Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (10:16): I'm pleased to continue my contribution to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020. I mentioned in my earlier contribution that with the childcare relief package around 99 per cent of childcare providers kept their doors open throughout this pandemic. Around one million families received free child care during the coronavirus pandemic under the Australian government's plan to support families and help the early childhood education and care sector.

Like with so many of us here in this place, early in the outbreak of COVID-19, childcare concerns of both parents and providers were one of the most regular concerns raised with my office, and the prompt response by Minister Tehan and our government was warmly welcomed. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Tasmanian childcare providers for sharing their stories and concerns with me during this time and for their dedicated service to our children through those times of uncertainty.

Since 13 July, our transition package, which included a payment of 25 per cent of a provider's pre-COVID revenue, has supported childcare centres around Australia. Centres in Victoria have benefited from additional support in response to the situation there as well. This bill clearly shows that, following the return to the demand-driven childcare subsidy system on 13 July 2020, we are committed to improving access to child care for vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families and to cutting red tape for families and childcare providers. This red tape impacts providers, families and governments to improve access to services for vulnerable children, so we must improve it.

Once amended, the bill will allow the period of time the provider can apply for an additional childcare subsidy determination to be extended from 13 weeks to up to 12 months for children under a long-term child protection order such as those in foster care. This is a welcome change that recognises the support that vulnerable children need over longer times.

Other amendments will enable providers to apply to backdate a family's additional childcare subsidy beyond the current limit of 28 days. This can be up to 13 weeks in exceptional circumstances. This will mean that providers can receive the additional subsidy for a foster child who is at risk of serious abuse or neglect while the foster family confirms its childcare subsidy eligibility. This will ensure these children have immediate and streamlined access to child care.

Childcare providers will also be able to enrol children who are in foster care under the additional childcare subsidy for an initial period of up to 13 weeks. This gives an individual foster family enough time to lodge their childcare subsidy claim and have it assessed by Services Australia. Existing provisions where providers are required to notify Services Australia when a child is no longer considered to be at risk will continue to apply.

When introducing this bill to the House of Representatives, Minister Tehan reaffirmed the government's commitment to improving access to child care for vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families. As I outlined earlier, the changes in this bill will streamline access to the additional childcare subsidy by cutting red tape for families and childcare providers. The changes will also further support vulnerable and disadvantaged families to access quality and affordable early learning and child care by enhancing a childcare provider's ability to provide early access to the additional subsidy to vulnerable and disadvantaged families where appropriate. Notably, the amendments continue to maintain appropriate safeguards to support the integrity of the payment.

This government is providing record funding for child care. We invested $8.6 billion in the 2019-20 financial year, with this budgeted to rise to $9.9 billion in 2022-23. We know how important these early years are and we are committed to the provision of quality affordable child care. The once-in-a-generation reforms we have introduced have delivered a 3.2 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs to parents. The new childcare package represents the most significant reforms to the early education and care system in 40 years. This package provides more access and more financial support for those who need it most. This is around one million Australian families. We are making it easier for these families to balance work and parental responsibilities.

Drilling down into the figures, and as highlighted by earlier contributions to this debate, this package means around 72 per cent of families pay no more than $5 per hour in day care centres, with 24 per cent paying no more than $2 per hour. The childcare relief package introduced during the coronavirus pandemic kept 99 per cent of childcare centres open. This initial relief package did its job, and now we are operating within the $708 million transition package. This transition package, as I said earlier, was introduced in July to support the sector and families as they move back to the childcare subsidy. This package has several parts to ensure the recovery of the childcare sector, while also ensuring continuity for the families that need this service. The government will pay approximately $2 billion in childcare subsidy this quarter to eligible families. The subsidy is means-tested to ensure that those who earn the least receive the highest level of subsidy.

In addition to the childcare subsidy, the government will pay childcare services a transition payment of 25 per cent of their fee revenue received during the relevant relief package reference fortnight, and the last two payments scheduled for September will be brought forward to help with the transition and cash flow. This additional transition payment of $708 million replaces JobKeeper for employees of a childcare subsidy approved service and for sole traders operating a childcare service, and it applies important conditions on childcare providers. For the period of the transition, childcare fees will be capped at the level of the reference period and services will need to guarantee employment levels to protect staff who have moved off the JobKeeper payment.

The government will also ease the activity tests until 4 October, to support eligible families whose employment has been impacted as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. These families will receive up to 100 hours of subsidised care per fortnight during this period. This will assist families to return to the level of work, study or training they were undertaking before COVID-19. In addition, the gap in fees will be waived when childcare services are forced to close on public health advice as a result of COVID-19. This has been extended to 31 December.

The Victorian childcare sector will receive an additional $33 million in support. Melbourne's services will receive a higher transition payment of 30 per cent. They may also be eligible for a top-up where the childcare subsidy received is low and they are experiencing greatly reduced attendance. Victorian families will receive an extra 30 days allowable absences up to a total of 72 days. All services subject to stage 3 or higher restrictions can waive gap fees if children are not attending and absences are claimed, allowing enrolments to be maintained and the childcare subsidy to be paid. Outside hours school care services in Victoria will receive an additional viability support payment of 15 per cent of their revenue if attendances have fallen by 40 per cent. On average, the government expects that services in Melbourne will receive between 80 and 85 per cent of their pre-COVID revenue. The 25 per cent transition package will be applied to all providers to replace JobKeeper, which was not universally supportive across the entire sector. This package is designed to deliver a more equitable outcome across all early learning services providers.

The support I have outlined here for vulnerable and disadvantaged families is just a small part of what this government has done to ensure Australians can receive financial help during this pandemic. This support also includes: the JobKeeper payment to help businesses and their employees; changes to JobSeeker eligibility and payments; the coronavirus supplement; pandemic leave disaster payments; and additional funding for a number of essential services helping vulnerable Australians during this pandemic, such as those experiencing family and domestic violence, those who need extra support for their mental health and those who are living with disability. There is so much this government has done to support Australians during these incredibly difficult times, especially vulnerable Australians.

In conclusion, this bill demonstrates that the government remain committed to making life easier for childcare providers and vulnerable and disadvantaged families and that we are listening to providers so we can continue to make improvements based on that feedback around how the childcare package is operating. The changes proposed in this bill will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on families and childcare providers. They will support vulnerable and disadvantaged families to access quality early learning and child care and help parents to access financial assistance. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (10:25): I also rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020. I'll state from the outset, as my colleagues have done, that Labor is supporting this bill because it makes a number of changes which will improve assistance to vulnerable and disadvantaged families. Fundamentally, they need help now more than ever and if this bill goes some way towards providing that help then it's something that we of course would support.

But the conversation can't be left there, because we know this bill doesn't go nearly far enough in supporting the vulnerable families who depend on our early childhood system, the educators within it and the system itself. Even prior to this pandemic, the early childhood sector in Australia was in crisis. Fees were soaring without any real way of getting them under control. There were serious issues with the rollout of the government's response, which we warned them about and which still manifested because, ultimately, the government don't get early childhood. They don't get child care. They don't get the sector. They don't value it in the way that they should. When it comes to early childhood, our expenditure in this area and the things we do are ultimately a choice about what we as a community value. We see time and time again from the government that they see this sector, that they see child care, as babysitting. They don't see it as early learning. Fundamentally, we have to see it as early learning, because that will drive the appropriate policy responses on cost, quality and access, especially for vulnerable families.

We know parents are paying too much for child care at the moment and that is a huge issue. It is an issue which the government needs to get control of. But I know that's difficult because in early childhood you're always balancing this question of cost and this question of quality and this question of access. It's a tricky conundrum. It's an expensive conundrum, but it's a conundrum worth trying to solve. It's a conundrum that we need to put our money and our minds towards if we really want to make a difference not only to the lives of children but to productivity in Australia. Ultimately, investing in early education is one of the best things we can do to grow our economy not just now but well into the future. We know that for every dollar spent on early learning in Australia we could generate $2 worth of benefits to our broader economy. That's a huge return on investment. We also know that child care is critical to women's participation in the workforce. The Grattan Institute has shown us that it's one of the best ways that we can enhance this participation and that could bring us a multibillion dollar impact on gross domestic product.

Of course, these were the issues that surrounded this sector prior to the pandemic. The pandemic has come along and, in so many ways in our community and our country, it has just completely changed the way work operates and the way sectors like early childhood operate. The pandemic has had a devastating impact on our early childhood sector. The government was far too slow in responding to it. Our educators, who I talk to every day, were worried and scared early on that they were on the frontline of this crisis but no-one was really seeing that they were. They didn't have access to PPE. They didn't know where to get it. They didn't know how to run their centres, what to do and how to handle these changes. The package which came in to support them wasn't well thought through. It left some centres much worse off. It left families not able to access the care they needed. It left women who were returning from maternity leave and wanting to go back into jobs such as being ICU nurses unable to access a place in child care and therefore not going to work and fighting the pandemic. And the early-childhood educators who were raising these issues were never given that seat at the table that they needed so that the government could get on top of it.

The package saved a lot of centres, and we're grateful for the ones it helped. But then came the inexplicable decision to throw early-childhood educators—and only early-childhood educators—off JobKeeper. What does that say to these educators, who, through this pandemic, have been doing critical work and, let's face it, often risky work? It's very hard to socially distance from a toddler. I've got one; I know. It's not really possible. When a toddler needs their nose blown you've just got to get in there and do it. These guys were doing risky work, and they were the first ones—the only ones—thrown off JobKeeper.

Their anxiety has been sky high during this pandemic. And I get it. But he government doesn't; they never have. There is so much more we need to do for these early-childhood educators to see them through this pandemic, to give them the confidence they need that they'll have the PPE, that their centres can survive, that they can provide the care that the children need. And for vulnerable kids especially, we need to make sure we get this right. When this pandemic started and we saw parents having their children home from school—either by choice or by necessity, depending on the state they lived in—and we saw parents withdrawing their children from early-childhood education, because they too were worried about the implications for the health of their kids, one of my first fears, my first thought, was: 'What about those most vulnerable kids in early-childhood care?'

We know that for too many children in Australia that interaction with their educators in early childhood, that attendance at child care, can make an enormous difference to their lives. It can be the difference between abuse being reported and not being. It can be the difference between knowing that a child is getting enough meals and enough nourishment or not. These early-childhood educators working with vulnerable children are saving lives and often they provide the only love and support a child gets. Often they're the only ones who do things like sit with a child and count their fingers and toes—critical things that so many of us take for granted. But if you don't count a child's fingers and toes out loud, if you don't have that early counting and language and interaction, then critical brain connections will not form and that child will not develop as a child should.

The work our early educators do is critical. It's critical for individual children and it's critical for our community. What happens to those vulnerable kids who left early-childhood care? What happens if they don't come back? What happens if they miss that critical part of their early learning? It will change their brain development. That is a lifelong implication for these kids, to be locked out of the early-childhood sector, even for weeks—and imagine if it's months, or even years. We can't afford that. Those kids can't afford that. Our country can't afford that. For these vulnerable children who, I acknowledge, this bill tries to help, there are much bigger challenges ahead, too. Until we get a handle on those, until we know we can ensure access, until we know that our early educators have the confidence to do their job, to be there for these kids and all kids, then we're failing.

The government needs to do so much more in this space. I implore them to look at the research, look at the brain maps. You can actually hold up scans of brains and see those critical connections form. It is incredible, some of the most simple acts that we do as parents and that are repeated by early-childhood educators and built on. Their work is incredible, and they've been doing it so incredibly tough during the pandemic.

I want to take this opportunity to thank them, not just the educators but also the administrators who are working in centres and trying desperately to balance the books to keep their centres thriving and continuing, because they know how important it is that children have continuity of care. They know how important the work they're doing is. They also know how important it is to keep their early educators in work, and secure and safe. To our administrators and our directors as well: I thank you, because it has been such an incredibly stressful time for all of you.

During this pandemic our early childhood workers have been on the front line. They are also some of the workers in our community who have been the least valued historically in terms of their pay and conditions. So let this be a wake-up call for us. They are doing essential work and doing it at the toughest of times. Once we get through this pandemic, once we get through the critical questions we have to face to make sure our educators and the children they care for are okay, let's look at the workforce—let's look at wages and at actually valuing these educators for the critical role they play. They are changing lives and, more than that, they are changing our country and our future. Our productivity, our future prosperity in Australia, depends on our education system. And our education system does not start at school; it starts when a child first walks into an early learning centre. We have to make sure during this pandemic that we don't see any child walk out of their early learning centre and not return, because the consequences of that would be absolutely catastrophic. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:36): I thank the Senate and, in particular, those senators who have spoken on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020. I acknowledge the contributions to the debate and the support for this legislation coming from across the chamber. I add my thanks to Australia's early childhood education and care providers and those who operate centres, the educators and carers across the sector in particular, who have gone above and beyond in providing, not just in this challenging year but every day in every year, valuable care to Australian children and advancing their education prospects.

Our government has focused throughout the COVID-19 crisis on ensuring that amongst the support provided to families we've made sure that the childcare sector has been available to vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families and those who need it most. Through the ECEC Relief Package, over 98 per cent of childcare providers were able to keep their doors open during the period of widespread national shutdown of other economic activities, providing free child care to the children of essential workers, to vulnerable children and to children whose families had an existing relationship with the service. This bill clearly shows that as we see, across most of the nation, the return to the demand-driven childcare subsidy on 13 July our government is committed to continuing to improve access to child care for vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families and to cutting red tape for both families and childcare providers.

Since the implementation of the government's world-leading childcare reforms that provided for much more affordable and much better targeted childcare access in Australia, it is clear that our government's goal of delivering a more affordable, accessible and flexible childcare subsidy system indeed has been delivered upon. But we've also been listening to stakeholders regarding areas of improvement. They were widespread reforms that we made to the system, and naturally with those widespread reforms there will continue to be small areas of refinement and improvement. The key measures contained in this bill are in direct response to feedback received from the childcare sector. These key measures will benefit families and childcare providers by extending and backdating the additional childcare subsidy child wellbeing certificates and determinations from 28 days to up to 13 weeks in exceptional circumstances; extending the period, from 13 weeks to up to 12 months, that additional determinations can be given for children on a long-term child protection order; and clarifying that a provider may be eligible for additional childcare subsidy in respect of certain defined classes of children, such as foster children.

Notably, the amendments also continue to maintain appropriate safeguards to support the integrity of the additional childcare subsidy payment. Tragically, it's a fact that, historically, the childcare system has been open to activities of rorting and misappropriation of funds that are intended to support the wellbeing of children, the education of those children and access to care for parents and families. That's why we made sure that we had strong safeguards in our reforms, reforms that were intended to ensure that the children and families who needed care most received the greatest access to care and that those who needed financial support to pay for that care most received the greatest degree of financial support for the care that they need.

In conclusion, this bill demonstrates that the government remains committed to making life easier for providers and for vulnerable and disadvantaged families, and that we continue to make improvements based on feedback about the childcare reforms and package that we implemented. The changes in this bill will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on families and childcare providers, will support vulnerable and disadvantaged families to access quality early learning and child care, and will help families to access the financial assistance that they need. I commend the bill to the Senate and thank the Senate for its support of these reforms.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stoker ) (10:41): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:41): Labor will be supporting this Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020. It builds upon a bill introduced in the last parliament, which Labor also supported, which allowed people who used to work for the Commonwealth to continue using their Public Sector Superannuation Scheme accumulation plan, or PSSap, accounts for their super contributions. Labor understands that the bill before us today is being driven by feedback from members following the passage of the bill in the last parliament.

This bill would allow former PSSap members to use their PSSap accounts for contributions in respect of any employment—that is, employment that does not attract a superannuation guarantee obligation—and if they wish to make other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions. The bill would allow current PSSap members to use their PSSap accounts for contributions from non-Commonwealth employers who they're working for at the same time. It would also allow Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, or CSS and the PSS—the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme—members to establish a PSSap account for contributions from non-Commonwealth employers who they're working for at the same time. It will also allow CSS and PSS members who cease being members and become pensioners, in the superannuation sense, or take their lump-sum benefits to establish a PSSap account for contributions from non-Commonwealth employers or for other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions.

Finally, it would allow the CSS deferred benefit or PSS preserved benefit members to establish a PSSap account for contributions from non-Commonwealth employers or for other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions. We've been advised that around 10,000 individuals would utilise the new arrangements over the next three years. This consists of around 6,000 former PSSap members, 1,800 people ceasing to be CSS or PSS contributors in the next three years and 1,500 CSS deferred benefit or PSS preserved benefit members.

These are sensible changes to the legislative framework, which allow for the continued use of PSSap accounts, as well as allowing members of the old defined benefit scheme who want to use the PSSap system. While this is a sensible amendment to public sector superannuation, we also say that it's only Labor who will defend the $3 trillion superannuation system and ensure that Australians have a fuller, richer and dignified retirement.

We can't discount the role that superannuation has played in the economic story of Australia, both since compulsory super began and during the pandemic. We also can't forget that every step of the way those on the other side have opposed and sought to undermine the superannuation system, and that continues today. You've opposed—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Senator GALLAGHER: That's right, Senator Rennick—you're giving that the big thumbs up. Those on the other side have opposed its formation and opposed increases to the rate of the superannuation guarantee, and now we have more and more of those opposite openly agitating for the currently legislated increase to the super guarantee to be abandoned in some or form or another. We even have the minister, Senator Hume, saying she's ambivalent on the issue of the increase for the superannuation guarantee. The Prime Minister, however, continues to confirm the government's election commitment that they took to the last election to stick to the currently legislated timetable. If he breaks his promise, this will be an attack on workers and their standard of living.

Their recent track record isn't something to crow about either. The Prime Minister's lack of a plan for jobs and recovery has forced people to apply for nearly $33 billion of their own superannuation savings, with nearly $32 billion of that already paid out through the government's early access to super scheme. It's pretty ironic for the party that has opposed the concept of compulsory superannuation all the way that one of the largest economic measures that's contributing to stimulating the economy at this time is people accessing funds out of super. If it weren't for compulsory superannuation, this money wouldn't even exist. There have been 3.1 million applications made, 1.2 million repeat—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Senator GALLAGHER: How's your super, mate?

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Senator GALLAGHER: Yes—good! It's not good enough for anyone else though, is it? It's not good enough for working people, is it? It's everybody else who has to pay. You have the good super, but no-one else is entitled to it. What a disgrace.

We know that almost 600,000 people have no super at all as a result of the early access scheme, with the vast majority being young Australians who will now have to start from scratch to continue to put investments into their super while people like you, Senator Rennick, sit back and enjoy the super that's been provided for your retirement. Analysis has shown that young Australians will be more than $44 billion worse off at retirement because of the removal of their money from their superannuation accounts. After taking into account inflation and costs of living, a 25-year-old who withdraws $20,000 will be between $80,000 to $100,000 worse off in retirement. You reckon that's a good outcome?

Government senators interjecting—

Senator GALLAGHER: Yes, good outcome—no worries. Your government wouldn't invest in the economy; you made everyone else take out their own private savings to stimulate the economy while you sat—

A government senator interjecting—

Senator GALLAGHER: Did you withdraw any money out of your super? I don't think so.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, resume your seat. Interjections are always disorderly. Senator Gallagher, you need to direct your comments through the chair. Please resume.

Senator GALLAGHER: We've seen stories of fraud from the scheme, and we had flagged that with the government before the scheme started allowing withdrawals from people's superannuation accounts. We knew you would follow the money. There will always be attempts of criminal activity and fraud, and we have seen that play out. We know that ASIC has received referrals—

Senator Ayres interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, resume your seat. Interjections are always disorderly. That goes for both sides of the chamber, just as I said before, Senator Ayres. Senator Gallagher, please resume.

Senator GALLAGHER: We know that ASIC received referrals from nine separate Commonwealth agencies relating to the scheme, including the Australian Cyber Security Centre. Referrals have included serious and organised crime targeting early release of superannuation payments, real estate agents encouraging tenants to access super to meet rental payments, credit providers advising borrowers to use super to meet loan repayments and members of the public being charged fees to access super.

So, having made those comments, Labor will support this bill. We do, however, have a second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name which I will also move. It replicates an amendment moved in the other place to this bill by my colleague the member for Whitlam. Unfortunately the government voted against their own election policy and what we understood to be government policy. They voted against this in the House. I hope that this amendment gets the support of the chamber both from those opposite and the Labor Party. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to commit to ensuring that all Australians have a decent retirement, including by committing to:

(a) no cuts to the legislated superannuation guarantee for Australian workers, and

(b) adequate funding for the aged pension".

I'm sure that's an amendment that everyone in this place could and should support.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (10:50): I rise today in support of the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020. There is no subject that better reflects the difference in philosophy between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber. Why? This side of the chamber believes in free choice and individual responsibility. It believes in liberty. Give me liberty or death, as the great American patriot Patrick Henry said in his speech that helped trigger the American Revolution, a revolution that has echoed across the centuries and across the world, a revolution that has empowered the individual to make their own choices about how they live their lives, a revolution that overthrew the yoke of oppression, a revolution that continues today as we fight the forces of Marxism and communism.

So many of those forces sit opposite us today, all with their little red books, bobbing their heads to every command issued by their Big Brother: industry super funds run by unions. They sit there so smugly on the other side of the chamber, secretly plotting new ways by which they can impose more command and control over everyday Australians. Of course, there is no greater example of command and control than superannuation. How so, you might ask? By stealth and deception. That's how. By undermining the democratic right of working Australians by not ever seeking a mandate to take 12 per cent of people's hard-earned income every week and give it to unelected, unaccountable fund managers.

The Left love to praise New Zealand, saying what a great country it is, because they've got a leftie in power. Let's give praise where praise is due. In 1996 New Zealand had a vote on compulsory superannuation. Do you know what the result was? They voted it down: 92 per cent to eight. Did Paul Keating ever ask the Australian public if they wanted money taken out of their pockets, to be given to someone that the worker would never meet, until they were 60—with, I might add, no guarantee of ever getting their capital back?

We need to contrast the actions of the Labor Party and the unions with those of the Liberal Party with their belief in free choice. The original liberal philosophers Locke, Bacon and Rousseau sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings with representative democracy and property rights. I want to repeat this: there was never anything democratic about superannuation. Keating, in his typically arrogant manner, rammed it through parliament without ever seeking a mandate or holding a referendum, no doubt because he knew that it would never get up if the people were given a choice.

Surely the federal government has an obligation under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, which provides that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to 'the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws', to protect the initial capital put into super funds. It is my view that compulsory superannuation is unconstitutional if it doesn't return the initial superannuation that was contributed to the super fund. Let me add, it's only a matter of time before this gets tested in the High Court. If superannuation isn't voluntary, then superannuation funds, including industry funds, should be forced to make up losses—in keeping with the Constitution—if the initial capital isn't returned. People have a right to expect their property rights to be respected.

Let's talk about how much superannuation is costing us: $40 billion in tax concessions. The cost of these tax concessions is growing much faster than the cost of the pension. It's estimated that the cost of superannuation and the tax concessions will soon be greater. Who do these tax concessions go to? Mainly the wealthy. Don't get me wrong. People work hard and they're entitled to keep as much money as possible, but I fail to see why low-income earners should pay a higher rate of tax on their income than the wealthy pay on their superannuation income. Where is the Labor Party in this? I thought the Labor Party and the unions were the champions of the poor and oppressed. No—not when it jeopardises the rivers of gold that flow into the superannuation funds that then flow into the Labor Party's coffers. Then there's the $40 billion in fees that it costs to run superannuation. To put that into context, that's more than the cost of defence. Most of these fees go to white-collared blowhards in Sydney and Melbourne. Every week, rivers of gold flow out of regional communities, communities that desperately need to retain every dollar they earn.

I'm happy to put up a motion with the Labor Party that, if we make superannuation voluntary, I will put the first $4 billion in tax concessions that we save into aged care. We can take some tax from the wealthy Australians and put it into aged care, if you want to make it voluntary. Let's see if you're up for that one. It only costs around $6 billion to manage the pension. Why does it cost $40 billion to manage super? It's time to stop the rorting. And there's more: $600 billion of superannuation is invested offshore, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when Australia desperately needs infrastructure and development. What is industry super doing? Where were they when the Northern Territory government sold the Darwin Port? Where were they? Where was the CFMMEU? I've looked at the maritime union super funds, and they invest offshore. Why didn't they buy the Darwin Port? Why didn't they take an equity in their own livelihood?

Let's not forget the rorts. Entertainment budgets don't comply with the sole purpose test, but has that stopped Hostplus from spending thousands of dollars in wining and dining at the Australian Open? Or the New Daily—a Communist propaganda tool used to peddle Marxist ideology—

Senator Ayres interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stoker ): Senator Ayres, interjections are always disorderly. Please factor that into your future conduct. Senator Rennick, please continue.

Senator RENNICK: For this great cost, is super actually doing what it is supposed to do by reducing the number of people on the pension? Hardly. The number of people retiring with a mortgage since superannuation was introduced has increased from 40 per cent to 70 per cent. That's right. When they retire, more people are now enslaved to the banks than they were when superannuation was introduced. It's just a win-win for the finance industry. They're bleeding interest out of workers as they save throughout their lives, and on the other hand they're bleeding fees out of superannuation funds—they're double-clipping the ticket.

And for what? So much for people having a better retirement with super—what better form of retirement is there than owning your own house? That's right: superannuation is actually counterproductive. It's not doing what it's supposed to do. For all of this expense, the number of people on the pension has actually only fallen from 74 per cent to 68 per cent. It's not even saving that much in the pension. Some estimates put it at about $9 billion, which is hardly what you'd call productive, given that it takes about $80 billion in fees and tax concessions. It's counterproductive.

I also point out that the pension, unlike superannuation, is universal. Everyone is entitled to it. That's not the case for superannuation. The unemployed, the disabled and the stay-at-home parents—they don't get superannuation. Shouldn't good government policy lift all boats, regardless of the choice you make and regardless of the circumstances you find yourselves in? Where is the equality? Well, let me tell you. When it comes to superannuation, there is no equality: only repression, rorts and pork-barrelling from left-wing vested interests.

Do you think Labor and the unions will ever stop asking for superannuation increases? Of course not. Why do we know that? Because at the last sitting of the parliament they refused to vote on a motion that would reduce union fees throughout COVID. Never get between the Labor Party and their rivers of gold from the unions! And who runs the industry funds? It's Greg Combet, a union hack and, even more worryingly, the former environment minister that allowed the Bureau of Meteorology to keep two sets of books.

A government senator interjecting—

Senator RENNICK: Yes, I'll take that interjection. Do you want someone that condoned a public service department running two sets of books, running hundreds of billions of dollars in superannuation? Is he going to run two sets of books and then suddenly find their liquid assets can't be sold for the value they've stated in the books? Yes. I can just imagine the smoke and mirrors the superannuation funds would come up with then, telling everyone it's all fine.

Has superannuation ever built anything? Of course not. That would require fund managers to get off their backsides and learn how to build things. They'd have to be engineers or get out in the hot sun and start sweating. That's not what superannuation funds do, is it? But I'll tell you what they do do. They buy infrastructure. Do you know what infrastructure they bought? It was all those assets that have been privatised—things like CBA and CSL, and in my home state of Queensland the Bligh-Beattie government sold our railways, ports, airports, forestry plantations and lotteries to name a few.

A government senator: And we've still got $100 billion in debt.

Senator RENNICK: Exactly: we've still got $100 billion in debt to show for it. Do you know who Anna Bligh's chief of staff was in all of this?

A government senator: Who?

Senator RENNICK: Who was Anna Bligh's chief of staff in all of this? None other than Senator Watt—or should I say Comrade Watt? That's right, ladies and gentleman: Senator Watt was their advisor. Now she just happens to work for the Australian Bankers Association. Don't let your morals or values get in the way of a big fat pay cheque! And who did they sell to? They sold to super funds, many of which were industry funds. And why did they do this? They did it so that the Marxists in the union movement can gain control over our industries and destroy the true means of production in this country: small business. Greg Combet is on record saying that he's going to have influence in the boardrooms. Do we really want these unelected representatives in the boardroom looking after union interests and not shareholder interests? This is a concern, let me tell you.

The Labor Party hates small business, and do you know why? It's because small businesses stand on their own two feet. They distrust all governments, and they, of course, are the lifeblood and breeding ground of the patriot, the sworn enemy of those Marxists who sit on the other side. As I stand here today, let me tell you: I will never stop fighting for the patriots. That is what this side of the chamber is all about—standing up for those who stand up for themselves, those who believe in free choice, those who believe in liberty, those who believe in family, not those opposite who want to believe in command and control, in big governments, in high taxes, in the repression of free will and in the complete and utter destruction of everything that makes this country great. Let me tell you: as a proud Australian, the blood of the patriot runs deep within me. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (11:03): What an innovative experience it is listening to Senator Rennick, a sort of out-of-body experience really. Over there is the team 'The Thought Leaders'. I won't include Senator Scarr in this because he's far too sensible, but on superannuation Rennick and Bragg are the thought leaders of the conservative show. I have a little bit to say about Senator Bragg in a moment, but when I listen to a stream of consciousness word salad about little red books, Big Brother, bankers, Marxists, command and control, it feels like I'm at a sort of QAnon cell meeting, not the Australian Senate, not where adults engage in this stuff. After these sorts of claims about the Constitution, next thing we'll be hearing about sovereign citizens. It is not really clear to me what Senator Rennick opposes in terms of industry superannuation funds. Does he oppose the big returns? Does he oppose the low fees? It's unclear to me. The super system was built by Australians working together. Employers and unions built the compulsory superannuation scheme. Millions of Australians who otherwise would have been impoverished in their retirement are living a decent, secure retirement that their parents could only have dreamt of.

The role of super in the stimulus response is worth examination. It is worth, you would think, some deep reflection on that side of the Senate. What's really happened is the government has robbed future retirees of their savings in order to do the work that the government should have done. Many, many people have filled the gap. They have filled the gap in the government's failures with retirement savings. People will be impoverished in the future. If the Morrison government is presented with a pathway that's easy, if they are presented with a pathway that hurts the people they imagine to be their ideological opponents, if they are presented with a pathway that helps their big business mates and if they're presented with a pathway that leaves ordinary Australians out, you can bet they'll always take it—and they have.

There are some big economic issues in front of the parliament this year. This government was dragged kicking and screaming to reach the conclusion that there should be a wage subsidy package out there in the JobKeeper package. I remember watching the bloke who represents the Prime Minister in here, Senator Cormann, bitterly opposing a wage subsidy package. What Mr Frydenberg said a few weeks ago is true: the cold, desiccated spirit of Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan still animates these characters over here today. This JobKeeper program is administratively complex and leaves out millions of Australians. Beyond that was a plan for a snapback, which has now turned to a taper off. They have no plan for jobs beyond the taper off.

The super system, our retirement income savings scheme, that is the envy of the modern world should be a source of strength during our economy's troubles. It should be a source of revenue—not revenue, but investment and capability. It should support—

Government senators interjecting—

Senator AYRES: What I was going to say is that it should be there delivering investment—

Government senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stoker ): Senator Ayres, resume your seat. Interjections are disorderly. Thank you very much. Senator Ayres, please resume.

Senator AYRES: It should be a source of strength, but these guys can't wait to wreck it. Their MO from the minister to Senators Bragg and Rennick, the thought leaders over there, is to attack it and then retreat and say, 'We're just trying to help.' If it was up to the Liberals, super wouldn't exist for most Australians. It would be the preserve of the very wealthy. It would be the preserve of the elite. It would be the preserve of big business. They opposed its formation. They opposed every single increase in the superannuation guarantee and the contribution rate.

What happened over when the pandemic hit and the economy was faced with the prospect of millions of people losing their jobs is that most Australians saw a crisis. These guys saw an opportunity. Most Australians reacted in horror to the prospect of losing jobs. Most Australians reacted in horror to the loss of gross national product. But these guys saw an opportunity. In JobKeeper, $35 billion has been spent so far. Through the early access scheme, almost $32 billion has been stripped out of low-income Australians' super funds—600,000 ordinary, low-income, low-balance account holders have emptied their accounts in total. I don't begrudge any of them. The criticism is of you lot. Those individuals knew they couldn't rely on Scott Morrison. They had to go to their own low-balance accounts and strip them out because they—casual workers, low-income workers and women—knew they couldn't rely on this government. Twenty-five-year-olds will be $80,000 to $100,000 worse off because of your policy framework and because you couldn't deliver. The government couldn't deliver.

Government senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are always disorderly. Senator Ayres, could you please direct your comments to the chair.

Senator AYRES: Ultimately, it has become a honey pot for organised crime. Overseas organised crime interests have gone straight to your scheme and are robbing ordinary Australians—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please, Senator Ayres; you need to direct your comments through the chair.

Senator AYRES: The government are now laying the groundwork for their failure to deliver on their legislated increases in the superannuation guarantee. That would represent a real wage cut for most Australians. This idea that there is some contest between wages and superannuation is the silliest proposition. It's the most transparently silly proposition. It's not real. For most people, their wage increases are set out for them in the award system. Their wage increases are set out for them for the next 12 months. For people who are in collective agreements, their outcomes are set out for them. In a period of record-low wage growth over the last three years, presided over by what passes for the economic team over there, the idea that you would also cut people's hope of a decent retirement position should horrify most Australians. What passes for what he calls 'philosophical convictions' in Senator Rennick's mind is a deep conviction of hostility to ordinary Australians doing better for themselves than the government allows. They are for cold charity and the government determining who gets up. We are for Australians working together to do better.

I have been horrified by what Senator Bragg, the self-styled expert over there on industry superannuation, has had to say about this. Just seven days ago, in a tweet, which is his preferred mode of communication, beyond books, with the Australian people, he said:

Keating told the 1992 ACTU Congress—

and the next part is in quotation marks, so he's indicating the former Prime Minister said this—

"You are losing your industrial muscle; I have given you the opportunity to take on financial muscle. You will get that through your superannuation funds."

Except Paul Keating never said that. He never said that. And there was no ACTU Congress in 1992. Senator Bragg said that Paul Keating said that at a 1992 ACTU congress. But he didn't. When one tells a lie, it needs details to be credible, but it's also really important that the details aren't so easily verifiable, because the important thing about telling a lie is that people don't figure you out so quickly. Senator Bragg has a history of making wild—it's hard to say 'wild' in the presence of Senator Rennick—untrue claims to further his argument. I'm not sure whether it's attention-seeking behaviour—I'm not talking about you, Senator Rennick—or because the ideas themselves are running out of puff, or whether it's just compulsive.

A government senator: Senator Bragg wrote a bestseller.

Senator AYRES: I'll take that interjection. It's a bestseller in pulping operations all over the country.

A government senator: Have you read it?

Senator AYRES: Yes. He said:

Make no mistake, industry super funds are on track to be the biggest political donors in Australia. They'll be bigger than the CFMMEU and Co.

Except, it's just not true. It's not remotely true. It never has been true. It never will be true. He makes the claim because it sounds scandalous. The truth is, if you review the AEC records—and the super industry organisations have done this—they show $25,000 worth of donations as far back as records go. The super industry bodies wrote to Senator Bragg and told him all about this in a completely verifiable way, but he's chosen to ignore that. Just for scale, or perspective, that's about three-hundredths of a per cent of what Clive Palmer spent supporting your re-election bid last year. Just for perspective, it's less than Senator Rennick donated to the LNP immediately prior to his preselection.

Government senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stoker ): Order. Senator Ayres, take your seat. Senator Rennick, on a point of order?

Senator Rennick: That is a personal slur that indicates corruption, and I totally reject that. I want that remark withdrawn now.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw the remark.

Senator AYRES: There isn't the faintest hope of me withdrawing that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, on a point of order?

Senator Scarr: Yes. There was a clear imputation in Senator Ayres's comments that there was a connection between Senator Rennick making a substantial donation to the LNP prior to his preselection and his successful preselection. There was a clear imputation, and I think it would be courteous to the chamber for Senator Ayres to withdraw, or at least confirm that that imputation was not intended.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, in my view, there was a clear connection in your statement between—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, please allow me to finish. Senator Ayres, there was a clear connection that you were drawing between his preselection and his donations. I invite you to either clarify what you had to say or withdraw it.

Senator AYRES: The imputation only exists in the minds of Senator Rennick, Senator Scarr and yourself. I'm very happy to confirm that imputation wasn't my intention.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, I'm giving you an opportunity—

Senator AYRES: You just did.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not—

Senator AYRES: The imputation does not exist in what I said, and I think a review of the Hansard would make that very clear.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify what you did intend, and in doing so, giving you the opportunity to move on.

Senator AYRES: I'll make it absolutely clear that the contribution that Senator Rennick made was at the time that it was made—I make no imputation beyond that. Some others opposite have drawn that imputation. It's a matter entirely for them.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, I'm going to give you the opportunity to move on. Parliamentary privilege is just that: a privilege not to be abused.

Senator AYRES: Why does Senator Bragg continue to say the things that he says? Why does he continue to say things that are demonstrably not true? Why is he so committed to the path that he has embarked upon of deliberately saying things about industry superannuation that are not true and distorting the facts? Last week he claimed that contributions to super have been lifting house prices. I imagine he'll shortly be saying that they cause climate change or are responsible for the Broncos' performance this year. Senator Rennick and Senator Scarr might take some comfort in that. He might say that it's responsible for the drought. Every claim that he makes shouldn't be taken seriously in this debate, because he resorts so easily to making assertions that are not true. Ultimately, one loses credibility if one keeps making wild and extravagant claims—something that you, Senator Rennick, might pay some attention to. Let's make this debate about the interests of ordinary Australians, not the ideological predilections of the far recesses of the Queensland LNP.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (11:21): I rise to address the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020. Superannuation is actually a good idea, but it has been poorly executed. What I mean by 'poorly executed' is that its very birth was, frankly, a chaotic birth, because who can think of any other fundamentally intergenerational scheme that hasn't even got a framework or an objective?

There are two schools of thought as to how this scheme came to life. The first school of thought is that it was developed by Bill Kelty and Iain Ross, who were staffers at the ACTU in the late eighties and early nineties. They advised the Keating government on formalising the accord arrangements on superannuation into legislation. The other school of thought is that the Treasury was asked to do some basic modelling at a pub in Canberra, on the back of a coaster, which was, sadly, thrown out and lost to history. Either way, the scheme was not put in place with the sort of economic rigour with which it should have been born so that over time it would actually be effective. By 'effective' I mean that what this scheme should be doing is getting people off the pension and saving the government and the taxpayer money. It is a demonstrable failure because it costs the budget vastly more than it saves and it gets very, very few people off the pension.

The other thing it does, which is a very real issue for a lot of low-income Australians, is damage people's prospects of securing a first home. Now, many factors have led to the lack of home affordability in Australia. I should take this opportunity to correct the record. I have not said that superannuation has increased the cost of housing ever. What I have said is that, if you are a low-income earner and you are forced to save into a superannuation scheme, it is harder, by definition, to secure a deposit for a first home. This is real money. These trade-offs are real. You can have a debate about the superannuation guarantee rate; the money doesn't fall out of the sky. The money, which is a cost of employment, is part of workers' wages. So your super guarantee increase is a trade-off against a wage increase, just as it is a trade-off against any other financial judgement, like pulling together a deposit for a first home.

This is an important issue for legislators to consider carefully. It is one of the biggest things that we do to the Australian people. We compel people to put almost 10 per cent of their own wages and salaries off away into these opaque funds, and we hope for the best, effectively. It is a lightly regulated industry.

People have said that I'm a socialist. People who know me know that that is not true, but I have advocated a higher level of regulation in this space because the way that this scheme was set up by the Keating government is that it was gifted to the financial institutions and the unions to run and they have run it poorly. You can look at the behaviour of the industry funds during this COVID crisis, when they have put their interests ahead of the national interest every single day—shocking, disgusting rent-seeking. You can see the even more appalling behaviour of the retail funds, who were exposed by the royal commission as always putting the shareholders ahead of the members and therefore breaching their fiduciary duty. This is a disgustingly administered scheme. Why is it so poorly administered? Because of the money. Each and every year, $32 billion in fees is sucked out of people's accounts. Australians spend more on super fees than they do on power bills. The only response we ever hear from the other side is effectively that there should be more and more super, more and more super, more and more super. There is not enough focus on the outcomes of the scheme.

Over the course of its 30 years, it has failed, really, on three fronts. As I said, it costs more than it saves. This year alone we're looking at almost $40 billion in forgone tax revenue. The industry says, 'We've probably saved the budget about $9 billion.' I know that you can't net those figures off, but you're a long way behind. Secondly, pension reliance is stubbornly high. Seventy per cent of people are on the pension today, and that will be the same in 2050. Yes, there will be more part-pensioners, but who can think of a scheme that after 50 years and 70 years of operation is getting virtually no-one off the pension? Thirdly—and this is a real issue for many lower income Australians—it is damaging the prospects of people pulling together a deposit for a first home.

The vested interests here are very, very strong. As I said, it was gifted to the banks and the unions, and the problem with the characterisation of the debate around unions and industry funds is that it's not just the unions that are the guilty parties; it's also the large employers. The large employer groups and the unions have been in bed together for the whole time that super has been in existence, and they will always put their own narrow interests ahead of the workers, just like they do on penalty rates. Just as they will cut workers' penalties rates to feather their own nests, they will always advocate for more and more super because of the board positions and associated revenues which flow into the employer groups and the unions.

Senator Ayres said that I have been making misleading statements about the Australian Electoral Commission data on payments to unions. The fact is that in this calendar year $13 million will flow from super funds into unions. That is not my data; that is the Electoral Commission's data. I have projected, based on a nine per cent growth rate over the past 10 years, that it will hit about $31 million by the end of this decade. By 2030 there will be $31 million flowing from super funds into unions. That is a significant amount of money. As someone who spent some time as a party director, I can assure this chamber that $31 million will pay for a lot of campaigns. And this is only the money that is captured under the AEC's definition of a political payment. It doesn't include the enormous expenditure, through advertising and other means, of the funds on promoting themselves. You can turn on the TV and watch a footy game, and all you'll see is super fund ads: 'How good is super?' 'Fantastic. It must be a great deal.' So the vested interests are a real problem. As I said, the financial institutions are just as bad. They have had their colours lowered by the banking royal commission; too often they have put their own interests ahead of the workers. But who could blame them? This is the only industry in Australia where they open the door and the money just piles in.

The Labor Party are isolated on the question of the superannuation guarantee. The ACOSS advocates for those on low incomes, the independent economists at Grattan and CIS, the Treasury, the Governor of the Reserve Bank—everyone has said this is a bad time to raise the super guarantee. It's a bad time because it will cost workers a wage increase, it will cost people jobs and, by the way, the system doesn't work very well. So, they're all saying, 'Why would you plough more money into this system?'

The Labor Party often likes to lecture us about being the advocates of low-income workers. Well, they're very isolated. ACOSS were against it. In fact, ACOSS were against the scheme at the beginning. And Peter Walsh, a decorated and very capable finance minister in the Hawke government, said that the only reason the scheme is being established by the government is to help the unions, because they want to get their toe into super funds management. That has been a cost-ineffective investment for workers, but it has worked really well for the unions. That's why all the people in this place fall over themselves to defend super. I wonder how many preselections depend on that.

At the end of the day, I am not an advocate for this system's abolition. I think that as a fair-minded person you have to look at the idea of trying to support people to be self-funded in retirement as a good objective and as a good and sound idea. So I would be an advocate for fixing the scheme rather than junking it. I think that it should have an objective and that there should be a clear framework. People should know that this system exists to get people off the pension. We should try to get at least half the population off the pension because we have an ageing population and that will cost the country significantly.

We should also look, as a first order, at trying to cut fees. Seriously, if you're looking at $32 billion being sucked out of this scheme every year, when you're putting in about $100 billion, that's a pretty material amount of money that's being pulled out, effectively, to pay for this largesse that you see in the finance sector and in the union movement. So it would be quite a reasonable idea for there to be significant market intervention here. I see no reason why the government couldn't offer a simple, cheap and cheerful government default fund. That was in fact the recommendation of reviews in the 1970s that looked at the idea of having a superannuation scheme, but, when the Keating government got around to legislating superannuation, they of course gave it to their friends in the union movement and the finance sector.

It is also my view that historically—because I try to be a balanced person—the finance sector has had too much influence over the Liberal Party. I think there is no doubt that, particularly in the financial planning space, there has been too much influence, and people have not come to these issues and looked at them clearly. You would struggle to find a single member of the Labor caucus who would argue against having 12 per cent super, even though that would be argued in the face of all the independent evidence—from Grattan, from the Reserve Bank, from ACOSS. Every fair-minded private sector economist would say it was a bad idea. But there they are, apparently arguing against their own core constituency.

The other thing we should try to do is actually enforce the laws this parliament sets. Why on earth would super have a sole purpose test designed to ensure that the money is managed only for members' benefits? It would be totally undermined, particularly by the regulator APRA—and I have to say, I've lost the great confidence in them that I had for many years. APRA is basically green-lighting super funds and allowing them to make significant political payments. They're also allowing the super funds to break their own prudential rules. There are people who have been on these boards for 10, 20 or 30 years. APRA has a board renewal policy that says you're not supposed to be on a super fund board for more than 12 years. There are people sitting on superannuation fund boards today who have been on these boards for 26 or 27 years. Until last year, there were two directors of super fund boards who had been on these boards for 32 years apiece. Now, 32 years is the age of the newest director of Telstra, Bridget Loudon. That's a good comparison.

At the end of the day we will always try to look at these issues relating to superannuation in a practical way, because we are practical people on this side of the chamber. We will look at the super guarantee rate. We will look at system design. We will always try to get the best deal for workers, because we recognise that this is a significant intervention into people's private affairs. We want the scheme to work, and we'll look at it with clear eyes.

I want to reflect on this very good quote from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, where the Prime Minister said:

Those opposite want to keep the hard-earned savings of Australians away from them when they need it most and have them tucked up in the industry fund by union fund managers as they count their directors fees.

The problem here is that the Labor Party really have no idea who they represent when they come into these chambers. Are they representing the super funds, or the unions, or the people who elected them? I really wish they would come into these chambers and reflect upon that very carefully. People can talk about people's past, their histories and what their prior views were—that's fine. But when you're elected into this place you really should look at every issue through the prism of what's going to be best for the workers, especially now that we're in an environment in which we have not been previously with super: this is the first recession we've had with super. So for people to come in here and advocate to send more and more money off to the banks and the union so they can count their big directors fees and make their significant payments to shareholders in a scheme which is not working is I think a very, very significantly bad judgement, and people will remember this.

I know that the Labor Party think that the super funds will come and campaign for them, that they'll threaten the crossbench and do all this stuff—that they'll use all the bullyboy tactics they have used in years gone by. That might be okay, but I think the Australian people will judge very harshly political parties which are desperate to put vested interests ahead of the national interest and vested interests ahead of their own interests. At the moment, the Australian people want more jobs, higher wages and a secure future. They don't want to see people coming into this place and trying to feather the nests of their mates.

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (11:36): It gives me great delight to speak on the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 and to follow someone who has recently been referred to as a 'baby faced Liberal', Senator Bragg. Of course, our ex-Prime Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating, made a somewhat gratuitous comment, which was totally in keeping with his history and character, referring to 'baby faced Liberals'. I think he said something along the lines—and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong in this regard—that 'It was, perhaps, the highest form of political modesty to be a first-term backbench senator.' Well, I'm happy to be in the company of these baby faced Liberals, although I must say that I don't think Senator Rennick qualifies in that regard! Perhaps on one hand we have baby faced Liberals here—a former political modesty—but on the other hand we have a cranky ex-PM who perhaps has unrivalled arrogance. I'll leave it there.

Senator Gallagher referred to the government attacking the superannuation system. It is somewhat odd for Senator Gallagher to make that remark, having gone through, in quite fair and reasonable fashion, what a benefit this bill will be to the members of the relevant funds. On the one hand she said that this bill is for the benefit of the members in relation to those funds, and then she accused the government of attacking the superannuation system. It's totally inconsistent. This bill promotes choice, flexibility and efficiency—choice, flexibility and efficiency—and that is what we should be seeking to do in relation to our superannuation scheme.

Senator Ayres interjecting—

Senator SCARR: I will just say to Senator Gallagher, and to Senator Ayres, that from our perspective the reforms which were introduced to allow members to withdraw $10,000 prior to 30 June and then a further $10,000 after 30 June were a matter of personal choice—personal choice in the circumstances of a pandemic. What it underlined to those members who did exercise that choice—and it wasn't the government exercising the choice—was that it was the government giving those members that choice to decide whether or not to withdraw that $10,000. It was the members who were given the choice, and that emphasised that it is the members' money. The money in those superannuation accounts is the members' money.

Before we had superannuation, prior generations used to put away a nest egg or they used to put away some money for hard times in a bank account. And when the hard times arrived they would draw down on that money. Why should people be deprived of that choice today in the middle of a pandemic? This government has given them choice and I'm proud to be part of a government that has delivered that choice.

There is a real beauty about a Freudian slip. Senator Ayres gave us the best Freudian slip I've heard for a long time. He referred to the 'revenue' from superannuation—'revenue' was the word he used. Whose revenue is it? The union's revenue? I think that's the revenue he's referring to. He finds it difficult to take off his AMWU hat. I understand that. He was a very effective leader in trade union organisations and I respect him for that. But this is the whole point. Superannuation should not be about the revenue of the trade union movement. It should be about the members and their retirement. It's not a revenue source for third parties—and I don't care who they are. It should be for the benefit of the members, and the members should have a choice, in the time of a pandemic, whether or not they want to draw on some of those funds and make a decision—their own decision—with respect to how they want to apply those funds. They might want to pay off a home mortgage, taking some of the financial pressure off them today. I respect each and every person who has made that choice. That choice is certainly something we should be promoting in this place.

Senator Ayres also asked Senator Rennick: 'Well, what do you oppose?' I thought it was quite clear, listening to Senator Rennick, as to what he opposed. He opposed industry super funds making political donations, or any super fund making a political donation. He opposes that because it is against the sole-purpose test. I oppose that as well. He opposes superannuation funds having exorbitant entertainment budgets. Why? Because it's against the sole-purpose test. It's not consistent with the sole-purpose test. I oppose that as well. And I do this not on an ideological basis. I'm actually a member of an industry fund. I'm a member of AustralianSuper. I congratulate Ian Silk and his team on the returns he has given me over a number of years. I left an AMP super fund because I wasn't happy with the returns in that respect and joined AustralianSuper, on the recommendation of my father, in fact—one of many recommendations he has made to me that I have followed, dutifully, as his son. I've been very happy with the performance of my industry super fund. I am unhappy when they defer in any way from that sole-purpose test.

This bill is about choice. It's about flexibility. It's about protecting the integrity of Australians' retirement savings and I commend it to the Senate.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (11:43): I would like to thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. The Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 extends membership of the Public Sector Superannuation accumulation plan to certain current and former Commonwealth employees who are not otherwise eligible to continue making contributions to a fund run by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. The bill will ensure the choice-of-fund principle extends appropriately to Commonwealth public sector schemes. It allows current and former PSSap members to avoid paying multiple fees to maintain separate funds under different trustees. This bill will support them in saving for their retirement.

This bill allows former PSSap contributing members to use their existing PSSap account in respect of any employment, like self-employment, not just employment that attracts a superannuation guarantee obligation, and to make other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions. PSSap contributory members will also be able to make contributions to their account in respect of any non-Commonwealth employment that they undertake concurrent to their Commonwealth employment.

The bill will also allow certain members of the main Australian government defined civilian benefit superannuation schemes and others that are currently a contributing or a preserved benefit member to establish a PSSap account where they choose to also have future superannuation contributions held by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that this bill be read a second time, with the amendment.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:44): I understand no amendments to the bill have been circulated. If no senator requires a committee stage by indicating so, I'll call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (11:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:45): I present the 7th report of 2020 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 August 2020 at 7.50pm.

2. The committee recommends that the following bills notbe referred to committees:

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020

Defence Amendment (Sovereign Naval Shipbuilding) Bill 2018

Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020 Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020.

3. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020

Air Services Amendment Bill 2018

Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020

Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020

Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020

Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020

Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019

Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018

Family Law Amendment (Risk Screening Protections) Bill 2020

Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019

Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Prohibition on Credit Card Use) Bill 2020

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019

Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020.

4. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)

Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)

National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)

National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(Dean Smith)

Chair

27 August 2020

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:46): I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2020".

This amendment has been circulated. It refers the EPBC bill to a Senate inquiry to report on 30 November. This is absolutely essential if we are to have proper scrutiny of these laws. They've just been tabled in the House of Representatives, and they are a full-blown attack on Australia's environment and on our wildlife. This bill is effectively a carbon copy of the legislation tabled by Tony Abbott in 2014, when Tony Abbott was doing the bidding of big miners and big developers to strip environmental protections and to allow these big companies to have free rein over Australia's natural wonderlands, our precious beaches, our precious forests and the homes of our native animals. It is absolutely essential that this chamber take every opportunity to scrutinise this piece of legislation.

We have known for months that the government wants to weaken Australia's environment laws. Back in May the Prime Minister stood up and crowed about how he was going to take a chainsaw to Australia's environment and how he was going to make it easier for big companies to get the green light for approvals. We've known for months that this legislation was coming up. Today it's been tabled and it's worse than we thought. It is a full-blown attack on our environment. So, in this place we need to make sure we send it off to the committee to look at it properly, to ensure there is scrutiny and to look at the flaws in this legislation.

For anyone in this place to say that they haven't had time to consider whether the Senate should, indeed, be sending this to an inquiry is just rubbish. We've known for months that this was coming. It's been tabled today and it should go off to a Senate inquiry. I'm extremely concerned that Labor is indicating that they wouldn't support sending this legislation off to an inquiry. Why on earth not? Whose side is Labor on? Are you on the side of the environment or are you on the side of Tony Abbott and the big polluters? Whose side are you on? Unless we send this legislation off to an inquiry today, this government is going to try and ram this legislation through the parliament as quickly as possible.

I understand that One Nation doesn't believe that they have had enough time to consider their position on this amendment or, indeed, on sending any of these bills before the Selection of Bills Committee last night. Where are they? The role of this chamber is to scrutinise and look at government legislation to make sure it is right. It is precisely our job to do this. If One Nation don't support this then they're just doing the dirty work of the government all over again. Where are they, anyway? I haven't seen Pauline Hanson all week.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, on a point of order?

Senator Scarr: My understanding is that speakers in this place should not comment on the absence of a senator during the course of debate. Senator Hanson-Young has done that repeatedly, I believe.

The PRESIDENT: It is a courtesy rather than a breach of standing orders, I would suggest. If I could ask senators to particularly keep in mind we are not aware why, in this pandemic, certain senators may not be able to attend, and we've facilitated—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson is attending remotely. Generally, if senators are not in the chamber in this period, particularly with the travel restrictions in place, I would urge senators to adopt a charitable approach to it rather than assign a motive.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I'm glad Senator Hanson is listening, because it is the job of this chamber to scrutinise government legislation and not just give it a green tick, hoping that everything is A-OK. It's not. This piece of legislation has not been looked at properly. It must go to an inquiry. It is our job as senators to do this. Unless we make sure it goes to an inquiry today, this government is going to continue with their campaign to ram it through. Why? Because they're doing this under the cover of COVID-19. This government is taking a chainsaw to the environment protection laws in this country and using COVID-19 as an excuse. It is the most cynical act imaginable.

There are so many people out there today struggling to make ends meet and struggling in the midst of this pandemic, and what is this government doing? They're dusting off a piece of legislation from 2014 under Tony Abbott and wanting to ram it through the House and through the Senate. That's what this government wants to do. It is a distraction— (Time expired)

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:52): Without prejudice to any position I may have on the bill that's been tabled in the House, I think it is proper that a significant piece of legislation should be referred to a committee. That does a number of things. It allows people to properly consider it, but it also allows us to engage the community. That includes businesses and environmentalists, and it includes people who are interested in the topic and may not fit into either of those categories. In my time in this chamber, I've seen committees work really well together to actually come up with, in many cases, better legislation. I think the fact that this is not being referred is a breach of proper process, and I've asked the government to reconsider their position on it. If I understand correctly, they are not supporting a referral. I think that is an unfortunate departure from what is good legislative process.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:54): To associate my comments with Senator Patrick and Senator Hanson-Young, certainly the Labor Party thinks that this legislation, from what we understand of it, is extremely important. The Senate has a very important role to play in scrutiny of legislation. There is absolutely no reason that I can fathom that the government can put before this place to explain why they wouldn't accept a referral. Perhaps we can have a discussion about the dates of referral, if that's the issue, but to have no referral on legislation this significant and this important seems like the government wanting to hide as much information as it can from the Senate before the Senate's in a position to debate this bill. It's an abuse of this Senate's role.

We accept there is some legislation that doesn't require referral to committee and we all work collegially in that regard to ensure the running of government and the smoothness of business on some legislation, but to not have a referral for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 is just outrageous. Work with us. Let's have an inquiry. Let's discuss the dates for that inquiry, if that's your problem, but don't deny the Senate the right to scrutinise, through our committee process, this important piece of legislation.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:55): Earlier this week the government said that they were too busy responding to the pandemic to be able to move forward on a Commonwealth anticorruption authority. Well, the government is never—and I do mean never—too busy doing anything else to continue its war on nature and to continue its war on our environment, on our biodiversity, on our climate, on our forests, on our beaches, on our coastlines and on all the beautiful creatures that make those places their homes.

The EPBC Act is already failing to protect nature. We know that because that's been stated in the recent release of an independent review of that act, but this legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, which the government has rushed into this place today under the cover of a pandemic, will make it even worse. It will weaken the already pathetically weak protections that our environment has in Commonwealth law.

This amendment bill will accelerate the theft of our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It will accelerate the generational threat of their chance to have lives with the same levels of hope and opportunity that we have all had the chance to live. It will accelerate the death and displacement of billions of people during this century, and of course, as always, it is the people living in the deepest poverty who will pay the harshest price. They will pay in their droves with their lives, because this government is a corporatist government. It is part of a corporatist kleptocracy which is stealing the futures of so many of our families and so many future generations in this country. It is corporate profit and greed that is driving this destruction, which this government continues to enable time after time by moving amending legislation like this.

It's time we stood up and said enough. It's time we understood that we all rely on nature for our very survival and our very existence and that, in fact, we are part of nature. And you know what? You're all going to realise one day that we're part of nature, because nature is fighting back, and we are bearing the brunt of that in this country, with the bushfires, with the floods and with all of the other climate driven crises that are actually killing our people in Australia.

The Greens will of course fight this legislation all the way because it's bad legislation that fails to reflect fundamental realities about how nature works and how we, as humans, are part of the planetary ecosystem that ultimately we all rely on for our survival. Of course, we're happy and open to negotiate on the reporting date contained in Senator Hanson-Young's amendment. But, given that we have an obvious rationale for wanting to ensure that this legislation is not rushed through this place and given that the government at least occasionally pays lip service to the concept of listening to people, listening to communities and consulting with them, we urge the government to support our amendment and allow that listening process and that consultation to take place through the auspices of a Senate inquiry.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:00): Senator McKim has just let the cat out of the bag. Whether there's another inquiry or no inquiry, the Greens are going to fight this legislation all the way. An inquiry will make no difference. It is just another step—and this is what this is all about—in delaying and delaying. Senator Hanson-Young said that this legislation is a carbon copy of a piece of legislation that was introduced by the Abbott government. That is how long this has been inquired into by the Senate. This is how long the Greens have been fighting to delay this in going ahead. It's a carbon copy of a bill that was previously inquired into by a Senate committee.

So you want to have another committee into a carbon copy of a bill into which there has already been an inquiry. You have just exposed the absolute insincerity with which you are seeking to pursue this amendment. I can see how you're smiling and smirking, because you know that what I'm saying is true. This is not about scrutiny. This is not about assessing a piece of legislation. This is about delaying, pure and simple, fighting it all the way and making sure that here in Australia we can't secure passage of a piece of legislation that is designed to appropriately balance environmental protection with economic opportunity.

We want to continue to grow our economy. We want to create opportunities for Australians to get ahead, to get a job and to pursue a career. That is why we've always got to make sure we appropriately balance environmental protection with economic opportunity. That is why we need to ensure that we streamline and make the environmental approval processes more efficient. We completely reject the proposition that we're avoiding scrutiny. But we are not going to be part of a charade whose sole objective, as Senator McKim has confirmed on the record in this chamber today, is to fight this legislation all the way. He's going to fight it on the beaches—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Senator CORMANN: He's agreeing. So why would we waste our time with an inquiry that has absolutely no prospect of changing the Greens' minds? They're not going into this with an open mind. They're going into this with a very clear determination to kill the bill. I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that the Labor Party yet again have made themselves complicit in Greens' efforts to kill a bill that is designed to promote economic opportunity in a way that is environmentally responsible. We are proposing to work with the state Labor government in Western Australia. The state Labor government in Western Australia wants to work with us in order to get projects up in an environmentally responsible fashion.

We are always up for proper inquiries into new reforms that are coming forward, but we believe that six years of debate, six years of inquiries and six years of fighting this out is long enough. It is time to get on with it. It is time for the Senate to get on with it. We call on all senators who care about economic opportunity, who care about jobs for working Australians, to vote with us to reject this amendment to this Scrutiny of Bills Committee report.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:03): Senator Cormann has just let the cat out of the bag. This is about economic opportunity and economic development, not environmental protection. Senator Cormann, the name of the bill is 'environmental protection'. That's what it's supposed to be doing—not economic development. You've got lots of other bills to do that. The government's agenda is really clear here, folks. They've just introduced amendments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to—guess what?—designate gas a low-emission fuel. What is that? There's no way it is. It's a fossil fuel. Your gas-led recovery is so plain. You're prepared to trash the environment for the future to make sure that climate change runs rampant across this globe. That's what this is about.

We want to have a good look at what this bill does. This is simply to facilitate your agenda to trash the environment. Maybe when you're amending it you should amend it to the 'trash the environment bill', because that's what you are doing with this. You are trashing our environment laws. You have already overseen so much destruction: further loss of species, further threatening of species. You'll do anything you can to facilitate development no matter the cost to our precious environment, to our precious species. Your agenda is so patently clear, particularly on the same day as you're introducing this bill that makes a mockery of addressing climate change and emissions in this country.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:05): I rise to make some short comments on the amendment from my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. I associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues. This government is doing what it does best: hiding from scrutiny, avoiding transparency, making decisions behind closed doors. We know that this legislation is ecocide. We know that you are environmental vandals. That's pretty clear. All you see nature is is as a commodity to use and abuse. Why? For the benefit of those corporations who line your pockets so that you can come back in here and do the same thing all over again: destroy the environment.

This inquiry is about putting you, putting your government and putting this bill through a fine toothcomb, because the public deserve this. It is about the public knowing what you actually want to do, what your agenda is, and that is to destroy the environment. That's why this inquiry is important. Yes, we have known for years that you want to destroy it. You're vandals. This is ecocide. But the public doesn't know this and that's why this inquiry is so important.

Why won't you let the Senate do its job? You are stopping us from doing our job. Our job is to look at bills. What are you afraid of? If you're so confident that this bill is so great then let us put it through scrutiny. That's right: you don't have to be part of the inquiry if you don't want to be. You can stay home, but we want this bill to be looked into whether you want it or not. Yes, we will fight this bill tooth and nail no matter whether the inquiry goes on or not, because this is about the future of our people in Australia and across the world. This is about the future of the planet. We want to preserve and enhance the future for the generations to come and for the inherent value that the environment has.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted as moved by Senator Dean Smith.

Question agreed to.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:38): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Just over four months ago, I stood in this Chamber and introduced legislation to implement the JobKeeper Payment, the single largest fiscal measure in Australia's history.

Since then, more than 990,000 eligible organisations and more than 3.5 million employees have benefited from the $1,500 payment.

JobKeeper has, in the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Phil Lowe, "done a remarkable job."

It has supported millions of Australians and given businesses the support they desperately need to help them get to the other side.

The payment is fulfilling its promise: keeping businesses in business and Australians in jobs.

While originally expected to run for a six month period, following a review of the program, on 21 July the Government announced it would be extended by a further six months until 28 March 2021 and that the payment would be tapered in the December and March quarters to encourage businesses to adjust to the new environment.

The Government also announced that as part of extending the program, a two-tiered payment would also be introduced to better align the payment with the incomes of employees before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Government's decision recognised that Australia's economic recovery was still in its early stages and that a number of businesses and individuals remained significantly affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic.

At the time of being announced, these changes were expected to cost an additional $16.6 billion.

Subsequent to this announcement and following the introduction of stage four restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne and stage three restrictions across regional Victoria, the Government announced it would make further changes to the program in order to help more businesses qualify for JobKeeper.

On 7 August, the Government announced it would ease the eligibility requirements so that post 28 September 2020, organisations will only have to demonstrate that their actual turnovers have significantly declined in the previous quarter.

The Government also announced it would change the employee reference date, so that from 3 August 2020, the relevant date of employment for an eligible employee will move from 1 March to 1 July 2020, expanding employee eligibility.

The combined effect of the economic deterioration in Victoria which will see more firms needing to rely on JobKeeper and the eligibility changes announced on 7 August will see the cost of JobKeeper increase by around $15.6 billion.

These changes take the total cost of the JobKeeper payment to an estimated $101.3 billion.

The extension of the JobKeeper Payment will provide much needed support for those businesses that continue to be most impacted by this crisis.

Nowhere will this be more important than in Victoria where the extension of the program will help to cushion the blow for businesses and their employees that have been severely impacted by the restrictions which have been introduced in response to the recent second wave of infections.

Around $16.8 billion in JobKeeper payments are expected to flow into Victoria during the December 2020 and March 2021 quarters.

For many businesses, this support will be the difference between them remaining in business and reopening on the other side or having to permanently close their doors and let go of all their employees.

That is why this Bill is so important.

Schedule 1 to the Bill extends the prescribed period of operation for the Coronavirus payment framework, enabling the extension of the JobKeeper Payment until March 2021. Consequently, the ability to make amended Rules to give effect to the JobKeeper payment will be extended and the Rules can be further amended up until 28 March 2021.

The Bill also amends the relevant information sharing provisions to enable the ATO to share certain JobKeeper Payment information with Commonwealth, State and Territory government agencies to assist them in their efforts to address the impacts of the Coronavirus.

A two-tiered payment will also be introduced from 28 September. Employees who were employed for less than 20 hours a week on average in the four weekly pay periods ending before 1 March 2020 will receive the lower payment rate.

The phasing down of the JobKeeper Payment will ensure a smooth and gradual transition to economic recovery, while ensuring that those who most need support continue to receive it. The introduction of a two-tiered payment rate will also better align the JobKeeper payment with the pre-COVID incomes of recipients—particularly those who work part-time hours.

When the JobKeeper scheme was introduced, it was accompanied by temporary changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fair Work Act). These allowed those employers qualifying for JobKeeper greater flexibility in operating their business, so as to respond to the impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic and assisted their employees to remain in employment and connected to their workplaces.

The Government has heard from stakeholders and directly from employers that these provisions have been vital in keeping their business operational and keeping their employees in jobs. Survey results show that around three in four JobKeeper employers used the flexibilities in the provisions. Almost all of the employers surveyed that used the provisions said they were either important or essential for the continued operation of their business and for employees to keep their jobs.

Schedule 2 to the Bill supports the continued operation of the JobKeeper scheme by extending the temporary JobKeeper Fair Work provisions in Part 6-4C of the Fair Work Act, except for those relating to annual leave until 28 March 2021.

From 28 September 2020, employers who remain eligible for JobKeeper payments after this date will retain access to the full range of remaining flexibility measures in Part 6-4C in relation to employees for whom they are claiming the payment.

Legacy employers, being employers who have previously received the JobKeeper scheme, but who no longer qualify after 28 September 2020, will be able to access a modified version of the JobKeeper provisions in relation to employees for whom they previously received JobKeeper payments.

To do so, legacy employers will be required to hold a certificate from an eligible financial service provider stating that they have satisfied a 10 per cent decline in turnover test in the previous quarter before they can use the provisions, and again for each following quarter to have the flexibilities remain in place.

Under these changes, legacy employers will not be able to use a JobKeeper enabling stand down direction to direct an eligible employee to work less than 60 per cent of their pre-Coronavirus ordinary hours, and cannot require an employee to work less than two hours in a day on which the employee works. Pre-Coronavirus ordinary hours will be assessed using the employee's ordinary hours of work as at 1 March 2020.

Under these changes, the various safeguards that apply to the existing provisions will continue, including continuation of unfair dismissal rules, general protections and work health and safety laws to name just a few. And of course, an employer must continue to pay an employee in full, including any penalty rates or allowances applicable to hours they work.

There are also enhanced consultation and notice requirements for legacy employers before they can give an employee a JobKeeper enabling direction.

The JobKeeper Fair Work provisions provide greater operational flexibility for businesses in the recovery from the Coronavirus pandemic than the more rigid terms and conditions under awards and enterprise agreements and support the effective continuation of the JobKeeper wage subsidy scheme between September 2020 and March 2021.

The measures will provide continued workplace flexibility at a time when businesses are still in distress and recovering from the economic impact of the Coronavirus pandemic. Ensuring the viability of businesses in these circumstances will help preserve Australian jobs and assist employees to remain connected to their workplaces, resulting in minimised job losses and lower levels of unemployment.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Opposition for the constructive approach they have taken to progressing this legislation through the Parliament swiftly to provide certainty to Australian businesses and employees.

At an expected cost of over $100 billion, JobKeeper forms a vital part of the Government's plan to support Australians and Australian businesses during this crisis.

My message to every Australian is that the Government will continue to do what it takes during what is one of the most difficult times in our history.

Senator DUNIAM: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (12:39): Make no mistake as to what this is about: this is about jobs for North Queensland. Any attempt to stop this feasibility study from going forward is another dagger in the heart of North Queensland.

It wasn't more than a month ago that I fronted up to a Great Barrier Reef inquiry because of the punitive regulations put on our farmers in the Great Barrier Reef basin. The Labor Party want to drive a dagger through the heart of the cattle and cane industries. If I were to play a word association game with the words 'cattle and cane' and say, 'Name a state,' what would you think of?

Government senators: Queensland!

Senator RENNICK: You'd think of Queensland. Yet there is nothing that will stop the Labor Party from trying to destroy Queensland, and in particular North Queensland. North Queensland has so much potential. It has got rich land. We're going to build the Bradfield scheme if the Queensland LNP gets elected at the state election—we want to create jobs in North Queensland.

The other thing that really riles me, really grinds my gears, about the disallowance motion is the sheer hypocrisy. It's an election commitment that we want to honour because, as I mentioned before, we believe in democracy. We took this to the election. We gave the people a choice.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator RENNICK: A mandate, that's right. We on this side of the chamber are the party who believe in choice, not like that side of the chamber: command and control. It's the hypocrisy. The fact is that there has been $10 billion put into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation fund—a $10 billion subsidy for renewables. Do we hear the other side of the chamber complain about that? No. That's about 4,000 times the amount of money that we want to put into a feasibility study in North Queensland. Where is the equity?

A government senator: Nowhere.

Senator RENNICK: Nowhere! Of course, we always hear how solar is so much cheaper and renewables are now so much cheaper. Let me tell you this: if I look at the current prices, I see that they have been driven to zero in Queensland. That is totally unsustainable. Do you know why we have such a distorted energy market? Because of the Renewable Energy Target. I stood here six months ago and argued for setting prices for milk. I believe in a fair and level playing field and I'll do everything I can for our dairy farmers, but one thing I will never do is set output prices. I'll always level the playing field on the way in, but we always have to give people the opportunity to reach their potential. But we don't have a coal target. The reason why energy prices have been pushed up—until recently, when energy prices came down in the last three quarters thanks to the magnificent work of our energy minister, Angus Taylor, who, in spite of the unfounded allegations often made in this chamber, has done an outstanding job in driving prices down—is the Renewable Energy Target, which mandates that 33 terawatts of energy has to come from renewable energy. That is price-setting; that is communism. That's why those guys on the other side love price-setting—it's pure communism at its best.

Let's talk about the true cost of renewables. They never want to talk about the hidden costs of renewables. Sure, it might be free sunlight in the middle of the day, but guess what? You've got to transport that energy. This one is a real doozy; it came out a couple of weeks ago. To get renewable energy to make up 90 per cent of the grid, do you know how much money they have to spend to build all the transmission lines?

Government senators: How much?

Senator RENNICK: A hundred billion dollars. Do they count the cost of transmission when they talk about the price of renewable energy? I don't think so. Let's talk about storage. I heard Senator Waters last night: she wants to power manufacturing with renewable energy.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bilyk ): Order! Senator Rennick, it now being 12.45, we're moving to non-controversial government business.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:45): This afternoon we are debating a very important piece of legislation, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020. Labor very much welcomes the legislation before us, but it is somewhat belated. This government has taken a belated path to ensuring that Australian vitamin manufacturers are able to say Australian Made on their labels. This has been a problem now for some time.

These are, indeed, Australian-made goods of high quality that Australians consume and enjoy, but they are also critically important in their export markets. It is unfortunate that these goods have been caught up in the difficulties with the 'substantive transformation' test. Despite the fact that these vitamins and therapeutic goods are registered as Australian-made, under the Therapeutic Goods Act they were found to be in breach of the technicalities of the meaning of 'substantial transformation' for use of the Australian Made logo. It's taken too long for the government to fix this issue. Australian manufacturers of vitamins and mineral supplements have had to remove the Australian Made logo from their products, and they've had to do this because of the government's incompetence. Labor called on the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Karen Andrews, to act on this issue—to stop an industry that's worth $5 billion to the Australian economy from being forced offshore and to stop it from having the 30,000 jobs within it put at risk.

The labels were removed in the middle of 2019 as a result of uncertainty about whether vitamin manufacturers could legally use the Australian Made logo due to country-of-origin labelling changes which saw the introduction of the 'substantial transformation' test. We know that the changes made to the country-of-origin laws inadvertently created a contradiction, where complementary medicine is deemed to be manufactured in Australia under one law—the Therapeutic Goods Act—but doesn't meet the criteria under another.

Complementary Medicines Australia have advised that unfortunately this issue has already affected about 200 Australian Made licences, and that any further delay would risk future investment. So it's terrific that the legislation is now—belatedly—before the chamber and being debated in this non-contro time slot. We that know many of the companies that have made these investments are here in Australia, including Sanofi's $40 million investment in their Brisbane manufacturing facility. Companies have made these incredibly large investments, and they've done that because Australia has a good reputation for manufacturing high-quality vitamins and it's also respected for its pharmaceuticals. That means household names like Blackmores, Swisse, Nature's Own and Cenovis are able to produce high-quality goods here and export to the world.

In submissions to the Complementary Medicine Taskforce, one local manufacture described clarity around country-of-origin labelling as being critical to their business. The potential loss of the made-in-Australia claim will have a direct and undermining effect on their marketing in China, while a third has said that they would think twice about introducing new products if they were not able to claim they were made in Australia. It is one of the few manufacturing industries in Australia that isn't in decline, and I'm sad to say that the government, in dragging its feet on this issue, has put the sector in jeopardy.

Australian consumers also like to know where their vitamins and goods that they buy from their local pharmacy are manufactured. Many have a preference for Australian manufactured vitamins because, like the Chinese market, we believe in the high quality and the high standards of the vitamin manufacturing industries here. We raised the issue in September 2018, and that was following calls from the manufacturing industry in federal Labor. Finally, the government amended regulations to allow affected companies to use the logo until the legislation was passed.

Today, the bill before us seeks to amend the Competition and Consumer Act. Here we are creating an explicit power to prescribe one or more processes which will be deemed to satisfy the definition of 'substantially transformed' for the purposes of the country-of-origin provisions of the act. This definition means that manufacturers can rely on safe-harbour provisions so they can make representations regarding the country of origin of their products without otherwise breaching other provisions of the act.

We certainly know that being made in Australia is a competitive advantage for this industry. We want to be proud and show consumers around the world that the Australian Made logo is a trusted consumer logo. We know that 30,000 jobs and a $5 billion industry were put at risk for every day this government delayed action on this issue.

Minister Karen Andrews made a promise right back on 5 April 2019. She promised to heed Labor's concerns and make regulatory changes to protect these manufacturers. The minister said to industry, 'Industry should be assured that I am doing all I can to assist.' It's been 510 days since that promise. In that time, the Australian government has hurt manufacturers, workers and consumers. These actions have put at risk this industry which supports close to 30,000 jobs.

The time that this has taken to drag on will impact on millions of dollars of export revenue due to the inaction of this government. It's placed at risk future investment in vitamins and pharmaceuticals here in Australia, because manufacturers weren't able to act with the certainty that they wanted when it came to these therapeutic goods. We've seen this half-hearted approach to this multibillion dollar industry. It has led to businesses stripping their packaging of 'made in Australia'. It's increased threats to Australian jobs and businesses. We've seen those frequent threats over time. We can see very directly that the government's incompetence and inaction has harmed Australian companies, Australian workers and Australian wages.

Finally, though, Labor of course supports this bill. We welcome the fact that the government has at last finally taken action to address this issue. I do question why it has taken them so long to take action, and I really express Labor's concerns in the strongest possible terms about its lack of action and responsibility in making progress on this issue. That the government has not taken this issue seriously from the outset and accelerated its resolution more quickly is a great disappointment. It should have acted earlier to protect workers of this very significant industry. Put simply, 510 days is just simply too long for manufacturers to have been stuck in a scenario where they've been unable to display the fact that a product was made in Australia. It beggars belief that it has taken so long for the government to do, as the minister said, all it can to assist. There have been 510 days of inaction, 510 days of delay and 510 days of ignoring this issue and the 30,000 jobs it has put at risk.

We very much welcome the government finally taking action on this. Labor do support the bill, but we really want to see this government do better when it comes to Australian manufacturing. It's talked of things like a so-called gas led recovery, but it's going to take a lot more than that to get industry back up and running properly in Australia. This is a government that has been completely devoid of adequate industry policy. It says it wants to have a manufacturing led recovery and it talks about gas being a leading element of that. There are no other strings to the bow that this government has put forward that will support manufacturing jobs here in Australia. This is yet another example of government inaction that has seen a viable and thriving industry threatened.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:57): I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bilyk ) (12:57): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:58): Labor are pleased to support both the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020. As we have seen emerge in Australia and around the world, product stewardship can and must be an essential element of sustainable waste management. We can't simply gather all our waste together and leave it for disposal. We simply must get better at closing the recycling loop to make sure that, from cradle to grave, our products are sustainable and looked after. This means having waste management pathways that are recognised from the outset of the sourcing and manufacturing of those products through their use, easy return and disposal of by consumers and then indeed their recovery, recycling, reuse and, in some cases, safe disposal. In the Labor Party we've been committed to good waste management because we understand how important waste management is for our future generations. It was back in 2009 that the Labor government created a national waste policy establishing a national waste reporting process and, indeed, introducing the Product Stewardship Act 2011. It's completely reasonable for us as a nation to expect that designers and manufacturers of products can, and should, shoulder some of the responsibility for mitigating the environmental impacts of their products.

It's been terrific to see the focus of the ABC in recent weeks on encouraging people to look after the planet, including recycling. My son said to me last week: 'Mummy, small things can make a big difference.' It's clear in his mind that he is thinking of the individual actions that they take at his school where they recycle everything from toothpaste tubes, toothbrushes, bottle top lids, plastic tabs from bread roll packets—you name it and they have got an activity around recycling it at Maylands Peninsula Primary School. I would like to give that lovely school a shout-out today for their wonderful recycling efforts.

We can, and must, deepen our recycling efforts and work specifically with a much broader range of industries to get recycling happening. We know that currently in Australia about 500 million litres of lubricating oil is sold each year. Sadly, if it's not managed and recycled properly the risk of pollution to land and water is very serious. The Product Stewardship (Oil) Act established an important scheme that encourages recycling and discourages the harmful disposal of non-combustible oils. Labor very much notes that since the scheme was introduced in 2011 it has been very effective. Unfortunately, prior to that there was much pollution. Prior to that there was effectively no recycling of combustible oils at all. It's now the case, fortunately, that some 320 megalitres of oil gets recycled and properly disposed of each year. That is about half the total volume of such oil. It's a good community effort and a good environmental and public health outcome. We have before us the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020 which are bills to fix some shortcomings that have emerged.

We want to clarify the definition of oils in the PSO Act to apply to lubricant oils, fluid oils and other oils and greases manufactured from non-combustible base oils. We need to do this in order to reflect the original intention of the PSO scheme, therefore, excluding other oils such as diesel and other fuels for the purposes of this recycling and product stewardship legislation. Item 15 of the schedule to the Excise Tariff Act narrows the scope of petroleum based oils and synthetic equivalents oils, for which excise duties are imposed for the purposes of the PSO scheme, to exclude diesel and other fuels. Item 15 was inserted into the Excise Tariff Act for the purpose of levying oils covered by the PSO scheme and did not historically include duties on diesel and other fuels. So diesel and other fuels will continue to be subject to excise duties under other items in the schedules to the Excise Tariff Act.

In other words, the amendments to these bills address what has been a significant discrepancy within the legislative definition of the word 'oil'. We need to ensure that only non-combustible oils are included for the purposes of claiming the benefits within this Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. They were recommended by the ATO following a Federal Court decision in Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation. We saw in that case that it allowed a broad and unintended interpretation of the definition of oils in the PSO Act, with the effect that it could include some combustible oils, like diesel, thereby perverting the operation of the PSO Scheme. This case was launched by Caltex. The Federal Court found that there was this loophole and so they received $8 million of Commonwealth money. That, on any analysis, was indeed outside the intention and original purpose of that scheme.

It's disappointing that $8 million of revenue was lost from the Commonwealth. In this instance, I think it should be a matter of concern to a great many—$8 million is a lot of money when it comes to funding our health care, our schools, our aged-care needs, our recovery from bushfires and our efforts to do more to address homelessness. This is especially so in the face of the current circumstances of our nation. So I'm pleased that these amendments are here before us to prevent the re-occurrence of another significant loss of taxpayers' money. While I think that of course Caltex was at liberty to chase down this loophole and use it, it was indeed outside the intention of the original scheme for it to have been used in this way and I guess I'm disappointed that Caltex did seek to exploit that loophole and take the matter to court. It was never the intention of this act—never at all—to give refiners of combustible oils, such as Caltex, access to this scheme.

The Labor Party referred these bills to a Senate inquiry and we're very disappointed that the government refused to be transparent throughout this process. It showed an inability to explain the process it took in determining not to recoup the funds provided to Caltex via the Excise Tariff Act. I'd really like the government to take on board that disappointment and reconsider the way it thinks about these matters now and into the future. The government also delayed the statutory review of this legislation by three years and I think that underscores, despite all their rhetoric, a lack of commitment by this government to waste management and to the protection of Australia's environment.

Product stewardship is absolutely critical for our environmental future in this nation. We really should be looking to much more holistic product stewardship and involvement by government in clearing the path to make product stewardship viable and possible so that more and more of the products that Australian consumers buy have a proper recycling and waste management pathway. When it comes to waste and recycling, it is long past time for this government to take clear action—to take action on the three key areas of product stewardship: infrastructure, investment and procurement policy.

It's been incredible to me that Australia has lacked the ability to sustain a domestic recycling market—a recycling market which is much-needed to protect our environment and meet the expectations of the community. It has been extraordinary to see the fact that China has closed its doors to Australian recycling and yet it has taken such a long time for this government to get actively involved in making sure that we can create a viable and bright manufacturing economy that is based on the recycling of goods. Australia really should have a much stronger domestic recycling market. We know that it was only after several key trade nations banned the importation of our waste that the Commonwealth finally started looking at this issue.

Sadly, Australia only recycles 12 per cent of plastics and only 58 per cent of waste in total. Here in Australia we will need to increase our local plastic reprocessing capacity by some 400 per cent in order to effectively manage our own waste. So we've got a very long way to go on this journey. This government is far too slow to prioritise this issue, which is so incredibly important to Australians. Unfortunately, Australia has a very poor record on plastics. We stand to be heavily affected by plastic pollution in our oceans, and we are not doing our best to lead regional cooperation, including reducing plastic in the Pacific. We must lead by example.

I want to give a shout-out to the container deposit scheme for Western Australia that is about to start, in October this year. Its onset was delayed just a little bit by COVID. But it is due to be up and running just a couple of months after it was due to commence. This scheme, I think, will show that it is entirely possible to create positive manufacturing and positive community solutions to managing our waste in Australia. It's a scheme that will see community involvement where they will be able to tap into the profits of returning bottles and plastics for recycling, much like older Australians used to enjoy when we were kids.

So I call on this government to do more on recycling, and to do more for our climate and environment. It has been seven years and we have Australians still waiting for an energy policy from this Liberal government. We are still waiting for an energy system to deliver lower prices and lower emissions. This week, we've seen the government want to give another $3.3 million to support a new coal-fired power station. This is not good enough. Australians deserve much better environmental leadership.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:13): I thank all senators for their contribution. I thank them for their support and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Walsh ) (13:14): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:14): Labor supports the Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020, which amends the Norfolk Island Act 1979. It's always a pleasure to take an interest in the affairs of Norfolk Island, which is an important and unique territory of our nation. The amendments contained in this bill, as well as previous amendments made in 2018, are about enhancing and supporting the effective administration of Norfolk Island's justice system.

According to the 2016 census, Norfolk Island has a population of 1,748 people, so we have there a wonderful community—as Senator Seselja would well know—that has a small population in a very remote location. Amendments were made to the Norfolk Island Act back in 2018 to reflect the view that in some cases the best interests of justice might be served by holding a criminal trial away from the island itself, where there would be better access to resources, expertise and advice. There may be some cases, I'm sure, where jury trials, for example, are relevant, and I imagine that doing something like that in a small community would be quite difficult. The amendments before us were modelled after similar provisions that were created for Christmas Island in 1987. We think it's really important to ensure community confidence and the integrity of the Norfolk Island justice system.

The Norfolk Island Act 1979 established the island as a self-governing external territory. I've always reflected on how novel and interesting those powers were, because in many cases we saw a self-governing external territory with some 1,700 people that had more powers of self-government than, for example, the people of the Northern Territory. It really shows that we need to think carefully about how we govern Australia's so-called territories. We've recently had some debates led by Senator McCarthy in relation to electoral representation in the Northern Territory, that I think should be supported.

The arrangements back in 1979 were that the Norfolk Island government was required to deliver government services, including health care, education and infrastructure. I have been to Norfolk Island and, frankly, I have seen that for such a small community to have the enormous responsibility of delivering both state and Commonwealth public services is at times a grave disadvantage to the citizens there. There were weaknesses in the electricity network, roads were deteriorating and the hospital needed significant upkeep. The size and remoteness of the community made it difficult for them to deliver those services effectively. The arrangements in this bill are about improving governance arrangements in the territory and ensuring Norfolk Island can move forward and have a local community that is provided with the same opportunities that are afforded to every Australian.

I think one thing that led to the lack of sustainability for Norfolk Island, in terms of its capacity to keep up its own road, education and health systems, was that Norfolk Island had been a tax-free trading place for such a long time. Australians would go there for holidays to buy their luxury goods free of sales tax. They could travel to an Australian jurisdiction and buy their luxury goods free of sales tax. When John Howard brought in the GST and flattened those taxes, the Commonwealth did not take adequate account of what an enormous impact that would have on Norfolk Island's sustainability, and you can really mark the decline of Norfolk Island's tourism and their economy since that time.

So it's been really important that this parliament pay attention to the welfare of the population of Norfolk Island. In recent years, through the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—which in past years I've been a member of—we've seen members from both Labor and the coalition work with the department to develop and change the functioning of Norfolk Island, to the benefit of its local businesses and residents. I note that it has not always been a smooth path. Back when I was on the external territories committee, it was a complicated time because of the level of reform that was being undertaken. While taking over some of the powers of self-government that the island had, it was also recognising that, in exchange for taking over those powers of self-government, the citizens of the Norfolk Island community wanted and demanded access to health care, access to education and access to services that they had, effectively, been previously denied.

We have before us today a bill that's largely technical, with provision to ensure the smooth carriage of justice between Norfolk Island and the much broader Australian legal system. The bill makes changes to amend the definition of 'host jurisdiction' in the provisions authorising off-island sittings of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. These amendments are absolutely critical to removing any doubt that the Supreme Court may exercise its criminal or civil jurisdiction in a state, in the absence of an arrangement between the Commonwealth and the state government or authority, where no powers, duties or functions are conferred or imposed upon a state officer. The bill before us clarifies the basis under which travel allowances are determined for judges of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island, and this reflects the existing practices by which judges receive such allowances.

We in the Labor Party have consulted with the Law Council of Australia on the bill. We note that they raise concerns about the removal of subsection 60Q(6), which provides that fees and allowances of witnesses who appear in civil proceedings held in a host jurisdiction must be paid by the Commonwealth. It is highlighted in the explanatory memorandum to the bill that it is unreasonable for the Commonwealth to pay these fees in civil matters where, unlike in criminal matters, the parties concerned are normally responsible for the witnesses' expenses. So there's a rational argument here, but there's a need to monitor this situation because we really must ensure that this does not result in parties to civil proceedings incurring unreasonable additional costs during off-island sittings. I really want to underscore this issue to the government, because travel to and from Norfolk Island is very expensive, and I can only imagine that, given the current state of airline economies, it continues to be significantly expensive. I don't know, for example, the extent to which there are existing cross-subsidies for that travel that come from the Commonwealth government in order to make those travel costs reasonable. I certainly recall, back in my visits to Norfolk Island, that there was much debate about the need to keep air travel affordable, noting how isolated the island is.

In 2013, economic activity on the island was down some 24 per cent on the previous year. Forty per cent of shops had closed and many Norfolk Islanders were leaving the island for the Australian mainland or New Zealand. It's incredible to me that the Norfolk Island community has had access to social security and health benefits only since 2016. This includes the age pension, family tax benefits, Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. From July 2016, federal taxes replaced a range of really inefficient taxes and charges that were levied by the Norfolk Island government, including a local goods and services tax and punitive customs charges. I have to say, though, that I have some empathy for the Norfolk Island government's need to impose this ridiculous array of taxes, simply because their other revenue bases were so shallow and they didn't have the kind of basic income that was coming into the rest of the country through the provision of services like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare, social security and pensions. Norfolk Island's Legislative Assembly was transformed into a regional council, in line with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on National Capital and External Territories. That has allowed for a gradual adoption of New South Wales state laws within Norfolk Island, providing a body of modern law through which the island's economic recovery could be guaranteed. I note that Western Australia has a similar relationship with Cocos Islands and Christmas Island, where the state laws of Western Australia apply to those territories.

It's a real pleasure for me to be able to talk about these issues in the chamber today. It's not often enough that we're able to take note of the significant issues that confront our external territories like Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It's pleasing that Norfolk Island has been integrated into the Australian migration system to replace the migration arrangements maintained by the local government. We've seen Norfolk Islanders being provided with the same services as other Australians, while protecting their unique cultural identity and heritage. We've seen support extended to Norfolk Island through its transition at this really crucial time. This will ensure that they're able to survive this pandemic, because the banning of tourism and non-essential visits will have taken a significant toll. The island has been virus-free, which is terrific, but it has faced strict restrictions, like the rest of the Australian community. In March, non-essential visits were banned after the local government declared a state of emergency in the territory to protect its elderly population from the spread of the virus. And I have to say that that was a timely decision of the local government, and an effective decision, not unlike the decisions taken by the Western Australian government that have proven successful in keeping the virus out of our communities.

I acknowledge the importance of these changes. While we have taken over most of the governance when it comes to the laws of Norfolk Island, it's really important that we empower local communities to make these kinds of decisions because—as we can see in this case and in other cases where communities have been able to put in place their own travel restrictions—they've been very effective in keeping out coronavirus. We've seen that Norfolk Island has been impacted by food shortages due to disruptions to regular shipments, and we've seen heightened concerns around the spread of COVID-19 in Norfolk Island, meaning that additional restrictions have been brought in to stop people leaving their homes. We know that some elderly residents recently returned from the mainland and, unfortunately, they did flout quarantine measures.

We look forward to working closely with the government to ensure that Norfolk Island has a successful future. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:29): I want to thank all senators who have participated in the debate on the Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020. This bill makes technical amendments to provisions of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 dealing with the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. Amendments made to the act in 2018 authorised the Supreme Court to sit in a state or territory other than Norfolk Island in the exercise of its civil and criminal jurisdiction. These amendments allowed for a matter to be heard and a jury to be empanelled in another state or territory. The measures were modelled on similar amendments made for Christmas Island in 1987. The amendments in the bill address some technical issues regarding regulation of off-island sittings of the Supreme Court. These amendments also clarify the basis under which travelling allowances are determined for its judges. These amendments will enhance the effective administration of the Norfolk Island justice system.

As a senator for the ACT and as the senator representing Norfolk Island, I want to put on record, for those Australians who haven't visited Norfolk Island, what a stunningly beautiful place it is and also what an extraordinary community it is. Norfolk Islanders are proud of their history. They are proud of their very unique place in history. They are also a very community minded, family oriented and self-reliant, can-do community who, it must be said, have faced significant challenges right throughout their history. Indeed, we saw some challenges during the transition that Senator Pratt was referring to in her remarks. But I want to put on record that I know this has been a difficult time and that the isolation is being felt more than usual during this COVID period. I very much look forward to the opportunity to be there again in the not-too-distant future. They are, as I said, community minded, family minded, self-reliant and can-do. Can I make particular reference also to the fact that there is great pride on the island in the contribution that Norfolk Islanders have made to the defence of Australia through various conflicts. I want to pay tribute to all of those veterans on the island as well.

With those words, I again thank senators for their contributions and for their support for this bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Walsh ) (13:32): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:33): Labor will be supporting the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020. The purpose of the bill is to make the current voluntary $6 live dairy cattle export levy mandatory. This levy will fund the dairy cattle export program, which aims to improve research and development focusing on animal welfare, supply-chain efficiency, regulatory performance and market access. In 2018-19, Australia exported 92,456 dairy cows, valued at over $180 million. The countries that dairy cows were exported to include China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Oman, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. China received by far the highest number of Australian dairy cows, at 75,072. That saw an increase in trade of 164 per cent year on year.

Many Australians will be surprised to hear that Australia exports dairy cows to other countries and that levies are used to help exporters develop dairy herds in the importing countries. This is one of the reasons why the bill was referred to a Senate committee on 12 June this year.

The committee received six submissions, and submitters expressed strong support for the bill. The submitters included Australian Dairy Farmers and the National Farmers Federation, who were supportive of the legislation. It is important for the Senate to remind submitters to Senate inquiries that the committee system is there to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised and that government is held to account. The Australian Livestock Exporters Council has proposed to direct only $1 of the $6 per head to research and development and the remaining $5 per head to marketing activities, which would be spent predominantly in foreign importing countries. The annual report of LiveCorp, which is the live export research and development corporation, states that the current voluntary levy is split so that $4.80 goes to marketing and $1.20 goes to research and development.

As it stands, the levy is voluntary. According to evidence provided by LiveCorp to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, there are several problems with the voluntary component of the levy. These include the fluctuating and unreliable funding and cash flow, which limits effective budgeting and resource allocation; the limitations on long-term corporate engagements, such as recruitment and contracting; the efficiency losses through monitoring, identifying and chasing payments; the inability to enter into long-term, strategic or higher-cost projects; management of the risks of overservicing the program or the levy payers beyond the levy payments received; and management of the expectations from levy payers and stakeholders that exceed the capacity of the program. In addition, under a voluntary contribution arrangement it is more difficult to get consistent payment across a group of levy payers for industry good functions, as potential levy payers often have expectations linked to the service or benefits received by their individual business. This means that, according to LiveCorp, these challenges have constrained LiveCorp from successfully integrating the dairy program into its routine operations or meeting the expectations of stakeholders.

LiveCorp is not the only research and development corporation that is facing challenges in meeting the expectation of stakeholders. There are 15 research and development corporations, and many Australians will have little knowledge about the work they do. The structure of the RDCs is quite different today from when they were initially established by the Hon. John Kerin 30 years ago. John Kerin, the former Labor agriculture minister, believed—as did Labor generally—that government involvement in research and development is justified on the grounds of market failure, external benefits to society, research that supports the government's role in resource management and national interest consideration. They also believed that R&D is a form of investment and that there cannot be efficient resource allocation unless R&D administration is as efficient and effective as possible.

I won't go through the entire history of the various changes that have occurred since John Kerin established the RDCs, but the Senate should note that over the past 30 years they have morphed into hybrid industry-owned RDCs, such as LiveCorp, who collect levies from their stakeholder—who in this case would be the live animal exporters. Today the RDCs are funded primarily by statutory R&D levies or charges on various commodities, with matching funding from the Australian government. To expand Australia's rural R&D efforts, the government matches expenditure on eligible R&D, generally up to 0.5 per cent of the determined industry gross value of production. RDCs are accountable to both industry and government.

Levies for R&D and marketing are initiated at the request of industry and are collected and administered by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. These funds are distributed to the RDCs to undertake R&D and industry services. The live animal exporters are strong supporters of this bill, because currently the voluntary levy is undercollected. In 2019 only $15,000 was collected from the voluntary dairy levy. However, if the levy were compulsory, over $550,000 would have been collected. That is quite a difference in revenue for the RDC.

However, more funding does not necessarily equate to better routine operations nor to meeting the expectations of stakeholders. Many levy payers are concerned that their levies are not being used efficiently or effectively with regard to R&D and marketing. This is not just the view of Labor; Minister Littleproud commissioned Ernst & Young in 2018 to undertake a review into the R&D funding. It was a comprehensive review which was undertaken by the minister's current departmental secretary, Mr Andrew Metcalfe.

Before the 2019 election, as the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Littleproud, claimed, that the report would look at how to get the most out of Australia's rural innovation system through spurring cooperation and collaboration, attracting capital from around the globe and developing our research ideas into cutting-edge technology. Fast forward to today, and what has the minister done to ensure that Australia has a world-class, modern and dynamic rural innovation system? Absolutely nothing. Indeed, post the 2019 election, the agriculture minister was reported as telling the Farm Institute's annual conference that the RDCs could expect a shake-up:

"One focus I had before the election was around our research and development organisations, to make sure they are fit for future," Minister Littleproud said.

He went on:

"We are ranked number 20 in the world, we have just as many researchers as the US and the Netherlands who are number 4 and 6 in the world.

"As I went into South America, I remember hearing the Argentinians say you actually have the best research development people in the world, but they are bone lazy when it comes to commercialising their product."

The minister also talked about a culture change needed in the RDCs, and questioned:

"Are they fit for future? and how do we actually put a rocket under it and really drive it into a new pillar of agriculture," he said.

I would suggest that the minister stop talking about the problem and do something to fix it. We know that the minister's departmental secretary is an expert on the subject, as he was working for Ernst & Young when they spent over $2 million developing a report for the minister. Mr Metcalfe's consultation was extensive and included both international and domestic engagement with stakeholders, a number of regional roadshows and 23 workshops held in various locations around Australia. There can be no doubt that Mr Metcalfe is well aware of both the issues facing these programs and also the solutions.

In March 2019, the minister received the report titled Agricultural innovation—a national approach to grow Australia's future. The report made a number of recommendations aimed at benefiting all participants in Australia's agricultural innovation system. There are five recommendations in the report, including: strengthening leadership for strategic direction but also improving connections, collaboration and culture; balancing funding and investment to solve short-term challenges, as well as targeting transformational and cross-commodity outcomes; establishing world-class innovation practices, including disruptive thinking, ambition and entrepreneurship to maximise opportunities from our investments; strengthening the regions to maximise innovation uptake and to provide regions with a greater role in national priority setting; and establishing the next generation innovation platform for our data, physical infrastructure and regulatory environment.

Sadly, the minister has not acted on the problem and not acted on the report. He just continues to talk about the problem without having the courage to do the hard work of true reform to ensure that our research and development corporations are fit for purpose and that other countries are not calling our researchers 'bone lazy'. Ultimately, while Labor is supportive of the bill, we have real concerns about whether stakeholder expectations will be met, and we urge the government to work a hell of a lot harder to make that happen.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (13:44): I rise to speak on the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Chart) Bill 2020 as the Greens senator responsible for animal welfare.

This bill introduces a mandatory export charge per head of dairy cattle. It will provide for the imposition of an export charge on the export of dairy cattle and will amend the rate provision to provide for two different rates of charges, which differentiate dairy cattle from other cattle. A voluntary export charge of $3 per head was introduced in 2006 and raised to $6 in 2014. But over time exporters have stopped paying it. It is estimated that if a mandatory charge were in place during 2019 over $550,000 would have been raised.

It will come as no surprise to anyone inside this parliament, and outside for that matter, that the Greens and I strongly oppose the inherent cruelty of live exports. This opposition extends to the export of dairy cattle. We will not be supporting the bill that perpetuates misery for animals used in this trade. The Greens will be opposing this bill.

The funds currently raised for the voluntary charge go to the Australian Livestock Export Corporation, also known as LiveCorp, to fund its dairy cattle export program. This bill would ensure that $6 per head is paid to LiveCorp for that program. As described in the bill digest for this bill:

The Dairy Cattle Export Program provides advice and support for market access, conduct research and development for dairy cattle exports and participates on and provides funding to the National Arbovirus Monitoring Program to underpin market access opportunities.

The major problem with this initiative is that the industry wants the funds raised to principally go towards marketing for the dairy cattle live export industry—not animal health, not animal welfare but marketing. In fact, the live exporters proposed that $5 out of the $6 will be spent on marketing and only $1 out of the $6 will be spent on research and development. I can only describe this as galling and really disturbing. It is unconscionable that any additional money the live exporters were to receive would go towards making their cruel industry actually look good and making their cruel industry more profitable in overseas markets, rather than investing and trying to minimise the harm done that is done to animals that we know is so fundamental to this trade.

What about the $1 that will go towards research and development? What is it actually being spent on? Well, no-one really knows what this money is going to be spent on. It is time for some transparency and real accountability and oversight as to how this industry research is being conducted. Far too often it is done simply to protect the corporate interests of the industry and to undermine and distort genuine, independent evidence showing animal welfare concerns.

We need oversight of this research if it is to go ahead. This is particularly the case given that the federal government ordinarily matches industry research and development of this nature dollar for dollar. These are public funds that are going towards industry research that we know must have more scrutiny and more transparency. The live export industry has a shocking track record on animal welfare, that's a fact. It's an undeniable fact. This includes the welfare of dairy cattle.

In response to a Greens' question on notice in May this year, the government noted that Bos Taurus cattle were found to have suffered heat stress crossing the equator. I will quote the department's own response:

A total of 39 voyages accompanied by an Independent Observer (observer) carried Bos Taurus cattle from southern ports of Australia over the equator in 2019. Observers reported varying degrees of heat stress on 49 per cent of these voyages.

That's almost half of all voyages accompanied by an observer reporting the stress that the animals were put through. This is absolutely inhumane and it is cruel. Parliament should not be facilitating the collection of money so the live export industry can market its products overseas and can improve the marketing of cruelty, nor should it be facilitating research and development that often harms, rather than protects, animal welfare.

Over the last few months, we have seen more and more evidence of the fundamental cruelty of the live export trade. This is an industry that cannot be fixed or made humane. At the end of the day, it must be shut down. In June, when we were last in this chamber, I asked a question about the Al Kuwait live export ship, which had just been given an exemption to travel to the Middle East during the northern summer. In response, Senator Ruston, the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management said:

… this government has worked absolutely tirelessly with the industry, with the sector, with people who have an interest in the welfare of animals, to make sure our live export trade is done in a manner that is absolutely world's best practice.

She also said:

The Australian government is absolutely committed to upholding the absolutely very high standards of animal welfare while supporting a sustainable live export trade.

Now that that vessel has completed its trip to the Middle East, carrying a consignment of more than 33,000 sheep, and we have the government observer's report back, what did it find? It found clear evidence of serious animal welfare violations. About 1,000 sheep were identified as being subject to heat stress at score 4, which, according to the department's own heat stress score, indicates severe heat stress. Some people here may not care about the stress animals are put through, but they are living beings and we ought to care. This severe heat stress involves open-mouth panting with the tongue protruding, an appearance of being distressed and an extremely laboured respiratory character. A further 4,000 sheep were observed at score 3, which is the onset of heat stress, involving open-mouth panting, a laboured respiratory character and an appearance of extreme discomfort. Twenty-eight sheep also died on board and many more were hospitalised.

But we knew that this was going to happen. We knew that this was inevitable. That's why the rules were put in place in the first place. The risk to the animals travelling to that location at that time was incredibly high. It was the middle of summer. That's why, in fact, the department initially refused to grant the exemption—the risk was just too great. RSPCA Australia commented this month, saying:

Describing this voyage as a 'success' because relatively fewer sheep than usual actually died on board shows the industry is still clinging to outdated and inaccurate measures of animal welfare, something the 2018 McCarthy Review strongly warned against.

Mortality rates don't account for the tens of thousands of sheep that suffer terribly but survive. And these reports confirm that's exactly what's happened here.

I could not agree more.

We've also seen some shocking footage emerge from Animals Australia over the last few weeks, looking at the treatment of animals upon arrival in various countries. The live export industry continues to perpetuate this lie, this fiction, that animal cruelty is exceptional within their trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. The business model of the industry is based on animal cruelty, and that's why it has to be shut down. But I know that you, all sitting there across the chamber, don't give a damn. You don't care about animals. All you care about is the profits that they can make. Really, you should hang your heads in shame.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Senator FARUQI: Through you, Madam Acting Deputy Chair Walsh, if it's rubbish, why does it keep happening again and again? Why don't you stop the trade?

An honourable senator interjecting—

Senator FARUQI: Yes, exactly. You don't even have any shame. You have no shame. With this bill, you're going ahead and putting more money into marketing a cruel industry, and all that that will end up doing is having more animals suffering, more animals dying and more animals on these ships of misery.

This parliament should not be endorsing any further moves to make the live export industry and the live export lobby better resourced than they already are. I will be moving a second reading amendment to note the inherent cruelty of the live export trade and to call on the government to ensure that all funds raised by the Dairy Cattle Export Charge be allocated directly to transparently undertaking animal health and welfare initiatives. The amendment also calls on the government to bring an end to the live export industry in Australia. It's time, it's way beyond time, that this cruel industry ended. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes with concern:

(i) the inherent cruelty of the live export trade, including the well documented impacts of heat stress on sheep and cattle during voyages departing Australia, and

(ii) that thousands of animals die from heat stress and overcrowding on live export ships; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) bring an end to the live export industry in Australia,

(ii) ensure that all funds raised by the dairy export cattle charge, including co-contributions from the Australian Government, be allocated directly to animal health and welfare initiatives, and

(iii) ensure that all animal health and welfare initiatives, including research, is undertaken transparently with regular public reporting and appropriate oversight."

Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (13:54): I rise today to speak on the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020. Live animal exports are an important part of our agricultural sector, contributing an average of $1.7 billion in export earnings annually and employing more than 13,000 people—that is, more than 13,000 Australians rely on the live animal export industry for their jobs and their livelihoods, particularly across rural and regional Australia. This is certainly the case in the Northern Territory, northern Queensland, and over in Western Australia, where our producers and live-export supply chains support South-East Asian and Middle Eastern market exports. Approximately 80 per cent of live cattle exports are sent from the north.

To reiterate the significance of this industry to rural, regional and remote northern Australia: when former Minister Joe Ludwig suspended the live cattle export trade overnight in mid-2011, our producers were in the middle of their annual muster. About 40,000 head of cattle were on trucks, in holding yards or already on their way to Indonesia. Overnight, producers suddenly couldn't sell their cattle. They kept them on, on their properties. To compound the pain of no income, many of the producers didn't even get a wet season that year. Pasture declined, and the condition of the cattle declined. They were put down or producers had to pay to ship them south to domestic abattoirs, when and if they could. In the Northern Territory alone, tens of thousands of head were shot in the paddock or died before they could be. People took their own lives. There was severe distress. That is what Labor and the Greens did, and they have no shame. They have no remorse. Although the former minister did realise the impact of his kneejerk reaction, the damage to Australian producers and their families, our regional communities and our Indonesian trading partners, was well and truly done.

I have many friends in Indonesia: I have friends that are cattle producers, I have friends that are veterinarians and I have friends that are ordinary Indonesians. Madam Deputy President Walsh, I can't stress to you enough how this impacted them. They would say to me: 'Why has Australia done this to us? What have we done to you that you are taking away our food supply? Why do you hate us?' I commend our government for not appealing the Brett Cattle Company case that came out of that decision to suspend the trade. We've chosen not to put these families through any more hurt and turmoil. They have suffered enough.

I am proud to be part of a government committed to supporting an economically and socially sustainable live-export sector which will always make decisions based on robust science, not fantasy and emotion. This government condemns cruelty to animals, as do I. We have world-class animal welfare standards in Australia, absolutely world-class. We're committed to growing the value of Australian agriculture by facilitating trade and increasing market access, including supporting a strong and sustainable livestock export industry that underpins the livelihoods of farm families—again, particularly in our rural, regional and remote areas. At the same time, this government remains strongly committed to ensuring exceptional welfare standards are maintained in this trade and across all aspects of farming and animal production in this country. The overwhelming majority of livestock export voyages are undertaken without incident; however—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator McMahon, you'll be in continuation when debate resumes.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:40): Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References committee, Senator Kitching, I present the report Opportunities for strengthening Australia’s relations with the Republic of France, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:41): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:41): by leave—On the morning of 4 June last year, officers from the Australian Federal Police raided the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst. It was over a story published in April 2018 about a proposal to allow the Australian Signals Directorate, for the first time, to access the emails, bank records and text messages of Australians if approved by the Minister for Defence and Minister for Home Affairs. In May this year, Annika shared the impact of those raids on her. She wrote:

Would you prefer strangers look through your bras and briefs, or the contents of your bathroom cupboard and private text messages? I was forced to hand over the passcode to my mobile phone.

At the risk of further damaging the reputation of Millennials, giving police access to my iPhone—and therefore my text messages, search history and screenshots—filled me with incredible anxiety.

It might not sound like a hardship and it doesn't deserve comparisons with the horrifying violence inflicted on journalists in some countries, but this was an incredible intrusion.

The day after Annika Smethurst's home was raided, AFP officers raided the Sydney headquarters of the ABC. These raids were about a story from July 2017. The story related to alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. The day of the raids on Annika Smethurst's home, the Prime Minister was in London, and, when asked about the raids, he said, 'It never troubles me that our laws are being upheld.'

But those raids weren't simply about laws being upheld. They—quite comfortingly now—highlighted issues that exist within our national security legislation and framework. The following week I wrote in The Australian that we should review the balance between national security and press freedom. At the Midwinter Ball last year, in a room full of journalists, the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, made it clear:

Journalism is not a crime and should never be treated as such. It's something we simply can't be complacent about so we need to cherish it, we need to nurture it, and we need to support whatever legislative change is required to ensure that press freedom remains a central component of our democratic system.

That was Labor's position last year and it remains Labor's position today. Freedom of the press is central to a functioning democracy. A robust free press makes our democracy stronger and our nation more secure.

There are ever-present threats to our democracy, including foreign interference and espionage, but it wasn't until those raids in June 2019 that the parliament, the media and the Australian people would have thought that freedom of the press in Australia was under attack. When freedom of the press, a basic tenet of our democracy, is seen to be under attack, any government—Labor or Liberal—must speak up. When a perception of bias starts to develop around the police, the government must restore that trust. This report is a first step to doing both of those things.

From the outset I will make clear that Labor did not believe the PJCIS was the best forum for conducting a comprehensive inquiry into freedom of the press and the public's right to know. We proposed and attempted to establish a parliamentary joint committee set up for the specific purpose of recommending legislative and other steps to consider these matters. We believe such a committee would have been a better vehicle to consider whether the country's laws are getting the balance right between national security legislation and freedom of the press. This does not discredit the report that is being tabled today but rather highlights the fact that there is still more work to be done.

The final report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into freedom of the press has unanimously concluded that the existing law in Australia does not adequately protect freedom of the press. In total, the PJCIS report made 16 bipartisan recommendations and, if implemented, these recommendations would result in significant improvements in our laws, including improved legal protections for journalists.

The most significant changes recommended relate to how all overt and covert warrants that relate to a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or in a media organisation are contested and issued. The PJCIS accepted that law enforcement agencies should not be required to give journalists or media organisations prior notice of a warrant. However, the committee recommended that warrants for journalists or media organisations must be contestable by a public interest advocate before a senior judge. If these processes had been in place when law enforcement agencies sought warrants for News Corp's Annika Smethurst and two ABC journalists, Dan Oakes and Sam Clark, it's quite possible the outcomes would have been different.

The committee recommended four significant changes to how warrants relating to media organisations or journalists are issued: all warrants sought by an enforcement agency related to a media organisation or a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist must be considered and authorised by a superior court judge or a nominated Federal Court judge as the issuing authority; all warrants are to be contested in front of the issuing authority; a public interest advocate must make a submission to the issuing authority; and the issuing authority must consider both the application from the agency seeking the warrant and the submission from the public interest advocate. I will note the committee recommended that public interest advocates must be a QC or an SC or have served as a High Court judge or a state and territory supreme court judge and they would be appointed for five years.

The committee also determined that this new process of contested warrants should be expanded to apply not only to journalist's information warrants under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act but also to a number of pieces of legislation.

Finally, the committee recommended journalists' information warrants under the Telecommunications Act only be available in relation to an investigation of a serious offence, meaning those punishable by imprisonment of at least three years.

The PJCIS recommended a range of new record keeping and reporting requirements to ensure greater transparency for warrants relating to professional journalists and media organisations. This includes a requirement on government to publish the number of covert and overt warrants in relation to journalists issued under Commonwealth legislation. The committee made recommendations that go to the manner in which Commonwealth agencies interact with journalists and media organisations in order to better facilitate and support public interest journalism.

As mentioned earlier, the PJCIS made 16 bipartisan recommendations, including changes to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, changes to the way government classifies secret information and processes freedom-of-information requests and on harmonisation of state and territory shield laws.

This report is a valuable contribution to the public debate on this issue. But it's only the beginning point. There is considerably more work to do to protect the public's right to know. Labor calls on the Morrison government to urgently implement the bipartisan recommendations of the PJCIS and use those recommendations as a starting point for further reform. No journalist should ever face the prospect of being charged or jailed just for doing their job. Law enforcement agencies should never raid journalists just because they are embarrassing the government. A strong and independent media is vital to holding governments and oppositions to account and to informing the Australian public. Labor will always continue to fight to defend and strengthen press freedom and the public's right to know.

In conclusion, I would like to place on the record my appreciation of the Liberal members of the committee, including the chair, Andrew Hastie, for the constructive and bipartisan way we worked together to deliver this report. This report was an unusual one for the PJCIS; it was not the usual work of the committee. We did not review a specific piece of legislation. This committee is not normally tasked with both defining a problem and defining a solution. As such, it was a complex task, made even more difficult due to the restrictions COVID placed upon the parliament and its processes. In that vein, I acknowledge all the members of the committee, Labor and Liberal; the leadership of the chair, Andrew Hastie, and the deputy chair, Anthony Byrne; and the secretariat for their unfailing work and focus on ensuring that we were able to deliver this report to the parliament and the government.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:51): I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 9 of 2020 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 9 of 2020. In particular, I wish to draw the Senate's attention to three instruments which raise significant scrutiny concerns and are highlighted in chapter 1 of the monitor.

The first instrument that I draw the Senate's attention to is the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Deferral of Sunsetting—Income Management and Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2020. This instrument defers the sunsetting of primary legislation to extend the end date for the cashless debit card trial in all existing sites and income management in the Cape York region from 30 June 2020 to 31 December 2020. The committee would ordinarily expect such a significant measure to be included in primary legislation rather than delegated legislation, consistent with previous extensions to the cashless welfare arrangements. The government has justified the use of delegated legislation in this instance on the basis that the disruptions to the parliamentary sittings caused by COVID-19 prevented parliament from considering the extension before the arrangements expired on 30 June 2020. As parliament has now resumed a regular sitting pattern, the committee considers that there is no longer a reasonable justification for this matter to be included in delegated legislation. Accordingly, the committee calls on the minister to introduce the necessary bill without delay and advises the chamber of its intention to seek to disallow the instrument if the bill is not listed for consideration in the next sitting week.

The second instrument I wish to highlight is the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Dairy) Regulations 2019. The instrument creates the dairy code of conduct, which sets enforceable minimum conduct standards for business practices between dairy farmers and corporations that buy and sell milk. Since February this year, the committee has engaged extensively with the government about the imposition of significant civil penalties in section 11 of the instrument for failure to comply with the undefined term 'good faith'. As a matter of technical legislative scrutiny, the committee strongly considers that civil penalty provisions should be drafted with sufficient clarity to enable persons and entities to understand their obligations and the consequences of noncompliance. In particular, the committee considers that it is important for farmers on the ground to be able to understand their rights and obligations by reading the text on the face of the instrument without the need to also understand nebulous common-law concepts of good faith.

Examples provided by the Attorney-General, Treasurer and Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management of good faith obligations in other Commonwealth laws raised broader concerns about the pursuit of regulatory flexibility via the imposition of broadly drafted good faith provisions at the expense of legal clarity and certainty. Noting that the instrument raises complex systemic issues relevant to both delegated and primary legislation, the committee has requested that the Attorney-General refer the codification of good faith obligations in Commonwealth legislation to the Australian Law Reform Commission for inquiry. The Attorney-General's response will assist the committee in determining whether to withdraw the notice of motion to disallow the instrument, which must be considered by the Senate by 3 September 2020.

The third instrument is the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment (Threshold Test) Regulations 2020. This instrument has the effect of requiring the majority of actions relating to foreign investment in Australia to be notified to the Treasurer for review to assess whether they are contrary to the national interest. The instrument does not specify an end date to the measures. The committee is concerned that the failure to specify an end date in the instrument could mean that this COVID-19 response measure becomes an ongoing part of the law without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and debate. The committee has resolved to recommend that the Senate disallow the instrument and will therefore give a notice of motion to disallow the instrument on 1 September for consideration and debate in the Senate 15 sitting days after that date. If there are any further developments in relation to this matter, the committee may reconsider its recommendation and will report to the Senate in a future monitor.

Whilst these instruments raise significant scrutiny concerns, I am pleased to advise the chamber that monitor No. 9 also documents some positive developments regarding undertakings to address committee concerns. For example, I'm pleased to note that the health minister has amended the National Health (Take Home Naloxone Pilot) Special Arrangement 2019 in response to the committee's concerns about the delegation of the secretary's powers and functions to third-party administrators and the availability of public accountability measures in relation to the actions of third-party administrators.

Three other instruments have been amended in response to technical scrutiny concerns raised by the committee since the committee last reported. These undertakings are recorded in the monitor. The committee thanks the Minister for Education and the Department of Health for their constructive engagement on these matters and notes that this approach sets a positive precedent for the future.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 9 of 2020 to the Senate. I thank you, Madam Deputy President, for your indulgence.

Question agreed to.

Senator STOKER (Queensland) (15:57): I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. No sensible person who serves in this institution nor any person with an appreciation of our history would discount the importance of a free press to the integrity of our democracy. It is absolutely vital as a bulwark against tyranny. That principle operates in competition, though, with other really important principles. Those include the importance of all people being equal before the law—that the rule of law must apply to us all if it is to mean anything at all. It also includes a government's responsibility to keep Australians safe from those who would do harm to them or to our nation as a whole. They're all important considerations, and the challenge for any government is in getting the balance between each of those right.

I'm pleased to contribute to the debate on this report on the day that it is presented in this place. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge those members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security who worked really hard to consider submissions from many different groups and to work through what are complex problems in a proactive spirit designed to set this parliament up for good government long into the future. I'd like to thank the secretariat for its hard work. They are a dedicated and very skilled group of people. I'd also like to commend those opposite for the degree to which a bipartisan approach was taken. These are difficult matters, but there was a commendable spirit of cooperation among everybody on the committee in this process.

The inquiry was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in response to public interest arising from the execution of two search warrants by the Australian Federal Police in June 2019. It had evoked discussion among the public about the impact of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the ability of the press to do their job. It's worth acknowledging at this point that many of the concerns that were raised by members of the press at that point in time have already been the subject of action by the government, and I acknowledge those steps that have already been taken. Although those steps are welcome and they have been rightly implemented, nevertheless the committee, in its analysis, saw a number of other opportunities for meaningful reform.

We received submissions from a number of different bodies, but it's worth noting that the submissions we received, either in a documentary form or face-to-face, were dominated by media organisations and academic-style think tanks. There is nothing wrong with that, of course; however, they suffered from an understandable information asymmetry, for want of a better term, with the agencies who need the benefit of these protections. After all, the very complaint that those media organisations were making was that they didn't have visibility on the sensitive information about security that is held by our national security agencies. There is nothing surprising about that. But it's also true to say that the beneficiaries of the protection of our security agencies are ordinary Australian citizens, and they don't tend to be the kinds of people who put pen to paper to write a submission to a parliamentary inquiry or, indeed, to seek the opportunity to present for themselves at our hearings.

I think that's something we should acknowledge more often in the work of all of the committees of this parliament. For all the bluster we hear in this place about vested interests, it's true to say that the interests of regular Australians and the interests of the person pursuing a quiet life can get lost amongst all the groups, of all different types, with an activist agenda.

In any event, the committee worked together very well and has come up with a number of opportunities for the further reform of the law in this field. I want to touch on a few of those. We can improve upon our current regime for the issuing of warrants where they are required to be issued against a journalist. Our recommendations make that clear. We've recommended that the existing role of the public interest advocate, as exists under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, be amended and expanded to apply to warrants that involve the investigation of unauthorised disclosures of government information where that relates to journalists and media organisations. In recognition of the gravity of the occasions where national security may encroach upon the freedom of the press, the committee has also recommended elevating the qualifications that are required for those people who both serve as public interest advocates and who serve as issuing authorities for warrant applications. We've recommended that it no longer be the case that you can nip down to the local JP or magistrate for a warrant of this kind but that it should be dealt with by people who are exceptionally qualified—at the Queen's Counsel, Senior Counsel, judge or retired judge levels of a superior court. Specifically, we've recommended that all warrants sought by an enforcement agency related to a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist, or a media organisation, should have that higher level of qualification.

While the committee has not acceded to a request that was made by those in the media for an exemption from particular crimes that arise from the disclosure and possession of particular secret information, we've nevertheless agreed that there is an appropriate place for defences to a number of secrecy offences and that those defences should be considered for expansion in certain cases.

It's important that, in considering the role of the public interest advocate, the scope of what they are asked to do is fully understood. The committee has recommended that public interest advocates stand in the shoes of the public's interest in a free press. It's not publicly funding a lawyer to go and act for a journalist in their professional capacity; nor is it a publicly funded lawyer who goes and stands in the shoes of News Corp to argue against our law enforcement agencies. Instead, it's a publicly funded public interest advocate who will stand in the shoes of the interests of you and me in the protection of our institutions by the protection of the principle of a free press. I think that's an important distinction to make, and one that the committee thought was important.

The committee acknowledges that there was a role, at least in the events giving rise to this committee inquiry, for better cooperation between journalists, media organisations and government departments. We've recommended that the government consider a mechanism for journalists and media organisations to better communicate with one another and the originating agency of information that they wish to put into the public domain and that they should get credit for that attempt to constructively liaise with our national agencies so that they have an assurance that they're not going to face prosecution in circumstances where they are genuinely working constructively in the public interest.

The committee also noted the concerns that had been raised about the appropriateness of national security classifications of documents and recommended that oversight bodies audit and inquire into the application and the implementation of the National Security Classification Framework so that we can be sure that there isn't a pattern of overclassification of documents, so to speak. Finally, the committee noted that it is really important that the impact of these recommendations be measurable, so we have suggested that there should be additional reporting measures on the frequency of warrants of this kind being sought, the degree to which the service of the public interest advocate is employed, their level of qualification and the activity in which those public interest advocates are engaged.

This is an important report, and it has been put together constructively by members of the committee. With that, I commend it to the Senate with my fullest endorsement.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:07): I can't recall whether Senator Keneally sought leave to continue her remarks. In case she didn't, I also rise to take note of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (16:08): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to speak on the President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports. This report shows the status of responses as at 31 December last year. At that time, the response of the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century was more than six months overdue. Today this report is still overdue, by more than 15 months. Why has the Morrison government been so slack in responding to this report, which addresses important issues for the charities and not-for-profit sector?

Is it because they've had six ministers responsible for charities over the seven years they've been in power, or could it be because they've got nothing to report? It has been two years since the independent review and the ACNC called on the Morrison government to fix our outdated charity fundraising laws. The select committee inquiry reiterated this call in its report. Even government senators—Senator Abetz and Senator Stoker—joined the call for their own government to act urgently.

The responsible minister, Senator Seselja, continues to claim he is in discussions with the states and territories. We're all wondering if these discussions will ever end? Will there ever be an outcome? What is the agenda? What actions have been agreed to so far? Has the assistant minister lobbied the COVID-19 Coordination Commission or its not-for-profit working group? Has he added this simple solution to national cabinet's list of harmonisation priorities? If he has, why has nothing happened? If the assistant minister cannot answer these basic questions then we can only conclude that nothing has been progressed and he is dragging his feet while charities are dragged down by unnecessary regulation.

Every month that goes by that this government fails to act on this red tape nightmare is costing charities over $1 million. That's money donated by Australians for important social and environmental causes just going down the drain, because of the government's failure to act once again. If Senator Seselja and the Morrison government would hurry up and do their jobs they could provide some much-needed relief to a sector which is facing a perfect storm.

According to JBWere donations are expected to fall by seven per cent in 2020 and a further 12 per cent in 2021. At the same time charities are experiencing a massive increase in demand for their services, 50 per cent in the case of Foodbank and almost 80 per cent for Cystic Fibrosis Australia. A report by Social Ventures Australia and the Centre for Social Impacts notes that one in six charities could be forced to close by Christmas—one in six!

A range of charities have come together during the pandemic to form the Charities Crisis Cabinet. The CCC has told the government, in their prebudget submission, that the time for action on reforming charity fundraising regulation was, 'more than 25 years ago'. It's completely outrageous that after almost two years this government has failed to act on an inquiry report which had support from all parties that participated. It's time for the Morrison government to take some leadership, to fix Australia's outdated and burdensome charity fundraising laws and to actually show that they care about the people who work in charities and not-for-profits. They are happy when something like COVID-19 comes along and they need support from the charities. They're out there. They probably do a bit of a spin around a couple of them, but they won't actually do anything to fix the issue, and that's what the issue is here today.

It's nearly 15 months since the Senate select committee handed down its report and nearly two years since the ACNC handed down their report. Both say the same things. Both are asking for this government to actually do something, to get off their backsides, to pull up their socks and to sharpen their pencils. If they can't do it all at once then do it in pieces, but for heaven's sake do something. Don't just keep spinning. Don't just keep giving us media releases, little TV advertisements and little bits of social media; actually do something. COVID-19 has made this hit the mark for so many Australians: the one thing this government has proven is that it is pretty good at spin—I don't deny that—but they don't actually ever deliver the goods. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Senator DEAN SMITH ( Western Australia — Government Whip in the Senate ) ( 16:15 ): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I'd like to use this opportunity on behalf of all of the senators in this place, I'm sure, to acknowledge our appreciation—indeed, the appreciation of many, many, many Australians—of Professor Brendan Murphy's stewardship of our country's health response in what we all hope will be the final stages of a short pandemic. Professor Murphy is familiar to some senators who have spent their time on the community affairs committee. At the Senate estimates hearings, Professor Murphy sits from the very beginning of the community affairs Senate estimates hearings to the very, very end of them. Those people who are avid watchers of the estimates process—and I notice that Senator Siewert is here—know that Professor Murphy's contributions, when they're called upon, have always been tremendously insightful. They've been concise, which is a virtue at Senate estimates proceedings.

It has been good that the whole country has been able to see Professor Brendan Murphy's immense talents and his health expertise, and I wanted to use this brief opportunity on behalf of all senators and on behalf of my Western Australian constituents to extend our deepest appreciation for the work that he did as Chief Medical Officer for the Commonwealth. Of course, he now moves into a new role, and we'll see him again at Senate estimates in a few months time as the new Secretary of the Department of Health. We thank him for his service to date, and we look forward to his service and contribution in the future.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:18): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This report was a very, very important report. It was important then, and it's even more important now. I'll remind people what this report is. This is the Community Affairs References Committee report, Effectiveness of the aged care quality assessment and accreditation framework for protecting residents from abuse and poor practices, and ensuring proper clinical and medical care standards are maintained and practised. I'm talking to the government response to that report. And, given the circumstances, I'm even more disappointed about this response than I would have been otherwise.

In response to most of these very important recommendations, the government 'notes' the recommendation. For example, the government 'notes' the committee's recommendation that the Australian government clarify that residential aged-care providers ultimately hold a duty of care to all residents. You would have thought, given that the committee thought it was so important that we raised it, that the government would do more than just note that recommendation. The government 'notes' the recommendation that the requirements for a model of care and clinical governance framework be more clearly articulated within the Single Aged Care Quality Framework. Again, you would think it would do more than just note that.

Can I remind senators that this report was tabled in April 2019. I would very strongly argue the government has had plenty of time to start addressing these very important matters. The government 'notes' the recommendation that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission work collaboratively to develop benchmarks on staffing levels and skill mix, which includes the requirements to roster on a registered nurse at all times. The government 'notes' that that's what the committee recommended. How many times does this government need to be reminded, and asked, to fix staffing levels in aged-care facilities? I've lost count, in fact. This is another very important recommendation. I would argue very strongly that, if the government had taken action on these recommendations, it would have addressed a lot of the failures that we see happening right now, particularly if they had addressed the issue of clinical care.

These residential facilities are subacute care facilities now, because what we've seen over the years—as I'm sure all the people in this place who take a very deep interest in aged care know—is a gradual move, from low-level care not being provided in residential aged-care facilities any more, to high-level care. What we were seeing before COVID-19 is residents being shuffled into emergency departments and back to resi care. It's like a revolving door. As soon as there's trouble, people are hiked off to emergency care. It very strongly upsets residents, and it very strongly upsets their families. These issues have not been resolved. The government is not resolving the issue around duty of care. During the inquiry there were very strong arguments raised by some providers that, in fact, they were clinical care providers. We are talking about high-level care here, high-level care for residents. This should have been resolved a long time ago, and that has not happened.

I'd argue, as I said, very, very strongly, that these recommendations need more than just 'noting'. There's been very little progress in addressing these major issues. There's been very little progress towards fixing the workforce issues that we raised here and that were also raised by the Aged Care Workforce Taskforce chaired by Professor Pollaers, who made, I think it was 14 recommendations. We have not seen a commitment to implementing those recommendations. The government started that task force. They got that operating—while the community affairs committee's previous aged care inquiry, on workforce, was underway; I'm glad the government was so responsive! Again, we haven't seen those recommendations implemented, neither the recommendations from the committee nor those from the Pollaers task force report. There's a litany of failures here. I look forward to contributing to the general business discussion we're having very shortly. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:24): I rise to take note of the Joint Standing committee on the NDIS's recently released report into supported independent living. It was quite an extensive inquiry and series of hearings that were held, to the point that the committee made 45 recommendations. I think it's worth noting, though, when we consider supported independent living, or SIL, that it's probably one of the last legacy items from the previous way that disability was funded, often through block funding, now into the National Disability Insurance Scheme and through the NDIA. Obviously, that carries with it a very different philosophy with regard to choice and control. It ensures that participants have the ability to live their best lives under their choices, as opposed to fundamentally getting what they were given. That is what occurred too often in the past.

I would like to touch on just a few of the recommendations that we made in this report and how I think that there may be an opportunity in the future to go further with these recommendations. Certainly, with the NDIS definitely in its infancy, things will still require tweaking to ensure that people with a disability and their families are receiving the best possible opportunities that the NDIA and the NDIS can deliver.

SIL was fundamentally a move from the old group home situation. Whilst a number of the states underwent a process to offload their bricks-and-mortar services, unfortunately, these were primarily given to large providers who were previously block-funded. These providers were well known by disability departments at the state government level. This was unfortunate, because many new and more agile providers were not given the opportunity to participate and, secondly, a number of the large, formally block funded providers had form in providing incredibly poor service to their residents. In fact, a number of them had been under investigation previously for mistreating their clients. So, basically, it was disappointing to see a continuation of this under SIL. Certainly, these providers have not necessarily been in line with the choice-of-control ethos of the NDIS. Unfortunately, I think that in a lot of SIL situations we're continuing to see this.

I just want to touch on a couple of the recommendations briefly. Recommendation No. 6 is about providing some sort of guidance for families and allowing them more information and choice when it comes to finding a facility for their loved ones. Sometimes finding information can be incredibly difficult. Again, it also impedes on a family's ability to make the best choices for their family member. Recommendation No. 12 says:

… participants have the opportunity to review and agree to quotes …

What is fundamentally different between SIL and every other part of the NDIS is that SIL providers themselves negotiate with the NDIA on what the funding requirements are. They provide the quote and it is all done without the involvement of the participant or their family.

The other problem with current SIL arrangements is that there is very little choice as to where these people move into shared or individual support. Also, they have very limited ability to choose who they are able to live with. If people have grown up together and move into a SIL environment—a group home environment—they have very little ability to choose to live with each other because of the way the former block-funded, and now SIL funded, providers offer their services. We have made recommendations, under 18, 19, 20 and 21, that more information be available but that there is also support to move residence, that if you are unhappy with your provider then the support is there for you to move.

I think that recommendations 24 and 25 are some of the most critical recommendations that the report makes. They are ones that I'm certainly going to follow up on and make sure there is movement on. We need to see a separation of the bricks-and-mortar provision and the service provision. That ensures that if you want to own the houses, if you want to own the bricks and mortar, and you fundamentally want to be involved in property management then that's great and that's what you can do. If you want to be a disability service provider and ensure that people have access to the best opportunities in life then you can be a service provider. By allowing the two together there is the sense of punitive threats being made about security of housing if you decide that you don't want to use your housing provider as your service provider.

In recommendation 27 we also say that there should be a vacancy register, which would assist families further. We also acknowledged under recommendations 38 and 39 that there are issues with access in thin markets. Those recommendations also establish a provider of last resort.

Finally, I would like to see the commission look at more active monitoring and look at advanced analytics to ensure participants have not been disadvantaged by decisions of SIL providers and have not, in fact, been reinstitutionalised via stealth under the provision of COVID-19. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (16:30): This report is a really important topic and a topic that I'm very, very interested in. In fact, it's one of the things that inspired me to stand for parliament. I've got experience in the employment services area, having spent 10 years working across it to see improvements and get outcomes for long-term unemployed Aboriginal people.

I rise to speak on this particular report, Jobactive: failing those it is intended to serve, an important report that's had a look at the employment services system. The employment services system—jobactive, as it's called—is incredibly important. It's a key plank of this government's strategy to assist people to get the skills that they need and the support that they need to address barriers that they might have to employment, so they can get off welfare and, importantly, get into a job. We know how important that is.

This report has had a look at the system, and the government takes a lot of pride in this system. It's improved significantly over the years, but the government does acknowledge that there is further room for improvement. As I said, it was one of the things that inspired me to come into this place. I feel like it's something that I can contribute to now as a legislator—assisting with the further improvement of the system. We must ensure that we're getting better outcomes, and not just for the investment that the taxpayer is putting into the system.

We spend, over the life of the contract, about $7 billion on jobactive. We can, indeed, get better outcomes for the taxpayer in terms of the outcomes we could achieve, but also, importantly, we could get better outcomes for the participants in the jobactive system. One of the points that this report goes to, particularly in the government's response, refers to a review that was commissioned by the employment minister, Minister Cash, to have a look at the jobactive system. Before coming into parliament, I was appointed as an expert witness to sit on the panel that was looking at the employment services system. I was appointed as a participant on that panel to look at the system and to see how it could be improved.

The report goes to some of those key recommendations that were made out of the evaluation of the system. Those recommendations have been put in place in a trial that is now underway in Adelaide and also on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. Ultimately, what this is trialling is a very different way of operating. It's a different way of working with the jobactive system. It's providing a much more flexible opportunity for jobseekers to engage with the system. It's important that we don't just impose upon people or require people, as part of their mutual obligations, to deal with a binary or simple response to their activation. We must ensure that we're requiring people to engage in activities that are going to improve their capacity to get off welfare and, ultimately, into a job. This system that's being trialled is a much more flexible system. It's a points based system of activation. It gives jobseekers flexibility—through various activities, whether it be training, work experience or even searching for a job—to meet their obligations, and that is something worth trialling, and it is being trialled right now in those areas.

There is also a digital aspect of the trial. There are many jobseekers, particularly those who have only recently become unemployed, who have a lot of skills and just need a little bit of support with access to information so that they can self-service, if you like, to get themselves into a job and get the requisite training and support. So this system is being trialled. The government has actually taken this report, but there is a lot of activity in place already. There is a lot that we are already doing to implement the recommendations from this report.

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:35): I rise to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme NDIS planning interim report. Whilst I note this is an interim report, I would like to acknowledge the work of Minister Stuart Robert, in that some of these recommendations are already being implemented and we are already starting to receive feedback, via the committee, into the benefits that we are going to see through the implementation of these recommendations.

The interim report at the moment has made 14 recommendations, and they are based around the planning system of the NDIS. For many families—mine included—one of the most stressful times of year is when you are preparing for your planning meeting. We did make a recommendation in an earlier report about allowing two-year plans. That has come into play. By its very nature, that has reduced by half the number of times people need to go into a planning process, which also then has flow-on effects with regard to staffing and ensuring that people are getting speedy remedies.

I want to discuss some of the recommendations that were made and why they were so significant. One of the most truly disappointing things that you hear from people with a disability or from their families and advocates is the lack of understanding of planners when they go into a planning meeting. As the mother of a child with autism who has done a lot of work in that space previously, I can say that, when you have a planner ask a family when their five-year-old or nine-year-old is going to outgrow autism—which is a lifelong disability—it can be incredibly frustrating, upsetting and disappointing. It also gives that family very little faith that the planner is actually going to understand the impact of the disability, what it means, what it looks like and what supports will be required. So one of the recommendations that the committee made, and the minister has taken this on board, is looking at better training for planners and looking at having disability-specific planners. When 30 per cent of the cohort within the NDIS have autism, it probably makes a bit of sense to have some autism-specific planners—as well as for multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy or whatever it might be. It is important that people have access to people that properly understand their disability.

Another problem that we were constantly hearing about was the review process of plans—when people were receiving their plans and that the supports were not adequate. But quite often it wasn't the whole plan that was wrong. There might have just been one or two sections that were not quite doing what they were supposed to do, were not quite addressing the issues in the way they should be addressed. One of those issues was that, when people wanted to have a review of their plan, they had to have the entire plan reviewed and this was a lengthy process that often led to delays and lags between plans expiring and new plans being implemented. So we have recommendations addressing that. Allowing people to now review just a part of their plan gives them more security, more assurance, that they can use the other parts of their plan, if they're happy with them moving forward, without feeling that they're putting their whole plan at risk by going through a total review process.

In a further step, the committee looked at ensuring that participants of the NDIS are able to review their plan before it goes to the NDIA delegate to sign off. This means if there are any hiccups—any little parts that have been missed or accidentally overlooked or where amounts of money have been decreased unnecessarily or there has been an issue with a particular part of the plan—then the participant and their family are able to look at it before it gets signed off. By ensuring this happens, we are looking at reducing the number of reviews that take place.

The minister has been incredibly receptive. This is an interim report. We are continuing to look at it, but we are certainly hearing feedback on the ground and through the hearings about the changes that have already come into play, the changes that are already starting to roll out: these changes in planning will make a huge difference to participants and their families.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:41): I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the independent observer report on MV Al Kuwait.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:41): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise this evening to speak once again on a topic that's very close to my heart given both my background with a family farm and that I am so close to this industry. Before coming to this place I was for some time a policy director with the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, where I dealt with both the sheep and cattle livestock industries in Western Australia. I have an obvious affinity and love for the agricultural industries, and the live export industry is a key part of that broader industry.

If I've said this once, I've probably said it a thousand times, and I'm going to say it again: we do not just export livestock; we export the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We export those to our trading partners, who in many cases do not necessarily have the same standards that we have. So, in ensuring that the livestock coming out of Australia are handled through our ESCA System and through world-class facilities with a very careful attention to detail in both the transportation and handling of that livestock, we are exporting the highest level of animal welfare standards to the world.

This government is committed, in fact, to growing the value of agriculture by facilitating trade and increasing market access around the world, including a strong and sustainable livestock export industry that underpins the livelihoods of family farms. And it's not just those family farms. I know those family farms well; I was out just last week with my good friend Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, in places such as Darkan, Kojonup and Katanning, and I've visited many other farming communities before. It's not just the farming families that seek to preserve this industry with the highest standards. It's the truckies. It's the feedlot operators. It's the yard hands, the stock hands in those feedlots and on board the ships. It's the hay producers, the pelletisers that produce the feed for those voyages. It's the mechanics. It's the shearers. It's the veterinarians that keep the livestock healthy.

This industry spreads right throughout regional Western Australia in particular, and it's important to remember that this is a $1.7 billion industry. It supports around 10,000 jobs directly. In the case of the sheep part of the livestock industry, that's mainly in my home state of Western Australia and it's mainly in one federal electorate: O'Connor. It also extends into the federal electorate of Durack, of another good friend, Melissa Price, and there is a small quantity sourced out of South Australia. But the vast majority of the live export trade in sheep comes out of one electorate, and that means it doesn't necessarily have the political muscle. What it does have is the strong support of this side of the house, this side of the Senate and this side of the other chamber. The government is a strong supporter, committed to the economic wellbeing, the sustainability of the live export sector, with the highest levels of animal welfare and with a regulatory regime that is absolutely based on the best available science.

You've got to remember that the vast majority of live export voyages are undertaken without incident. In fact, the most recent voyage that happened during the northern summer moratorium period, under an exemption, had an absolutely outstanding result: 33,341 sheep and a mortality rate of 0.08 per cent. There were 28 mortalities, not one of them attributable to heat stress. I challenge all those who talk about the contents of this independent observer's report and selectively pick from the report to go onto the website and watch the time-lapse footage of the sheep aboard that ship throughout that entire journey. The footage is available, and I would encourage all those Australians who have concerns about the industry to go and watch that footage, because that footage will demonstrate that the welfare of those animals was very well looked after throughout the voyage. It's there for everyone to see.

This is an area where the industry has grasped the issues they faced in the past couple of years and made significant improvements. They are committed to openness and transparency. That is why, through organisations such as the Sheep Collective and the Cattle Collective, they are publishing extraordinary amounts of information, available to the general public, so that they can see the reality—not the confected reality that some in the activist community want to portray but the reality of what is happening on these live export voyages. You can see this for yourself if you go to the Facebook pages or websites of the Sheep Collective and the Cattle Collective. Together they call themselves the Livestock Collective. You can see the time-lapse footage for yourself, and I would encourage every Australian who has some concerns to go and look at that footage. Don't trust the words of the activists; you cannot.

In the few minutes I have remaining I want to quote from the conclusion of the independent observer's report—again, to demonstrate that this was a highly competent exercise, an export vessel that was undertaken with the highest levels of probity and care for the livestock involved:

Exporter arrangements were observed to be implemented during the voyage, and to be compliant with ASEL requirements. The observer stated that the causes of the mortalities were not linked to any systemic failure of the exporter. The observer described that the AAV,—

That's the Australian authorised veterinarian—

stockpersons, vessel's officers and crew carefully monitored sheep during their daily activity routines and were committed to the positive outcomes for sheep.

And this is not just aboard that vessel; this is right across the industry.

Having come from a farming background, having spent many thousands of hours with farmers on farm, in yards, in shearing sheds, I know that the vast, vast, vast majority of this industry is absolutely committed to the highest standards of animal welfare. And anyone who says otherwise is, quite frankly, lying. The industry is committed to improvement, and you can see that in the hard data. If you look at the mortality rate for live export vessels going back over a period of years you see a slow and steady decline in the level of mortalities. You see constant improvement.

Yes, the industry has improved its activity over the last two years in the face of some public concern and strong government action, but that is not the industry coming late to this party. It has been on a constant journey of improvement for decades. That is something that I am absolutely committed to making sure Australians understand through my voice in this place. The livestock industry has been committed to the welfare of animals throughout my life and continues to do everything it can to improve standards whilst supplying the highest quality protein to our important trading partners. The industry has demonstrated that it has a strong, ongoing and enduring commitment to the welfare of livestock and to supporting our overseas markets that we've developed over time and which we would leave in a very difficult position if we were to ever even hint at withdrawing from them.

So, once again, I commend the industry for the changes and the constant improvements they've made over a very long period of time. I look forward to rising in this place at future points to continue to talk on this very important topic.

Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (16:51): I also wish to speak on item 728 regarding the vessel Al Kuwait. I regard myself as having a little bit of authority in this area. I'm not only a fully qualified and registered veterinarian; I have been an Australian accredited vet and worked in the live export industry for over 30 years, including extensively in the preparation of livestock for export and also accompanying animals on export voyages. I don't know if anyone else in this place has undertaken livestock export voyages. Certainly quite a few people seem to have quite strong opinions on it, but I would suggest that they probably don't have relevant experience.

We in the veterinary profession all accept that the slaughter of livestock closest to the point where they originated is the ideal experience so that they are not transported. Again, that's ideal. We also accept that it's not practical. If you are a vegan and you want to have that position and you don't eat meat, that's fine. That's your choice. But for those of us who choose to eat meat it is not practical to have a cow, a sheep, a pig et cetera in our backyard to raise it up and slaughter it. I think we accept that that's just not the situation we live in. Therefore, animals do have to be transported for slaughter. They are transported regularly in Australia, generally by road, from their place of origin to abattoirs. We accept that occurring.

The industry of live exports overseas is to fulfil a demand, sometimes by our very close neighbours, for protein, for meat. There are many reasons why livestock are transported live as opposed to being slaughtered in Australia and the product being shipped overseas. One of the reasons is the fact that there's no cold chain in a lot of the countries that we export to and so there's no way to keep meat cold, chilled or frozen. People don't have that capacity in many of these countries and in many of these regions. So they require livestock to be transported alive to close to where people live so that they can be slaughtered and consumed fresh on the day. That's certainly the case throughout a lot of South-East Asian countries, and it's why we export extensively to South-East Asia.

As a veterinarian involved in the live export industry, I would like to take you through a little of the routine of the industry. Livestock are gathered from properties. They are transported to export hubs, mostly, where they are inspected by veterinarians that are accredited. They are inspected for their health and welfare, and animals that are not fit to travel are pulled out and receive treatment. Depending on where they are from and where they are going to, veterinarians will often conduct blood tests for various diseases, provide treatments for internal and external parasites, and provide vaccinations and so forth according to the protocol. All those animals that are assessed as fit to travel will be transported to the ship and loaded onto the ship, supervised by an Australian accredited stockperson and an Australian accredited vet.

Once on the ship, there are obviously rules regarding stocking densities for the different species that are transported. They will be housed in pens on the ship. A daily routine is that the stockperson and the vet will separately go around and inspect all of the animals. The stockpeople will pull out any animals that are looking unwell, are distressed or have anything wrong with them. They will be placed in a hospital pen. The veterinarian will then come and assess each one of the animals and assess what treatments are required. These ships carry extensive amounts of veterinary drugs and equipment for treatment of animals, so any animals requiring treatment will be treated by the vet as frequently as is required—that might be once a day or it might be three or four times a day—and they will be re-inspected every day. If any animals die on the voyage, the majority have a post-mortem conducted on them by the accredited vet to assess the reason for them dying, and that that is included in the report. Inspections continue throughout the day and reports are conducted. Independent observers are obviously free to go wherever they like on the ship and observe everything that's happening, and then they report on what they have observed. That's the daily routine of live export.

Having said that it would be ideal to slaughter animals right where they're going to be consumed, with that not being possible, this is absolutely the most humane way that we have to transport animals overseas so that our neighbours and countries we trade with are able to access the same sort of protein and food that we do. Some figures on this industry. Live export produces approximately $1.7 billion yearly to our economy and employs 10,000 or so people directly and indirectly. It's a very, very important industry and a big employer and supporter of families in rural, regional and remote communities.

The MV Al Kuwait departed at a time when we ideally don't have vessels departing, due to heat. I would like to read some of the comments of the independent observer. Extracts from the report of the independent observer are freely available on the internet. In the words of the independent observer:

All vessel staff from the master to members of the livestock crew were observed to have active involvement in the positive health and welfare outcomes for the sheep. The AAV—

the Australian accredited vet—

stockpersons and crew communicated effectively and worked well together.

They went on to say:

The observer commented that no sheep were observed to be in severe heat stress or distress from heat during the voyage.

Over 33,000 sheep were on this voyage. There were 28 mortalities. That's extremely low. None of these mortalities were due to heat stress. They were due to things such as liver disease, cardiac disease, infection and organ failure.

It's also worth noting that there were 103 sheep that were hospitalised and received treatment during this voyage. One hundred and two of these hospitalised animals recovered and were discharged. In a normal paddock situation the majority of these conditions that these animals were hospitalised for and treated for would not have been treated. A lot would not have been identified. They would not have been treated. It is the fact that these animals were inspected so regularly that they were pulled aside, they received treatment and they recovered. I would put to you that if the 103 out of this 33,000 had been at home in a paddock situation many of these animals would have suffered and died due to their conditions. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (17:01): The ban on live cattle exports early last decade is the same old, same old, same old Labor Party attacking the agricultural industry in this country. Agriculture is the oldest industry in modern Australia. The sheep and the cattle industries have sustained modern Australia since its inception. But it isn't just the live export ban where the other side of the chamber, the Labor Party, attacks the agricultural industry. This isn't a one-off. It is the same old Labor attacking the true patriots of this country, small business, because they want to destroy the means of production. Whether it be the tree-clearing laws, the reef regulations, the fact that the agricultural department has to recoup costs—does the ABC have to recoup costs? No, of course not—inner-city industry. But if you're from the regions you've got to pay for everything in this country, don't you?

Let's talk about the tree-clearing laws. I want to talk about the tree-clearing laws in particular because in south-west Queensland there are some magnificent regional towns: Charleville, Quilpie and Cunnamulla—that's halfway between south-east and south-west Queensland. Those shires are dying. Those shires are dying because farms are being locked up because of carbon farming. Big organisations are coming in and buying these farms. The farmers are selling out and leaving town. The poor old mayors don't know what to do—Shaun Radnedge from Charleville, Stuart from Quilpie. Interestingly enough about 76 per cent of the carbon credits that have been generated to meet the Paris target emissions come from south-west Queensland. Do those farmers get any credit from the Left? They're the farmers who are doing the heavy lifting in saving the environment—that's of course if you believe the story these guys tell. What I want to know is why these guys constantly ridicule or reject the notion that this side of the chamber and this government are doing enough to meet its Paris commitments, because we are. We've actually reduced C02 emission from 2005 by 411 million tonnes. To reach Paris we only had to reduce by 395 million tonnes. Do you know where that reduction in carbon dioxide has come from? The agricultural industry. The true greenies, the real environmentalists, are of course our farmers.

How does state Labor repay that? They shut down the agricultural colleges. The Queensland state Labor government has shut down the regional pastoral colleges. If you really cared about the environment, wouldn't you want to teach our young and upcoming farmers best vegetation management practices? Wouldn't you be encouraging this stuff? No, no, no. They're just going to shut it down. Why is that? Because they don't want to see farmers succeed in agriculture.

It's not only tree-clearing laws. It's not only the closure of pastoral colleges. It's not only the closure of maternity wards; Queensland state Labor has shut over 30 regional maternity wards since they’ve come to power. They brought in poker machines. I will give one Labor politician a bit of credit here. Wayne Goss actually came out and said that was the biggest mistake he ever made. He actually said he regretted that. So I give him credit for admitting that was a big mistake. He has passed away now.

It goes on. As I mentioned earlier today, the reef regulations are designed to hit the cattle and cane industries. As I said earlier on, if you wanted to play a word association game: 'Cattle and cane. Name the state. It's Queensland.' What do Labor do? They're bringing in regulations that are going to force farmers who could be as far away as 500 kilometres upstream, and might have a few head of cattle, to do a vegetation management plan. If a farmer doesn't do that, they could be fined up to $200,000. Where is the farmer going to find the money to do a vegetation management plan and be able to sleep at night knowing that they're not going to be fined $200,000?

We have vegetation management laws in Queensland as well. They stop the farmers from pulling down mulga and all this sort of stuff. If they knew anything about mulga—you've got to pull the stuff down so that you open up the soil, so that when it rains the water falls into the ground and not over the top of it. Anyone who is from mulga country knows that if you actually pull down some mulga after it rains—where does the grass grow? Under the fallen mulga tree. What we've got now is fully grown mulga—because mulga is a quite fast-growing tree; it grows out after 25 years, so it's not actually sucking up any carbon at all. All it's doing is becoming one big fire hazard.

And let's not start on clearing national parks and forests. That's something I can speak about with a great deal of authority, because our family's property is right next door to a national park. Of course, what comes through from the national park all the time? Feral goats, feral pigs, feral dogs. Is the state government looking after our national parks? Of course not. But you don’t need to go to Western Queensland to see that. You've only got to go up to Mount Glorious in Brisbane, up the road from Samford, and you will see all of this lantana everywhere. You won't see lantana on private property, but you will see lantana all over the national parks. Why is that? Because Labor always talk the talk but never walk the walk.

When it comes to live animal exports, what do live exports do? Where do they go to? A lot of the time, this meat, these animals, will go to Third World countries to feed the people, because some of these Third World countries don't yet have refrigeration. If we could provide cheap power, they would get refrigeration, and I'm sure, over time, it will come. But do we think about Third World countries needing a source of protein? Who has the best source of protein in the world? Australia—the Australian agricultural industry.

As I think about the agricultural industry I can't help but think of Banjo Paterson. It's a part of our culture. It's a part of our heritage. Henry Lawson and 'The Loaded Dog'—I grew up on that sort of stuff. You ought to talk to the Queensland member for Callide, Colin Boyce; he's a great poet. He can go on and on talking bush poetry, and it's always about the cattle and sheep and our agricultural sector. You may scoff there, Senator Bilyk, but we know—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Senator RENNICK: I'll take that interjection:

In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of Clancy

Gone a-droving 'down the Cooper' where the Western drovers go;

As the stock are slowly stringing, Clancy rides behind them singing,

For the drover's life has pleasures that the townsfolk never know.

And that's the difference between today's inner-city people and the city people of a hundred years ago. They spoke about the bush in admiring terms. They didn't criticise our farmers; they held our farmers up as something to be admired. But not today, oh no! The elite attack the very hand that feeds them. Where do they think the meat on their plate comes from? Where do they think their vegetables come from? Where do the clothes on our backs come from? The agriculture sector.

Of course, it doesn't just stop there. They attack dams. They don't like dams. We haven't had any dams built in 30 years—bar one, Paradise, and we couldn't stop the Labor Party from pulling it down fast enough. They couldn't find any money to build Rookwood Weir but they could find $100 million to pull down Paradise Dam just like that, because, when it comes to tearing down the means of production, that's what the Labor Party is all about.

Debate adjourned.