently tailored to the nature of the work, not just, say, the kind of general security training that someone who might become a security guard at a nightclub, for instance, has undertaken. There is a different set of skills that's required at an airport and that is clarified by this bill. But consistency among the different places in Australia is also clarified, to make sure that we are making it easy for people who are working in this field to have their qualifications recognised wherever they go.

Finally, the bill also provides for the creation of legislative instruments, like regulations, to make provision for the nuts and bolts of making this stuff happen—the provision of identity cards, for instance, for people who work in security screening roles and provision for what their uniforms should be like so that people who undertake these roles can be easily identified, particularly in an emergency. So these are, in broad terms, the goals of the legislation.

In many ways, this is a simple and somewhat unglamorous bill. Like a lot of the hard work of government, it's not necessarily shiny or the kind of thing that people want to have reported on the front page of the paper. But it really does matter, because security staff who are up to date with how to use the latest technology, who are able to identify up-to-date threats from those who would seek to do Australians harm and who are at the top of their game because they are being regularly tested on their ability to implement those skills on the job are the people who are best placed to keep Australians safe when it matters most, and that's something that should give all Australians great confidence.

I've said something about the covert security testing that will be facilitated by this bill, and it's worth explaining the situations in which inspectors and testers will have the benefit of exceptions from criminal and civil liability for their activities in training and testing people to do this work well. The circumstances in which a person would get that kind of an immunity are where the test is, firstly, conducted in good faith—they're doing it for the right reasons in the course of their work, for instance. The second criterion is that the test doesn't seriously endanger the health or safety of any person, because it's important that both people at work and passengers don't have their experience become an unsafe one as a consequence of these activities. The final criterion is that it doesn't result in significant loss of, or damage to, property. Where those three criteria are met by a person who is helping with testing and training exercises, they will get the benefit of that immunity from civil or criminal liability. It is important that we give people who are engaged in this work the ability to go about their business knowing that they're not at risk of breaching other laws like, for instance, the one I mentioned about there being bans on bomb hoaxes in our airports.

When I go to the topic, though, of the training provisions of this bill, it's worth going back to 2016, when Mr Michael Carmody completed an inquiry into aviation and maritime transport security education and training in Australia. It had a look at all of the different types of training that were done in this area, the outcomes that were being achieved by the people who had undergone that training when they were assessed and the overall quality of the training options that existed in the aviation and maritime sectors. He made a bunch of recommendations for its improvement.

One of the things that that inquiry identified as being important was the need for clarity about what constitutes sufficient qualifications under national standards. So he suggested the introduction of standardised qualifications for people who undergo this type of work on a day-to-day basis, distinguishing it from other types of security laws, and he also highlighted the importance of there being national tests so that those people who were engaged in this work were reaching a consistent standard nationwide. He highlighted the need for ongoing on-the-job training and a continuing education and professional development program to be available for people who work in this area so that they could keep up with changes in terrorists' tactics—for those who are responsible for identifying them day-to-day, that's an important factor—and also have the ability to keep up with the technology that's being used to identify these items when they're on the job.

So this bill, consistent with those recommendations, acts upon the suggestion that there should be a more specific security screening qualification, and it introduces national minimum standards for on-the-job training and continuing professional development for screening officers and it brings in national competency testing for screening officers. You might be thinking: 'What if you're someone who has been working in this field for many years and you've been doing it either with basic on-the-job training or on the basis of a more generalised security qualification? What does that mean for you?' That's a pretty fair question. The people who fall into that category will get recognition of those parts of their skillset that are relevant to their work. They will get accreditation that reflects the skill level they've reached. They will also get the benefit of a 12-month period of transition so that, if there are little extra modules that they might need to pick up in order to make sure they're meeting the national standards, they'll have some time to do that. We don't want to be unreasonable when we're asking this of people, particularly in an industry that's facing some disruption at the moment. The 12-month period will make it much easier for people to adapt to this in their career.

There's also something to be said for the strength of the endorsement that this bill has got from parts of our community. While the Department of Home Affairs has explained why this bill is necessary, I always think it's nice to be able to look to somebody beyond the department to see whether or not it is getting the same kind of encouragement from elsewhere. This bill has received support from Dr John Coyne. He is the head of the Strategic Policing and Law Enforcement Program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, an organisation that I really respect. In the course of his submission, Dr Coyne highlighted that the provision of explicit powers for security inspectors to conduct covert security systems would provide a much-needed additional mechanism to maintain the security of Australia's aviation sector. He noted that, as screening technology improves and terrorists innovate, the minimum level of training for screening officers must also increase if they are to continue to mitigate risks.

So that's what we're doing. We're arming the people who, every day in their work, protect us by detecting threats and managing risk and who are willing to put themselves on the line as they go about making sure that they keep Australians who are travelling safe. As we give them the tools that they need to do their jobs well, it's important that we as a society make sure that we continue to look out for their interests by making sure they are at the top of their game and that we look out for Australians by equipping them to protect them as best as possible. We need to make sure it all works together to achieve something that really is quite big, and that is a safer Australian transport sector, with flow-on benefits for trade, for travel, for business relationships and for Australia's attractiveness as a safe and fun place to visit and to do business.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (18:44): by leave—I heard from workers from the Transport Workers Union recently, and it was a privilege to hear from these extraordinary people about how they are speaking up, even as the government is refusing to back them. It's not just that the government has refused to back Virgin. They also haven't supported the Dnata workers—workers who were a big part of the transport supply chain. If you caught a flight in Australia, odds are good that a Dnata worker has made that flight possible, by doing the cleaning that is so critical to keeping people safe, and providing the catering. They don't get the recognition or appreciation they deserve, but they make a crucial difference. The government has failed them.

There is a significant amount of work to be done in the aviation sector—way beyond what we are considering tonight—that this government is failing to do. This government is letting down Australian workers and Australians around the country. Aviation has been affected massively by this pandemic. The security screening we are talking about tonight—for those workers who are working there, it's going to be a long time before the same number of workers are back on the job as pre-pandemic.

I'm here in my office in Melbourne—not in Canberra, obviously—because of the pandemic. I haven't flown for over six months. And it is the same for so many other frequent flyers—business people, people not flying around the country for tourism or visiting loved ones. Even if we get a vaccine, aviation is not going to just snap back. The fact that we are here tonight with this technology—as good as I hope it is continuing to be—means that we are not all going to go back to flying at the drop of a hat. We will consider whether flying interstate for a meeting is actually the best way to meet. Would a remote meeting or a video link actually suffice? Critically, should we be flying when there are other options for meeting that don't have the carbon pollution that a flight has? In an environment when there is no carbon budget left, reducing flying makes an awful lot of sense.

So we desperately need a plan for aviation for Australia—way beyond considering security arrangements as we are considering tonight—that takes account of the impacts of this pandemic and the imperative to reduce our carbon pollution to zero. There is a future for aviation that navigates a path through these huge issues, but it needs to be explicitly identified and planned for. That's what a government should be doing, developing such a plan in collaboration with workers, with businesses, with NGOs and with communities, to ensure that workers are looked after, to ensure a future for aviation businesses, for airports and for the workers in security screening. We need a plan that takes account of the essential transport that aviation provides in this far-flung country of ours.

We Greens will keep banging the drum about this, because it's such a critical need. Having a plan for aviation would mean that we could see whether the actions we are taking now in response to the pandemic are the appropriate ones, whether they do line up as being part of a sensible, strategic, just and sustainable plan for the future of aviation.

In this context, let me now address some issues concerning the bill that we are debating tonight. The Greens support the steps the government is taking here to improve airport security. I would reiterate, however, a number of concerns that we raised in additional comments in the committee report. The explanatory memorandum specifies that security testing changes will enable the government to meet recommendations accepted from the Inspector of Transport Security and the International Civil Aviation Organization to expand the scope of system tests for a wider range or security measures but without providing any information on where these recommendations are from. When the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee examined this bill, this report had not been published.

An additional aspect in this bill is the fact that it will allow the secretary of the department to determine the training and qualification requirements for screening officers. In addition, the secretary can actually exempt a class of screening officers from one or more of the requirements determined if exceptional circumstances exist. We are glad to see the government is moving an amendment—acting on the scrutiny of bills considerations and recommendations—that information be published on the number of exemptions, but we believe there needs to be much more transparency and much more information about what is actually occurring for these exemptions to occur.

We will be supporting the government's amendment, but I also foreshadow that we will be moving our own amendment to provide more transparency and information on this point. Overall, however, as I have said, the Greens will be supporting this bill, but the coalition government needs to be doing more—much more—to support safe aviation and support the workers in the aviation sector. But we support this small step.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:50): I too rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. To set the scene, I think it's very important to reflect on where we have come over the last few years in terms of the national security of our nation and the priority that this government has placed upon the security of all Australians and the security of our borders. The first priority of any government—and, certainly, the absolute first priority of this government—is to keep our community safe from those who seek to do us harm. Since 2014, and before that, the government has strengthened our national defences, particularly against terrorism, with the investment of an additional $2.3 billion to that end. Australia faces national security challenges that continue to evolve, and we only need to look at, particularly, the growth of cyberattacks, both on governments and on businesses right around the world, to know that the national security environment is one that is constantly changing. It's a constant arms race to make sure that Australians have the right tools, the right training and the right preparation to make sure that, with all the various ways that our national security is challenged—and it is challenged—we can continue to maintain that safety for Australia: for Australian individuals and Australian businesses.

We need to keep our legislation under constant review. We need to keep the capabilities of our people on the ground under constant review. We need to make sure that they are always equipped to deal with the myriad challenges that come their way. The Australian government has passed 19 tranches of legislation since 2014, when the National Terrorism Threat Level was raised, covering matters including the detention of high-threat terrorists and strengthening control orders. Our current National Terrorism Threat Level is at 'probable'. Since 2001, 86 people, including seven who were juveniles when charged, have been convicted of terrorism related offences. Fifty of these are currently serving custodial sentences, and 20 more people are currently before the courts for terrorism offences, one of whom was a juvenile when charged. Since September 2014, when the National Terrorism Threat Level was raised, 102 people have been charged as a result of 51 counterterrorism related responses around Australia. As we all know, there have been a number of attacks and a number of counterterrorism disruption operations that disrupted imminent attack planning in Australia.

This commitment to national security also flows through to our commitment to maintaining the security of our airports and aviation. Again, top priority must be to keep Australians safe. The disrupted terrorist attack in Sydney in 2017 demonstrated a level of sophistication not seen before in Australia and reinforced that aviation remains a high-profile target for terrorists. Although we already have strong and comprehensive aviation security, it is essential that we remain ahead of this evolving threat. A range of measures are being implemented to further strengthen security at airports and at mail and air cargo facilities. These measures include new screening technology at major and regional Australian airports, increasing the AFP counterterrorism first-response presence at airports, upgrading inbound cargo and international mail screening technology, strengthening outbound air cargo screening, and improving the training and accreditation of screening staff at airports. To complement these improvements, parliament has passed new laws to give police broader powers to conduct identity checks at major airports and to direct a person to move on from the airport where they pose a criminal, safety or security threat.

All these initiatives together, from the broad national security initiatives to these particular measures targeting transport security, obviously may seem slightly less relevant to people in these times when air travel is highly restricted. But we must always remember that, this COVID pandemic period willing, we will return to flying on a regular basis. We continue to rely very heavily on air transport links, both to get our exports out and to receive vital imports. So we must remember that all the measures that have been taken and measures such as these that continue to be taken are vitally important to the continuing wellbeing of Australians and the Australian economy.

Moving on specifically to this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. It will establish explicit powers for aviation security inspectors to conduct security system testing and will create a legislative basis for requiring screening officers to have completed relevant training prior to performing screening functions at security controlled airports and maritime ports. In particular, the bill will create powers for aviation security inspectors to conduct covert testing of aviation industry participants' aviation security systems to assess compliance with the aviation act in regulated locations such as airports, aircraft and cargo examination facilities. Obviously, in these sorts of situations, testing such as this is vitally important to make sure that the systems are pressure tested to make sure that when there is a real breach or an attempted breach of our security systems the systems have been pressure tested to the utmost extent possible.

The legislation will also clarify that aviation security inspectors are exempt from civil or criminal liability in certain circumstances where they are covertly testing aviation industry participants' security system, including where they are using items that resemble or mimic weapons, such as inert handguns or simulated IEDs, to test these systems. It also allows for a legislative instrument to be made determining training qualifications and other requirements for screening officers relating to the exercise of power of the performance of screening functions and to determine requirements relating to the use of identity cards and uniforms and makes further technical amendments to the aviation act and the maritime act. These measures respond directly to recommendations of the Inspector-General of Transport Security and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

As Senator Stoker very clearly outlined in her capacity as chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, this bill has been reviewed. It was also looked at by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Following that consideration, the government has agreed to adopt some of the committee's recommendations. The amendments are relatively minor. They don't necessarily change the substance of the bill, but they do make some minor improvements to the operations of the bill. They include changing the term 'weapon' to 'test weapon' and inserting a definition of 'test weapon' that makes it clear that a functional weapon can't be used for testing, only an inert or replica one. A note is inserted that makes it clear that aviation security inspectors must not endanger the health or safety of the public in the performance of their duties or the inspector will lose the immunity from civil or criminal liability. This is to clarify that an aviation security inspector could not rely on immunity from prosecution if they used a live weapon to conduct tests. The amendments will also include a requirement that the number of exemptions to training requirements for screening officers granted by the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs be published on the department's website. Again, as Senator Stoker very clearly outlined, there is also the necessary recognition of prior learning for the many very well trained and highly competent security screening officers we have in place at the moment. So this is not imposing unnecessary new training on those officers. It is making sure we keep all of our people up to date and as efficient in doing these tasks as we possibly can.

Once again this government has a very clear priority in addressing the security of all Australians. Our first priority is to keep the nation safe. This bill is a small but very important step in doing just that.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (19:00): Security of its citizens is the core function of any government. All of us in this place take this extremely seriously. Threats are ever-changing, and we as a society must continue to innovate and remain vigilant. Stopping terrorism remains a key national security concern—one this government is unashamedly committed to.

Those who seek to prevent terrorism must always be given appropriate tools, training and powers to ensure that they are able to keep us safe. This Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 is measured, appropriate, well-considered and forward thinking. It represents good government listening and acting. Whilst COVID-19 means that air traffic is at its most limited in living memory, we as a responsible and intelligent government have already planned for life after coronavirus. Ensuring our national security when planes begin to fly again is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. Vigilance is the price of our freedom.

Aviation security inspectors in the Department of Home Affairs play an utterly critical role in ensuring Australia's aviation security is first class. Australia is extremely lucky we have avoided the kinds of tragedies we have seen in other parts of the world to this point. We must always remain alert to these threats and seek to stay well ahead of them. Criminals are sophisticated and adjust to new technology and methods as quickly as they are created. This bill is designed to equip screeners with the skills and technology needed to stay ahead of the curve. The increasing complexity around criminal activity means that constantly updating, upskilling and retraining screeners is an unfortunate but necessary reality.

Like any good government policy, this has been done in response to a well-informed, thorough and independent inquiry. This bill will allow for an appropriate screener training and accreditation scheme. This is important because quality assurance in this area is critical. This bill creates a clear standard of competency for the screening workforce. This is just good common sense. We know all too well what happens when those entrusted with important security matters lack sufficient training. It can lead to disasters like the one we have seen in Victoria. Quality assurance is critical.

The screener training and accreditation scheme strengthens all training requirements for screeners at airports, seaports and air cargo facilities. It creates a well researched framework for new screening qualifications. This means new entrants will be amongst the best trained in the world. Screeners will also be required to meet the national standards of skill and competence and will be required to pass annual accreditation—in other words, lifelong training to adapt to issues as they evolve.

This bill will also ensure that best practice is followed when it comes to carrying out regulatory compliance activities. This is critical. All of our Public Service should be of the highest quality. This bill creates a framework for the introduction of a national screener training and accreditation program and also allows the departmental secretary to prescribe requirements for skills and training as they evolve. This is an important step, as expert recommendations and flexibility will be the tools needed going forward to ensure that we are ready, agile and capable of adapting to threats as they arise.

One important part of this bill is the ability of aviation security inspectors to conduct tests at locations beyond screening points without the risk of breaching any other laws. This is an important step in ensuring that the whole of our airports is able to be secure and safe. It is no good to engage in half measures around these sorts of matters; those who seek to harm our citizens will not. By exempting aviation security inspectors from prosecution when they are engaging in covert testing of security systems we are making sure our airports are ready for and resilient to any threats that may arise. This bill allows an aviation security inspector to conduct covert tests of aviation security systems at all regulated locations under the aviation act. Again, this is just commonsense thinking. Prospective terrorist attacks will not occur under supervised or controlled conditions.

It is important to pressure test all systems. Just as football players train to simulate game day, so should our security systems be prepared for any eventuality. Inspectors will use test pieces that simulate weapons and other contraband during tests. This goes to the true purpose of this bill, which is to ensure our security systems are as rigorous and ready for a real threat as possible. These tests will be coordinated and supervised by the Department of Home Affairs and local law enforcement. To allow realistic tests to occur, the bill amends the aviation act to ensure that aviation security inspectors can perform the full complement of their duties. To do this, they are provided with an express authority to undertake system security tests at security controlled airports and at aviation industry premises located outside the boundary of such airports. This is a sensible, pragmatic step that acknowledges that terrorists could seek to target any weakness in our security apparatus.

Another important power granted to our security inspectors by this bill is the ability for aviation security inspectors to conduct system tests on aircraft, providing, of course, they give reasonable notice to operators. This balances the twin goals of minimising commercial disruption and ensuring that tests are realistic. Most importantly, there will be immunity from prosecution, both civil and criminal, under laws of all tiers government for security inspectors if they are conducting a test that is sensible and critical in good faith. It is ridiculous to think that this has not been the case previously. Obviously, there would be exceptions in the case of inspectors who go too far and risk injury or serious property damage. It is most important to ensure that situations like bomb-training exercises do not open our hardworking officers up to litigation. These system tests mimic possible terrorist attack pathways and probe for potential weaknesses or deficiencies. Inspector test-screening authorities are able to meet their regulatory obligations and detect the presence of a fake weapon and deny entry to the person carrying it.

Overall, this bill is an important step towards ensuring that our air travel industry remains one of the safest and best in the world. As a country which is vast and wide and distant from much of the globe, it is critically important that we have an airline industry that maintains best practice in all areas. I commend the bill to the Senate. When Australians do eventually get back in the air, it will be important to ensure that they do so in the knowledge that they are safe.

Senator VAN (Victoria) (19:09): I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019, which relates to the testing and training of Australia's aviation screening inspectors. This bill looks at two cohorts. Firstly, there are the screeners themselves—those screeners who you walk past every time you fly, with the beep beep of the archway and the putting of your bags through the X-rays. Those in this chamber know a lot about flying. The other cohort are the security inspectors who work for the Department of Home Affairs. They look at the training, and the compliance of that training, of those screeners. The purpose of this bill is to create a vital component of ensuring our aviation screeners are appropriately qualified for the work that they do in protecting all Australians from threats to air travel. It amends key parts of the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act to ensure a proper regime of training and inspection will exist.

Firstly, it creates a national training and accreditation scheme for the private industry contractors that the airports employ to provide screening services in Australia's airports. Without this sort of training and accreditation, we run the risk of having poorly qualified people overseeing vital security tasks at our airports. As a senator for Victoria, I've seen all too closely the damage that's done by security guards who are neither trained properly nor have their work overseen. The quarantine regime in Victoria has let the coronavirus pandemic spread throughout Victoria and into the rest of Australia. So having the right skills and qualifications for the work is, obviously, an important part of any security system.

Secondly, the bill ensures that the government's transport security inspectors can carry out the important compliance tasks that they have responsibility for. As you can imagine, there are all sorts of ways of testing these systems, and they need to have the sorts of tools and replica and imitation weapons that can be tested for. Without these amendments, they run the risk of prosecution from inadvertently offending state and other laws involving firearms, bombs and so on. The screener training and accreditation scheme strengthens the training requirements for screeners at airports, seaports and air cargo facilities. It creates a framework for a new screening qualification to be mandated for all screeners entering the industry. Existing screeners' qualifications will continue to be recognised. Screeners will be required to meet a national standard of competency. They will be required to pass annual accreditation testing before making independent screening decisions or clearing cargo for uplift.

As with all parts of technology, everything changes, and changes rapidly, in this space. X-ray machines that are being used in airports these days change rapidly, and how they view items is of the utmost importance, as you can well imagine. The way people are trained to use these machines is, equally, as vitally important as the machines themselves. How someone views, let's say, a pistol in a piece of hand luggage—whether it is lying on its side or front-on or at any of the different angles that it could be seen from—is important in case one makes a mistake and sees just a straight bit of metal or something that doesn't look obviously like a pistol. So it's absolutely vital that this sort of accreditation stays up to date with new technologies.

Our aviation security inspectors, who are part of the Department of Home Affairs, as I said, play a pivotal role in ensuring Australia's aviation security systems remain resilient against terrorist attacks. This bill introduces measures to clarify the ability of inspectors to carry out this important work. In particular, inspectors will be able to conduct system tests with test pieces at locations beyond screening points in an airport terminal without the risk of committing an offence under other laws, such as those relating to bomb hoaxes.

What is a system test? A system test is a compliance activity conducted by aviation security inspectors to assess whether a person is complying with the security obligations established in the Aviation Security Act. It tests the screeners' ability to find goods or contraband, as they are meant to do. A system test mimics possible terrorist attack pathways and probes for potential weak points in aviation security arrangements which an adversary may wish to exploit. For example, inspectors may place a test piece, such as a test weapon—and that might be an imitation firearm or a non-functional simulated improvised explosive device—in carry-on luggage and subject the bag to security screening at a passenger screening point at an airport terminal. From this, inspectors are able to assess whether a screening authority and its operators are able to meet their regulatory obligations to detect the presence of the test weapon and deny it entry to the sterile area of an airport. To ensure that these tests are as realistic as possible at the screening points, test pieces represent items that may be used to conduct unlawful acts, such as weapons, bombs, bomb parts and the like. This is done by design to avoid causing harm or injury to aviation security inspectors, airport staff and the general public. Test weapons are not functional. For example, simulated improvised explosive devices cannot be detonated and pose no risk to people.

This bill and the amendments this bill will bring about are important for keeping our security at airports up to date. I commend the bill to the House.

Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (19:17): This is a very good bill, and one of my favourite committees, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, has produced a very good report. The Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 is a key bill in the way that we guarantee what is fundamentally the most important thing that we do. National security, of course, remains the first priority of the Morrison government. You've heard many of the previous speakers, many of whom are my colleagues, explain the nature of this bill to you in some detail. They have given you an indication of what the bill is about. They have stated what the bill does. They have said what changes were made in response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee inquiry. They went through the changes in the bill and what they mean for the conduct of systems tests, and they spoke about systems tests in great detail. They mentioned the screeners training and accreditation scheme. They went in and explained from beginning to end what a systems test is, and they also explained what test pieces are currently used for system tests. So we've well and truly gone through the bill, and we've well and truly gone through a number of explanations of every single part of the bill.

Let me talk in a very general way about the bill and what lies behind training. This is not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination. It will probably astonish most Australians to think that we aren't already doing what we are proposing in this bill. It's a simple bill, and it's a simple procedure. It's something which is absolutely essential to an activity that many of us do all the time, which is entrust our lives to fly in a terrorist environment. It's functional. It lays down the conditions that must be met before these kinds of tests are conducted. I have to say, given my background, that the military do it every single day. It can be dangerous in a military environment. It can be dangerous in war, when you still must train and you use a weapon which must be both a training weapon and a functional weapon. This, of course, is not what we are proposing in this bill. We are proposing something quite different.

Still, things can go wrong. Many years ago, as a very new helicopter pilot, I was involved in a search-and-rescue exercise off an Army training area near Tin Can Bay in Queensland. In order to 'test the system', as it was explained to us, one of our pilots was put in a raft and put in the sea and we were to find him. Things can go wrong and you've got to take risks if you're going to train well. This was not good training, because it started to get dark, we couldn't find the pilot and he spent the whole night out there in a raft in shark infested waters.

This kind of bill, if it is followed seriously and if the moderation and the supervision of the screeners is allowed to happen, will not result in such exercises. Going back some decades now, one of our intelligence agencies was involved in a raid on a hotel which went wrong. They were testing the system, of course. That went badly wrong—to everyone's embarrassment—and changed the nature of that security organisation. Again, this bill should prevent that kind of thing from happening.

In Iraq as the chief of operations for the war in Iraq, I was responsible for the security of Baghdad International Airport. The movements in and out of Baghdad International Airport were extraordinary. Hundreds and hundreds of flights per day were bringing in and taking out weapons, equipment and personnel. We discovered by sheer accident that an Iraqi baggage handler, who was in fact working for the insurgency, had decided to put an explosive device onto a pallet that was about to be loaded into a wide-bodied aircraft. What we're proposing in this bill is a little bit different from the situation in Baghdad International Airport, for the simple reason that half the people who were screeners and baggage handlers were actually working for the insurgency. That explosive device would have blown the aeroplane to bits, and that's exactly what this bill is trying to prevent. Fortunately for us, the explosive device that was placed on a pallet to be put into the aircraft actually fell off the pallet through sheer accident and didn't explode in the aircraft. The lesson, of course, is that you can be lucky. But your luck is increased if in fact you have system tests, you have screeners who do realistic training, and you can supervise and conduct tests that are realistic.

Back in 2017, there was a certain amount of luck involved in the prevention of a bomb being placed on board a wide-bodied aircraft out of Sydney. The aim of this bill is to minimise the role that luck plays. The harder you work and the smarter you operate and the more realistically you train and prepare, the less the role luck will play in any situation which is critical to all of us, such as boarding an aircraft and flying and hoping to be alive at the other end.

I would like to move slightly off this now and address an issue that Senator Rice raised when she spoke. Good on her for giving support to the bill, but she equated this bill with a need to achieve zero emissions in the airline industry. Well, that's fantastic. But I just wonder, regardless of how clever we are, what will actually achieve efficiencies in relation to the airline industry and in relation to climate change. It's not going to be wishful thinking or a statement of an objective that does this, for example, zero emissions by 2030. It's not going to be by holding the view that we should destroy the economy by going to zero emissions by 2030—because if the economy is not functioning, the airline industry will certainly not be functioning. If we remove the need for aviation because we've removed the economy we have certainly not achieved an awful lot at all. We will create development in aviation in exactly the same way as this government addresses climate change—through technology. If it can be done it will be done through technology and not by wishful thinking, and this is the approach that I would recommend to Senator Rice. She should look at the coalition's technology roadmap and apply it if she thinks that this is relevant in relation to this bill.

Senator Brockman, of course, brought up the subject of national security. He was quite right to point this out. National security in relation to the aviation transport system is where the rubber hits the road. National security is not something which is conducted only by the military, the police or Home Affairs; national security is something which everyone, every element of the nation, is responsible for. National security applies to all of us. I often say that security of the nation takes a whole nation. In relation to this bill, where the rubber hits the road is where you can achieve security yet still allow the nation to function, still allow us to achieve prosperity through the market and still allow us to progress in a number of different ways. The reason that it takes a nation to secure a nation is that if we think that just one part of this nation, such as the military, will give us a security then we are going to forget that a critical part of national security is self-reliance.

Self-reliance, of course, is the basis of our very sovereignty. Sovereignty is critical to us. We really are only just learning, and being reminded by COVID, how incredibly important our sovereignty is. Sovereignty is not something which exists in one point in space; sovereignty is something which you can have more or less of in accordance with the forces that act on you as a nation. The self-reliance that we need doesn't apply just to manufacturers or weaponry or spare parts; it applies to the processes and the culture in your nation. As I said before, most Australians would be astonished to discover that we weren't already doing the activities that are permitted in this bill. So, when you get down to the bottom level, the most detailed level, national security depends on aviation screeners being very well trained and very capable.

I speak about self-reliance, and self-reliance is critical in manufacturing in relation to defence, cyber and a thousand different areas. Self-reliance in this nation is being able to do what we need. It's not what we would like to do; we don't need to do everything. If we did everything we'd be like North Korea—not trading with anyone, developing everything internally. And some people call that self-sufficiency. Where we are at the moment, and not just in relation to screeners at airports and manufacturing, is that market forces deliver prosperity. But isn't it strange that the market forces within the aviation industry have not delivered the kind of security that we are talking about in this bill? Only authorities or governments can deliver security, and that's what this bill is all about.

As I said before, this is a good bill. It's not revolutionary but it is a good bill. This can be achieved without great disruption to what's going on and by accommodating individuals. This bill is essential. It can be done safely, and it must be done, given the importance of the aviation industry to us, in an environment replete with terrorism. We should do it now, because we have a hiatus in the aviation industry where we can make change, and when we come out of that change we should come out of the change roaring. We owe this to the travelling public and we owe this to the screeners, of course, who use this on a daily basis. This is a very, very serious business and we must make it a safety business. I commend the bill. I see the need for it. I think there are very, very good reasons for proceeding with it.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:30): I rise to sum up the debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate. Australia's transport sector is one of the safest and most secure in the world. However, the sector remains an enduring target for terrorists. We need to ensure that security arrangements remain robust and responsive in the face of an evolving threat environment.

The Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports. Security screeners perform a vital role in securing our airports and seaports. They prevent weapons, such as firearms or explosives, from making it onto an aircraft or cruise ship, ensuring that we can all travel safely and securely.

The bill will establish the necessary framework to ensure that the education, training and testing requirements for screeners remain effective and flexible in an increasingly complex security environment now and into the future. The bill also provides appropriate legislative protection so that it is clear that aviation security inspectors may continue to undertake compliance activities across a range of relevant locations in order to protect against unlawful interference.

The bill has been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended that the bill be passed. In response to the advice of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee I will be, in the committee stage, moving several relatively minor but important amendments to the bill, which I will address at that time. Again, I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:34): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments moved to this bill. By leave—I move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet SG103:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Section 9

Insert:

test weapon means a weapon of a kind that is a replica or an imitation of another weapon.

[test weapons]

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 9), omit "weapon", substitute "test weapon".

[test weapons]

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 19), at the end of paragraph 79(2) (h), add:

Note: An aviation security inspector must ensure that the exercise of the power under paragraph (h) does not seriously endanger the health or safety of any person, or the inspector will not be immune from civil or criminal liability (see subsection (9)).

[restrictions on exercise of power and immunity]

(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 9), omit "weapon", substitute "test weapon".

[test weapons]

(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of paragraph 80(2) (f), add:

Note: An aviation security inspector must ensure that the exercise of the power under paragraph (f) does not seriously endanger the health or safety of any person, or the inspector will not be immune from civil or criminal liability (see subsection (7)).

[restrictions on exercise of power and immunity]

(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 9 (after line 20), after section 94C, insert:

94D Report on number of exemptions

The annual report prepared by the Secretary and given to the Minister under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a period must include the number of exemptions given by the Secretary under subsection 94B(1) in that period.

[reporting on exemptions]

(7) Schedule 2, item 18, page 12 (after line 13), after section 165C, insert:

165D Report on number of exemptions

The annual report prepared by the Secretary and given to the Minister under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a period must include the number of exemptions given by the Secretary under subsection 165B(1) in that period.

[reporting on exemptions]

These amendments will make it clear that test pieces used by aviation security inspectors must be inert and that in the performance of their duties aviation security inspectors must not endanger the health or safety of the public. The amendments that have been moved by the government will also insert a requirement that the number of exemptions granted by the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs in relation to screener training and accreditation be published in that department's annual report.

As I said, this bill was scrutinised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee made some recommendations. In relation to that advice these are the relatively minor but important amendments that the government is moving to the bill.

Question agreed to.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:34): Tonight, Labor would like to note the Greens amendments to improve transparent reporting that will be before the chamber. Labor very much agrees and has asserted in this debate that transparency is critically important. In our conversations with the government, we have been assured by the government that officials will accurately and transparently answer questions in relation to exemptions granted by the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs during Senate estimates, and these are matters that I touched on in my second reading speech. So can I ask the minister, please, if she can outline why estimates, in this case, is the appropriate forum to raise these matters?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:36): Senator Pratt, in response to the questions that you have raised—which, I understand, are in relation to the amendments that will be moved by the Australian Greens tonight—the government amendments to the bill, I am instructed, include a requirement for the number of exemptions given to classes of screening officers issued by the secretary to be reported in the department's annual report. Reporting the number of exemptions given by the secretary is appropriate for the annual report. The additional information that would be required would require a level of detail to be included in the annual report that is not appropriate. The additional information being requested may be sensitive in nature and indicate a situation that may be subject to exploitation by persons intent on causing harm to the aviation or maritime industry. Should senators require the additional information proposed in the amendments, I am instructed that you are correct; senators will have the opportunity to ask the department during estimates hearings throughout the year, but we will obviously be opposing what the Greens will put forward.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:37): Thank you for your response that outlines that this information will be reported in part in the annual report. In the context of senators being able to ask questions about that report in Senate estimates, can I ask the minister to elaborate on the nature of the information that will be made available? For example, will officials report the length of time that exemptions are applied to screening officers?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:38): I'm instructed that we will be reporting the number of exemptions that are granted by the secretary each year in the department's annual report. In relation to the questions that senators may have at estimates, those senators may ask those questions at estimates, and an answer may or may not be given depending on what that question is. I can't pre-empt what those questions are going to be.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:38): In that context, given the secretary does have the ability to exempt screening officials from training, I'm sure the minister would agree it is appropriate—and it shouldn't go to the detail of the kind of national security matters that you're highlighting—that the public understands how long an exemption is applied and to whom it's been applied to and perhaps who exercised that exemption. For example, you could characterise whether each exemption has to apply to an individual, or it might be a whole class of people that carry that exemption over a particular period of time. So can you outline for the Senate the kind of information that we should reasonably be able to ask? For example, we would want to know that it's not the same exemption being applied over and over again.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:39): Again, as I've stated, what will be reported in the department's annual report is the number of exemptions given to classes of screening officers. Again, I can't pre-empt what information a senator may elicit from the secretary at an estimates hearing, but a senator can certainly put a question to the secretary. If the secretary is able to answer that question, I'm sure that he would. And, if not, he would state the grounds upon which he is unable to provide that information at that point in time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:40): Thank you, Minister. Now, we have had in the opposition assurances that officials will accurately and transparently answer questions in relation to exemptions. And now the minister seems to be indicating that it is really up to the secretary the extent to which they may choose to answer those questions. But in negotiations the government has asserted that the secretary will be ready and willing to answer those questions. So I'm very keen to hear from the government that you will be in a position to answer questions such as how long the exemptions were in place and not just the class of people but the number of officers to whom that exemption applied as well as whether it's being applied in the same circumstances over and over again.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:41): Again, that is not what I said. I can't pre-empt the questions that a senator may ask. To the extent that the secretary is able to answer a question—other than, say, relying on a ground of national security or a ground that's set out—the questions you have just put forward would be reasonable.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:41): Thank you for acknowledging that they would be reasonable questions, because that does indicate that for the kinds of questions we have in mind we will be able to access the answers. Could the minister outline the preparation that officials will complete before each estimates to ensure that the secretary and other witnesses are able to answer such questions. For example, the annual report highlights the number of exemptions and the classes of people. But clearly we're seeking now an undertaking from the government that the kind of information that I've asked about will be available.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:42): The normal preparation, I assume, would apply. I can't speak on behalf of the secretary. But certainly you have been around for a very long time and you would be aware that there is a provision whereby senators who have questions can provide those questions to the relevant department in advance in anticipation of ensuring that information is readily at hand on the day of the actual estimates hearing.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:43): So, in that sense, you've given us assurance that we will have the opportunity to ask the department to prepare information on questions along those lines before estimates. In that context, what information, if any, will not be provided during estimates?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:43): Again, we're dealing in hypotheticals here, because I really don't know the nature of questions that may be asked at estimates. But certainly in relation to any estimates hearings there are grounds an official can rely on in the event that they believe they are unable to give an answer. That can then be challenged by senators, and there is then a procedure that, as you would be aware, the senators are able to go down. But certainly in this respect one would believe that it would be national security.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:44): Thank you, Minister. In that context, you are therefore assuring us that we should be able to get an answer to questions like whether an exemption is repeatedly applied if the same circumstances are envisaged for each exemption. Clearly that wouldn't go necessarily to the security information behind that. We should be at liberty to know at least that the government is not relying on an exemption in order to continue to have untrained personnel doing screening. You would be able to be clear in an answer that each exemption is used on a unique and novel basis, so that we can be clear that the exemptions aren't being renewed again and again.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:45): I've just been asked to clarify that it is the secretary, not the government, that will be issuing the exemptions. I would also say, again, Senator Pratt, that today is not estimates. I cannot anticipate the types of questions that may be put by different senators at the estimates hearing, but the normal rules of estimates would apply.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (19:46): On a similar line of questioning, Minister Cash, I heard in your statement that it wouldn't be appropriate for this information to be in the annual report but that it would be appropriate to ask the questions at estimates. I'm just trying to understand what the difference is. In effect, the legislation just becomes a question on notice for which the answer must be put in an annual report. I'm struggling to find the difference between the two.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (19:46): Senator Patrick, I'll give you an example that would clarify the situation for you. As I've already stated to Senator Pratt, the additional level of information that we're referring to would require a level of data to be included in the annual report that is not appropriate. The additional information being requested may be sensitive in nature and indicate a situation that may be subject to exploitation by persons intent on causing harm to the aviation or maritime industry. For example, an exemption may be given to a class of screening officers from a particular airport. Publication of this information may expose the airport or aircraft departing from that airport to undue risk. In order to reduce the risk of information of this type being exploited, we would obviously be unable to support the amendment that was being put forward by the Australian Greens, as has been referred to by Senator Pratt.