The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I'll move on.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind those on video that the Senate can see everything that's happening on the screen, so just make sure you are acting in the same way you would as if you were in the chamber.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (09:32): [by video link] I believe we've got one amendment remaining. It's Australian Greens amendment on sheet 1003. I flag that I won't be moving amendment (1) because it's in conflict with an amendment that passed yesterday, obviously. I move Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 1003:

(2) Page 45 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Banning dirty donations

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

1 Subsection 287(1) (definition of gift )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

    gift has the meaning given by section 287AAA.

2 After section 287

Insert:

287AAA Meaning of gift

(1) A gift includes the following:

   (a) any disposition of property made by a person to another person, being a disposition made without consideration in money or money's worth or with inadequate consideration;

   (b) the provision of a service (other than volunteer labour) for no consideration or for inadequate consideration;

   (c) an amount paid by a person as a contribution, entry fee or other payment to entitle that or any other person to participate in or otherwise obtain any benefit from a fundraising venture or function if the amount forms part of the proceeds of the venture or function;

   (d) an annual or other subscription paid to a registered political party, to a State branch or a division of a State branch of a political party, unless the subscription is for membership of the registered political party and the amount paid is less than $1,000 per year;

   (e) an annual or other subscription paid to an associated entity, unless the subscription is for membership of the associated entity and the amount paid is less than $1,000 per year;

   (f) an annual or other subscription paid to a political campaigner, unless the subscription is for membership of the entity and the amount paid is less than $1,000 per year;

   (g) uncharged interest on a loan to a political entity, being the additional amount that would have been payable by the political entity if:

      (i) the loan had been made on terms requiring the payment of interest at the generally prevailing interest rate for a loan of that kind; and

      (ii) any interest payable had not been waived; and

      (iii) any interest payments were not capitalised.

(2) Each of the following is taken not to be a gift:

   (a) a payment under Division 3;

   (b) any visit, experience or activity provided for the purposes of a political exchange program.

3 After Division 5A of Part XX

Insert:

Division 5B—Prohibited donations

314AH Simplified outline of this Division

This Division sets out the various types of business entities which are prohibited donors. It is unlawful for a prohibited donor to make a political donation. A political donation includes a gift or loan made to or for the benefit of a political entity, a member of the Commonwealth Parliament, an associated entity or a political campaigner.

Unlawful political donations may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth.

314AI Definitions

In this Division:

close associate of a corporation means each of the following:

   (a) a director or officer of the corporation or the spouse of such a director or officer;

   (b) a related body corporate of the corporation;

   (c) a person whose voting power in the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is greater than 20%, or the spouse of such a person;

   (d) if the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is a stapled entity in relation to a stapled security—the other stapled entity in relation to that stapled security;

   (e) if the corporation is a trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to a trust—a person who holds more than 20% of the units in the trust (in the case of a unit trust) or is a beneficiary of the trust (in the case of a discretionary trust).

defence industry entity means:

   (a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the development or provision of goods and services intended for the purposes of defence; or

   (b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

electoral expenditure has the same meaning as in Division 5.

financial institution means:

   (a) an entity which carries on a business that consists of, or includes, the provision of financial services or financial products and which is:

      (i) a bank; or

      (ii) a credit union; or

      (iii) a building society; or

      (iv) any other entity registered under the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes as a special service provider; or

   (b) a person who is a close associate of an entity referred to in paragraph (a).

Note:    See section 111AZB of the Corporations Act 2001 for the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes.

liquor or gambling industry business entity means:

   (a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves either or both of the following, but only if it is for the ultimate purpose of making a profit:

      (i) the manufacture or sale of liquor products;

      (ii) wagering, betting or other gambling (including the manufacture of machines used primarily for that purpose); or

   (b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

mineral resources or fossil fuel extraction industry business entity means:

   (a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the exploration, prospecting, discovery, development or extraction of mineral resources or fossil fuels; or

   (b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

officer, in relation to a corporation, has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

pharmaceutical entity means:

   (a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves any of the following activities for the ultimate purpose of making a profit:

      (i) research into and testing of pharmaceutical products;

      (ii) manufacture of pharmaceutical products;

      (iii) sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products; or

   (b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

political donation has the meaning given by section 314AJ.

prohibited donor means:

   (a) a property developer; or

   (b) a financial institution; or

   (c) a tobacco industry business entity; or

   (d) a liquor or gambling industry business entity; or

   (e) a mineral resources or fossil fuel extraction industry business entity; or

   (f) a defence industry entity; or

   (g) a pharmaceutical entity; or

   (h) an industry representative organisation, if the majority of the organisation's members are prohibited donors referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (g).

property developer means:

   (a) a corporation engaged in a business that involves the making of planning applications (however described) under State or Territory laws, by or on behalf of the corporation, in connection with the residential or commercial development of land, with the ultimate purpose of the sale or lease of the land for profit; or

   (b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

Any activity engaged in by a corporation for the dominant purpose of providing commercial premises at which the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation will carry on business is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the corporation is a property developer, unless that business involves the sale or leasing of a substantial part of the premises.

related body corporate has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

spouse of a person includes a de facto partner of that person.

Note: For defactopartner, see section 21 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

stapled entity means an entity the interests in which are traded along with the interests in another entity as stapled securities and (in the case of a stapled entity that is a trust) includes any trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to the trust.

State branch includes a division of a State branch.

tobacco industry business entity means:

   (a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of tobacco or inhaled nicotine products; or

   (b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

voting power has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

314AJ Meaning of political donation

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a political donation is:

   (a) a gift made to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party; or

   (b) a gift made to or for the benefit of a member of the Commonwealth Parliament; or

   (c) a gift made to or for the benefit of a candidate (including a member of a group); or

   (d) a gift made to or for the benefit of an associated entity of a registered political party; or

   (e) a gift made to or for the benefit of a political campaigner; or

   (f) a gift made to or for the benefit of an entity or other person (not being a party, elected member, group or candidate), the whole or part of which was used or is intended to be used by the entity or person:

      (i) to enable the entity or person to make, directly or indirectly, a political donation or to incur electoral expenditure in relation to an election; or

      (ii) to reimburse the entity or person for making, directly or indirectly, a political donation or incurring electoral expenditure in relation to an election; or

   (g) a loan:

      (i) that, if it had been a gift, would have been a political donation under this section; and

      (ii) that was not made by a financial institution (within the meaning of section 306A).

(2) The following are not political donations:

   (a) a gift to an individual that was made in a private capacity to the individual for his or her personal use and that the individual has not used, and does not intend to use, solely or substantially for a purpose related to an election or to his or her duties as an elected member;

   (b) a payment under Division 3 (election funding).

(3) However, if any part of a gift referred to in paragraph (5)(a) is subsequently used to incur electoral expenditure in relation to an election, that part of the gift is taken to be (and to always have been) a political donation.

314AK Political donations by prohibited donors unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a prohibited donor to make a political donation.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to make a political donation on behalf of a prohibited donor.

(3) It is unlawful for a person to accept a political donation that was made (wholly or partly) by a prohibited donor or by a person on behalf of a prohibited donor.

(4) It is unlawful for a prohibited donor to solicit another person to make a political donation.

(5) It is unlawful for a person to solicit another person on behalf of a prohibited donor to make a political donation.

(6) If a person receives a gift that, under this section, it is unlawful for the person to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the gift is payable by that person to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against:

   (a) in the case of a gift to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party:

      (i) if the party or branch, as the case may be is a body corporate—the party or branch, as the case may be; or

      (ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; or

   (b) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of the candidate or of the group, as the case may be.

314AL Offences—political donations

(1) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

   (a) the defendant is a prohibited donor; and

   (b) the defendant makes a gift; and

   (c) the gift is a political donation.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

   (a) the defendant makes a gift on behalf of another person; and

   (b) the gift is a political donation; and

   (c) the other person is a prohibited donor.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(3) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

   (a) the defendant accepts a gift; and

   (b) the gift is a political donation; and

   (c) the gift was given (wholly or partly) by, or by a person on behalf of, a prohibited donor.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(4) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

   (a) the defendant is a prohibited donor; and

   (b) the defendant solicits another person to make a gift; and

   (c) the gift is, or would be, a political donation.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(5) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

   (a) the defendant solicits another person to make a gift; and

   (b) the defendant does so on behalf of another person (the donor); and

   (c) the donor is a prohibited donor; and

   (d) the gift is, or would be, a political donation.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

Fault element

(6) The fault element for the following paragraphs is knowledge by the defendant:

   (a) paragraphs (1)(a) and (c);

   (b) paragraphs (2)(b) and (c);

   (c) paragraphs (3)(b) and (c);

   (d) paragraphs (4)(a) and (c);

   (e) paragraphs (5)(c) and (d).

Civil penalty

(7) A person is liable to a civil penalty in the person contravenes subsections (1) to (5).

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following amounts:

   (a) 200 penalty units;

   (b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount or value, or an estimate of the amount of value, of the gift at the time the gift is made–3 times that amount or value.

314AM Offence—scheme to circumvent prohibitions

(1) A person commits an offence if the person enters into or carries out a scheme (whether alone or with others) for the purpose of circumventing a prohibition or requirement of this Division.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) It does not matter whether the person also enters into or carries out the scheme for other purposes.

(3) In this section:

scheme includes an arrangement, an understanding or a course of conduct.

314AN Electoral Commission may determine that a person is presumed not to be a prohibited donor

(1) The Electoral Commission may determine, in writing, that a person (the donor) is presumed not to be a prohibited donor for the purposes of this Division if:

   (a) a donor or another person (the applicant) applies to the Commission for the determination to be made; and

   (b) the Commission is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the donor is not a prohibited donor.

(2) The Electoral Commission is to decide whether or not to make a determination under subsection (1) solely on the basis of information provided by the applicant.

(3) A determination under subsection (1) remains in force for 12 months after it is made, unless it is revoked earlier.

(4) The Electoral Commission may, by written notice to the applicant, revoke a determination under subsection (1) if the Commission is no longer satisfied of the matter in paragraph (1)(b). Subsection (2) does not apply to a decision of whether or not to revoke a determination under this subsection.

Effect of presumption

(5) If a person is, under a determination made under subsection (1), presumed not to be a prohibited donor, then sections 314AK, 314AL and 314AM do not apply in relation to a gift made by or on behalf of the person.

(6) However, subsection (5) does not apply to a person who knows that information provided to the Electoral Commission in connection with the making of the determination was false or misleading in a material particular.

(7) The onus of proving that a person is not presumed not to be a prohibited donor under a determination made under subsection (1) is born by:

   (a) in proceedings under section 314AK—the Commonwealth; or

   (b) in proceedings for an offence against section 314AL or 314AM—the prosecution.

Register of determinations

(8) The Electoral Commission must maintain, and publish on the Commission's website, a register of determinations made under subsection (1).

Determination is not a legislative instrument

(9) A determination made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.

Division 5C—Capping donations

314AO Simplified outline of this Division

This Division places a cap on political donations of $3,000 within a donation period. Political donations to the same registered political party, member of the Commonwealth Parliament, candidate (including a member of a group), political campaigner or associated entity are aggregated together for the purpose of calculating the donation cap.

Political donations are also attributed to the relevant registered political party for the purpose of aggregating political donations.

It is unlawful for a registered political party, member of the Commonwealth Parliament, candidate, group, associated entity or political campaigner to accept a political donation if the donation would exceed the donation cap individually or when aggregated with other relevant donations.

Unlawful political donations may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth.

314AP Definitions

In this Division:

donation cap means $3,000.

donation period: the donation period begins on the day after the polling day for a general election and ends on the polling day of the next general election.

small contribution means an amount less than $50.

State branch includes a division of a State branch.

314AQ Capping of political donations

A political donation made to, or for the benefit of, any of the following:

   (a) a political party or a State branch of a political party;

   (b) a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;

   (b) a candidate (including a member of a group);

   (c) a political campaigner;

   (d) an associated entity;

must not exceed the donation cap for each donation period.

314AR Aggregating political donations

(1) This section applies to the dollar amount mentioned in the definition of donation cap in section 314AP.

Aggregation of donations

(2) A political donation made by a donor of an amount equal to or less than the donation cap is to be treated as a political donation that exceeds the donation cap if that political donation and other separate political donations made by that donor within the donation period to the same:

   (a) registered political party; or

   (b) member of the Commonwealth Parliament; or

   (c) candidate (including a member of a group); or

   (d) political campaigner; or

   (e) associated entity;

would exceed the donation cap if aggregated together.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, political donations made to the same person in their capacity as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or in their capacity as a candidate in an election are to be aggregated for the purpose of calculating the donation cap.

Attribution of donations

(4) A political donation made to:

   (a) a member of the Commonwealth Parliament; or

   (b) a candidate (including a member of a group); or

   (c) a group that is endorsed by a registered political party; or

   (d) a State branch of a political party; or

   (e) an associated entity;

must also be included as a donation to the relevant registered political party for the purpose of aggregating political donations.

(5) A political donation to a candidate or a member of a group must also be included as a donation to the group for the purpose of aggregating political donations.

Excluded donations

(6) For the purpose of aggregating political donations, the following amounts are excluded from the calculation:

   (a) a gift that is accepted by an associated entity or political campaigner for a purpose that does not involve election expenditure;

   (b) any small contribution, unless the small contribution is made in contravention of section 314AM.

314AS Exceeding donation cap unlawful

(1) Except as provided in this section, it is unlawful for a registered political party, member of the Commonwealth Parliament, candidate, group, associated entity or political campaigner to accept a political donation if:

   (a) the political donation; or

   (b) the political donation when aggregated in accordance with section 314AR;

would exceed the donation cap during a donation period.

(2) It is not unlawful for a registered political party, member of the Commonwealth Parliament, candidate, group, associated entity or political campaigner to accept a political donation if:

   (a) the political donation would exceed the donation cap only if aggregated with other political donations from the donor in the donation period; and

   (b) the registered political party, member of the Commonwealth Parliament, candidate, group, associated entity or political campaigner did not know and could not reasonably have known of the other political donation included in the aggregation; and

   (c) an amount equal to the amount by which the aggregated political donation exceeded the donation cap was returned by the recipient of the political donation to the donor within 5 business days of the recipient discovering the donation exceeded the donation cap.

(3) If a person receives a political donation that, under this section, it is unlawful for the person to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the political donation is payable by that person to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against:

   (a) in the case of a political donation to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party:

      (i) if the party or branch, as the case may be is a body corporate—the party or branch, as the case may be; or

      (ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; or

   (b) in the case of a political donation to or for the benefit of an associated entity or political campaigner:

      (i) if the associated entity or political campaigner, as the case may be is a body corporate—the associated entity or political campaigner; or

      (ii) in any other case—the agent of the associated entity or political campaigner, as the case may be; or

   (c) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of the candidate or of the group, as the case may be.

4 Subsection 315A(1)

After "or subsection 301(3)", insert "314AK(6) or 314AS(3)".

People will probably be getting a bit sick of the Greens raising the influence of dirty donations on political decision-making, but we're not going to stop raising it until we the influence of dirty money is removed from our politics. We have before us the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. This bill, which we spent much of yesterday debating, allows donors to continue to donate to federal branches of parties in states that have strong donation laws, which we contend is a back door around those stronger state donations restrictions. Sadly, the bill has bipartisan support. So what we are doing now with this amendment (2) on sheet 1003 is trying to bring in the donations restrictions that we think will restore democracy as a function of the Australian people and ensure that democracy can't be for sale anymore.

There are three elements to this amendment. Firstly, it redefines 'gift' to include party memberships and to include subscriptions to various different party forums. I will come back to that. Essentially, that refers to pay-for-access meetings—the lobster luncheons. It then bans completely donations from a number of industries that have a long history of seeking undue influence in return for political donations. That list is property developers, banks, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, big mining, defence and big pharma. The Greens think that those industries should not be able to donate one cent because they have a sordid history of seeking influence as a result of making those donations. Lastly—and this is perhaps the most important reform—we would like to see donations from everybody else, no matter whether you're an individual, on organisation or a corporation, capped at $1,000 a year or $3,000 for a three-year term, which, obviously, works out to $1,000 a year. That is a constitutional way of ensuring that people can still support causes that they believe in, but it makes sure that you can't buy undue influence and seek to have policies made to address your personal needs or to address and boost your personal corporate profits. We want to see big money out of politics entirely, and this is how you do it. You bring in public funding. You cap spending and, importantly, you cap donations and you stop donations from those industries that have long sought undue influence over decision-makers.

In the time I have available to me, I want to give some statistics. Since 2012, fossil fuel and resources industries have donated over $7½ million to both of the big parties. That industry in return gets $6 billion a year in tax subsidies. We call them 'fossil fuel subsidies', and they are things like accelerated depreciation, cheaper diesel fuel—perks, if you like, that ordinary drivers and other sorts of companies do not get access to. That's a pretty good return on investment. That's about $2,000 in subsidies for every dollar that they donate. Generous donations have also bought them a government that is completely paralysed by the phrase 'climate change' and certainly paralysed by the phrase 'climate emergency', despite the bushfires that this country just experienced being the worst in our long history.

It won't surprise you that the gas industry donates millions of dollars. So it was of course no surprise that the Prime Minister appointed a whole lot of his gas mates to the national COVID commission who have, unsurprisingly, recommended support for their own projects. So we now have this spurious notion of a 'gas led recovery', when everyone can see that has increased gas prices, leading to a suppression of domestic manufacturing, and, because of the government's laser-like focus on doing favours for their mates, that has escaped the government's notice.

Banking and finance have also been serial offenders. They have donated about $60 million since 2012 to both sides of politics. Boy, didn't they buy them a long reprieve! Finally, after many years of the Greens pushing for it, we got a banking royal commission, but that industry's donations bought them many, many years of getting away with atrocious, unethical, immoral and illegal conduct. Finally, after many years of pushing, the royal commission has exposed that conduct, but one wonders whether $60 million bought them a few years of that continued bad behaviour not being sanction properly by those in charge.

The gambling industry is another huge donor to both state and federal political parties. You can see the evidence of what that donation delivers: strong support for pokies around Australia. ClubsNSW are huge donors to the Liberal Party. In particular, very generous donations now flow from ClubsNSW to the Liberal Party, after some attempt at gambling reform, by the member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, which sadly went nowhere.

They are only the donations that we know about. We know that there are vast amounts of donations—dark money, if you like—that aren't required to be disclosed because our disclosure rules are terribly weak. Part of the intention of these amendments today is to capture some of those lobster lunches, some of those pay-for-access meetings, that seem so routine, even though it is disgusting. We would redefine 'gift' to include party membership fees of over $1,000. At the moment, they are excluded. We would redefine 'gift' to include those pay-for-access functions, those forums, those subscription fees to various party subgroups, which at the moment our electoral laws do not include as disclosable. In fact, even the Electoral Commission recognises some uncertainty in terms of the mark-up on various corporate lunches; that was discussed yesterday. Even the AEC has acknowledged that the drafting there is so unclear that often with those sorts of events you can get away with not disclosing them, and some of the big parties do just that. The Minerals Council—old friends of ours!—donate $25,000 to each major party's such forum, and that entitles them to two boardroom events and two policy briefing sessions. At the minute, there's no restriction on that.

So these amendments seek to redefine that definition of 'gift' to ensure that those things are disclosable. But then, because we cap donations at $1,000, you would not be able to donate those whopping amounts to get that special access that no other ordinary Australian gets. So we would seek to clean up those lobster lunches.

I've talked about the bans we want to see on property developers, banks, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, big mining, defence and big pharma. We know this has routinely been before the courts and has been found to be perfectly lawful. I want to commend some of the state governments for taking steps in this regard. New South Wales, in particular, has been at the front of the pack on donations reform, pushed by our state Greens there, of course, for many years. Even Queensland has come on board, thanks again to political pressure exerted by my party to include a property developer ban under our state laws.

But it's nowhere near enough. We still have massive donations from big oil, big coal and big gas. In a climate crisis, they're still trying to buy the denial of the parties in government or those seeking to be in government. Meanwhile, the rest of the community suffers. We need climate action and we need policies that help people, not boost corporate profits. Part of the reason why we have such poor decision-making out of the federal parliament is that those donors get more influence than they should. Their interests get weighed in policy decisions when in fact we should be progressing the public interest, protecting nature and setting us all up for a prosperous and healthy future.

So this is the amendment the Greens are seeking to move today. It's not the first time we've raised this issue. This has been a longstanding Greens policy. I'm not expecting to get support from the Labor or Liberal parties, who have taken in that $100 million in corporate donations since 2012. They're quite happy with that arrangement, and I'm sure they want to keep seeing the money flowing. They had a chance to vote for lower disclosure thresholds. They didn't do so. They have a chance today to vote to clean up the dirty donations. I'm not expecting them to do so. But the Greens will not give up. We will keep pushing these issues, because democracy belongs to the community. Politicians should not be for sale. I commend this amendment to the chamber.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (09:42): The government oppose this amendment. The Greens amendment would arbitrarily ban eight different specific categories of businesses from participating in the democratic process—eight different specific categories of legal, lawful businesses. Amongst the businesses that the Greens seek to ban are pharmaceutical companies. At the very time when these companies are alleviating suffering and helping to address the strains of a global health pandemic, the Greens want to stigmatise them by labelling them as a 'dirty industry', quite a disgraceful description of an extremely important sector of our economy and an important sector in our community, supporting public health. It's unbelievable that the Greens would come in here and seek to stigmatise such an important sector of our economy in that fashion. To be very clear, this ban which the Greens are proposing would hit companies that conduct pharmaceutical research and testing of medical cures, the sorts of companies that are at the forefront of fighting diseases.

The amendment also raises obvious questions over the constitutionality of such proposals given that the High Court has clearly stated in recent cases that donation bans could fail where they are not reasonably necessary and they impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication. The amendment also proposes a donation cap on $3,000. Those capping provisions cover donations for various political actors, including a state branch of a political party. But the amendment overlooks that some parties also have territory organisations. So, even putting policy preferences to one side, this is not a thoroughly thought through and well-drafted amendment and the government will oppose it.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (09:44): The Labor Party will also not be supporting these amendments. There's nothing quite like a Greens political party dripping in hypocrisy. How do I know that? I know that because my very good friend Lee Rhiannon, who is no longer in this House, was so outraged by the hypocrisy of the Greens on these matters that she ghost-wrote a poisoned letter attacking the Greens leadership at the time, so we know that the Greens are hypocritical on this. They tell us today that they want to remove big money from political donations. Well, lovely objective, but let let's talk about Duncan Turpie, a reclusive Queensland mathematician, investor and high-end gambler—high-end gambler! I can't quite remember all of the categories that the Greens want to ban but I do think gambling was one of them. How much big money—

Senator McKim interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator FARRELL: We're coming to some more. This is not the end of it.

Senator McKim interjecting—

Senator FARRELL: Senator McKim, I know you are embarrassed—

Senator McKim: I am not embarrassed.

Senator FARRELL: You are embarrassed by this policy. What did this reclusive—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McKim, on a point of order?

Senator McKim: Yes. Senator Farrell is personally impugning me. He's wrong: I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. It is contrary to standing orders—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. If you wish to make a contribution, please seek the call. Thank you, Senator Farrell.

Senator FARRELL: We know the Greens don't want to hear what I'm saying They want to remove big money? Well, why didn't they reject Mr Turpie's $500,000 donation? And who are Mr Turpie's mates?

Senator Bilyk: Who are they? Do tell me.

Senator FARRELL: I will tell you, Senator Bilyk, because you have an interest in this thing. He's a Gold Coast based algorithm specialist and he is a member of the secret punters club gambling group connected with the Museum of Old and New Art founder, David Walsh. I am not sure how much closer you need to get to the gambling industry than the $5,000 that Mr Turpie donated but that's not the end of it. They say they don't want corporate donations; they don't want big money. We found out in the election before last that Prime Minister Turnbull made the biggest donation personally of a private donor in the history of Australian politics. But, up until former Prime Minister Turnbull donated that massive amount of money, who was the biggest single donor in Australian political history? Well, it was the founder of the online travel business Wotif, who donated $1.6 million.

Senator Bilyk: To who?

Senator FARRELL: To the Australian Greens. Can you believe it? This party, that wants to cut big money out of politics, accepted the largest donation in the history of Australian politics up until that time—again, a party dripping in hypocrisy. But that's not the end of it; no, there's more.

Senator Bilyk: More?

Senator FARRELL: There is more, Senator Bilyk. What about the Western Australian Greens convenor Chilla Bulbeck, who personally donated $600,000 to the Greens at the last election? Now, maybe the Greens don't think $600,000 is big money and maybe they're not people the Greens are hoping to catch in this piece of legislation, but there are just three examples that I know of showing how hypocritical the Greens are on these issues.

We do believe in reform and we believe in practical results. When the Labor Party started campaigning at the last election for the end of foreign political donations, everyone said: 'No, you can't do it. You won't be able to achieve it. You're in opposition; the government will stymie you.' I have to say, we didn't get very much support from the Greens on that issue, but we persisted. We argued and argued, and what did we get? We got a bill that banned political donations before the last election. So for the first time in Australian political history foreign political donations were banned in this country. The former foreign minister couldn't rake in all that money while she was the foreign minister. I'm talking about Ms Bishop. She couldn't rake in all those foreign donations to the Liberal Party as she had done in previous elections. I'm not just picking on the Greens, Senator Waters. I'm equally having a go at the government.

So there's plenty of hypocrisy around on these issues, but the Labor Party has got runs on the board. We've pushed for the issues and we've had the outcome. The offer I make to you, Senator Waters—because I checked again last night; there hadn't been any calls from the Greens about your amendments—is that we're very happy to talk to you about a practical outcome in political reform, because the Labor Party believes in it and, more importantly, the Labor Party has achieved it. If you sit down with us and Senator Patrick, Senator Lambie and Senator Griff then we can get practical results, but this is not the way to do it. Grandstanding—making this the last item on the list, trying to get a bit of cheap publicity—is not the way to do it. You've got to be serious about it. You've got to start at the beginning and, as we've done in the past, you'll get the results.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (09:53): [by video link] I'll just take the opportunity to respond to some of that. I think Senator Farrell may be a bit disappointed that I didn't telephone him. I'm sorry; I went to the leader of your party in this chamber. I didn't get a reply, unfortunately.

I want to address some of the other issues that were raised. The government is trying to turn this amendment into something that it's not. I thought that was quite a heroic reinterpretation by Senator Cormann of these amendments that would stop big industries seeking to buy influence from political parties. Senator Cormann tried to recast it as restricting the operations of pharmaceutical companies. I'm very happy for them to continue with their work; in fact, they should not have been sold off in the first place. We'd like to see public pharmaceutical production, but I think that's, sadly, a bridge too far for this government, because it loves privatisation. It's not a restriction on their operations; we just don't think that they should be funding your political party. We don't think they should be funding anybody's political party. They should be spending their money on trying to help people. I thought it important to clarify that heroic attempt at a reframe by Senator Cormann.

And then, sadly, we had a bit of an attempt at a patronising lecture on hypocrisy, which didn't really land, from the Labor Party. This is the party that yesterday had a private member's bill for a $1,000 disclosure threshold and then voted against the Greens amendment to do just that in a manner which had exactly the same drafting as their own private member's bill. I think it's rich to be dishing out contentions of hypocrisy when you just voted against your own private member's bill.

Senator Farrell then sought to impugn several individuals who have supported the Greens in the past. I point out that none of those people—not companies but individuals—sought to exert policy influence, nor did they receive any policy influence. The distinction there is that our policies aren't for sale. Yes, we do want to cap big donations like that going forward. Yes, we do think that would be an improvement on democracy, and we're prepared to cop it, just like we think all of you should cop it. So, again, I really didn't feel like the attack from Senator Farrell landed.

Lastly, Senator Farrell championed the ending of foreign donations. He knows as well as I do that there are so many back doors in that legislation that foreign companies can still donate through an Australian subsidiary, a loophole the Greens sought to close with our amendments to that bill. I'll have to check the record, but I'm hazarding a guess that the Labor Party didn't support those amendments either. Again, I think it's a bit rich to get lectures doled out from people who don't have very clean hands in this regard.

With those offences addressed, I again commend these amendments to the chamber.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:56): I want to follow up on a couple of questions I asked the minister yesterday. Minister, you might recall that I asked what the burden difference was, or how you justify not supporting disclosure of donations above $1,000 versus above $14,300. That was just to understand what the burden was. You very helpfully—thank you—directed me to section 314AEB of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I had a look at that last night, and it appears to me that the only burden in terms of making a donation above the threshold is simply to fill in this form. This form just requires you to put your name, your address, the political party you're donating to and how much it is. Is that the extent of the burden that you think justifies such a high threshold, or have I missed something?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (09:57): It also obviously comes with compliance risks if you make a mistake. It makes very small entities that are not geared up for this liable to public exposure and potential threats from other actors in this process. Again, I've said consistently for some time now that we believe the current threshold is appropriate. It's an appropriate balance between facilitating participation in a democratic process and ensuring that the public interest of appropriate disclosure is maintained. Senator Lambie quite accurately related a private conversation that I had with her this week. It's just an observation of fact. Small-business people making small donations to our side of politics do feel intimidated by some of the consequences that come, as a result of that donation, from other very passionate and committed actors supporting a different side of politics. We don't believe people who are supporting their team or party of choice at that level should be exposed to that. People who participate at a more significant level, of course, need to be able to justify what they do in a public sense, and there is the appropriate disclosure and transparency requirement there. But we believe that the threshold where it currently is is appropriate.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:59): Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that we don't want people threatened, but it is a democracy and the general principle in a democracy is we do have the ability to express our views. I would think that authorities would clamp down pretty hard on someone who acted in a threatening way towards, in my opinion, anyone who simply expressed their political view. So I really question your concern there. In particular, when you talk about making a mistake on this form, it's pretty hard to mess up your name, your address, the political party and the amount. You talk about risk, that risk must be so small that it couldn't in any reasonable circumstance be considered to be a burden in any way, shape or form. I don't want to verbal you in some way. But that's what you got to do, you've just got to fill in the form with some very simple details. Perhaps, Minister, you could tell me how many people have been brought to a court, or to a tribunal, on the basis that they didn't fill the form in right?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Chandler ): I will call the minister, but I'll also flag that I can see Senator Hanson is seeking the call. So I will call the minister to respond to Senator Patrick's question and then call Senator Hanson.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (10:01): I'd take that question on notice. I obviously don't have that sort of information to hand. I'll have to inquire with the Electoral Commission. But I think I've answered it in all of the other questions. I think that Senator Patrick and I, on behalf of the government, will just have to agree to disagree. We have a different view. We believe that we need to appropriately balance people's rights to participate in the democratic process, including by supporting financially the political party or the candidates that they would like to see elected at an election, and it is important to have appropriate transparency and disclosure arrangements in place. We believe the current arrangements work well and appropriately balance these two objectives.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:01): [by video link] With regard to this bill, we're talking about donations under $14,000. One Nation is not going to change whether this bill gets passed or not, because it has been agreed upon by both Liberal and Labor. It will be passed. We're talking about donations under $14,000.

In reference to what Senator Rex Patrick has said, I, unlike the majority of people in the chamber, run my own political party and have done since 1997. The fact is that over the years One Nation has been tagged as a racist party, with policies that mean people possibly don't want to be associated with the party, but they support the party, and this happens in all political parties. When you put in a donation over $14,000 you have to list your name and your address. A lot of people these days support political parties. That's their privacy. If they donate $1,000 or $2,000 they can donate that and it means that they don't have to disclose their name or address. A lot of people may work for organisations, even government departments, where if it is seen that they have donated to a political party they're in fear of losing their jobs. There is a lot of concern from these people. It is a privacy matter. It's like when they go to vote, no-one knows how they vote. But it is disclosed if they donate to a political party. So it is a privacy matter and it does concern a lot of people.

Most of the donations that we get for One Nation are not big donations at all. It's the mums and dads. I thank those people who do support my policies for their donations. They have a right to privacy. If you reduce that amount to under $14,000 these people will not be donating. In some small way it enables us to do the job that we do to give them that representation in parliament by getting people elected to parliament.

Do I agree with big donations from some of these companies, organisations and banks to the major political parties? No, I don't. I don't agree to foreign donations to the Greens, because I then question why international donations would be coming to the Greens in Australia other than to control the way they vote in this country.

So a lot of corruption has happened over the years. I think that the disclosure of over $14,000 is at the right place. That's why I do not support the Greens amendment to reduce the disclosure to $1,000. I do question why the Greens say in their amendment that they have no intention of saying that people should show identification at polling booths. That's all I have to say on the matter. That's my reasoning behind why I don't support disclosure.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:05): I have a short set of questions before I conclude, just as a follow-up from yesterday, but very directly related to the Greens' amendment now. Yesterday I was talking about dinner functions that are held by major parties where people are invited to attend a dinner with a member of the party present. They pay substantial amounts of money for the opportunity to do that, several thousand dollars in most instances. Yesterday I was discussing the arrangements in place for these things, and I just want to go back to the point I was making. Again, I'm not directing this at Senator Cormann because I think he's a lone fish in this pond; it's simply that he has knowledge of his own circumstances. There surely must be a concern if you invite people to attend a dinner that will be attended by the minister, as opposed to the senator, as, in some sense, you are drawing people into a room on the basis that you are a member of the executive, in order to benefit the political party that sits behind that minister. I know you understand the line that I'm drawing, Minister. Again, what are the policies in relation to that sort of conduct? And have you ever been at a dinner where the promotion of that dinner mentioned the fact that the attendees of the dinner would be meeting or dining with Minister Cormann or the Minister for Finance?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (10:07): With the greatest of respect, I think we're going around in circles now, because I directly answered that question yesterday. This will be my final contribution on this point because I've well and truly addressed it. I confirmed yesterday on the record, and I confirm again, that in all of my capacities as a backbench senator, a shadow minister and now as a minister, I have attended wide range of functions, including campaign related fundraising events. That is part of our job. Clearly, in those circumstances, what guides all of us is that everything has to be lawful and, as a minister, everything has to be consistent with the requirements in the Statement of Ministerial Standards. I can, indeed, confirm that at all times any activity that I've been involved in has been compliant with those requirements.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:08): Thank you, Minister, for directing me to the Statement of Ministerial Standards. I will go and have a look at them and I reserve my right, at some future stage, to raise this issue again.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:08): [by video link] Don't hold your breath on the ministerial standards, Senator Patrick. As we know, they're not independently enforced. They're completely at the whim of the Prime Minister. I digress.

On the issue that Minister Cormann yesterday attempted to allay concerns about, I think the issue remains: when it comes to the mark-up on a function above the cost of the actual meal, it is actually a grey area under our existing electoral laws, which is precisely why our amendment seeks to clarify that a gift includes such events. It's not just us who think it's a grey area. The Electoral Commission, when I previously asked them in estimates, said:

The classic example we have is when a person attends a dinner where members of a political party or government may be present. Quite often the person who attended might regard it as a donation while the recipient might regard it as 'other'. That is one of the areas where the act is not clear, and it has been a longstanding issue. Again, it is something we attempt to address in the various guidelines that we publish on our website. But it is an issue. It is one of the reasons it is impossible to accurately match a particular donation with a particular receipt because quite often there is not a meeting of minds between the person who is making the payment and the recipient of the payment.

This is exactly why lobster lunches and pay-for-access meetings keep occurring and they're not transparently disclosed.

We need to clarify the rules on when you've got to tell the public how much someone paid to go out to lunch, dinner or whatever it is with you and what exactly they get for their money. I reference a few contributions that the Minerals Council makes. They get two boardroom events and policy briefing sessions for their contribution of $25,000 to each of the larger political parties. So this is exactly why we need an amendment, such as the Greens one that's before us right now, to properly define 'gift' not only to include party membership fees of over $1,000—they're not included at the minute either; it's another convenient backdoor way of making extra donations—but to ensure that any of those subscriptions are disclosed. So I don't accept that Senator Cormann's view that this is already addressed by the electoral laws to be a correct representation. It is not clear. We have a chance to put it beyond doubt. I hope that addresses any of the questions that Senator Patrick might have about the dissatisfactory status of the current law.

I neglected to confirm in response to Senator Hanson that the Greens have not received foreign donations. I wanted to make sure the record was corrected there, because Senator Hanson got that wrong. I also note her comments about lowering the disclosure threshold. That was yesterday's amendment. As folk would know, the amendment that we're addressing at the minute is to cap donations to $1,000, to ban donations from those industries that have sought to exert undue influence and to clarify that definition of 'gift' so we can't have these shady pay-for-access occurrences continue. Just so everybody is clear, that's what we're voting on now. The disclosure threshold, which is Labor's policy that they voted against, happened yesterday.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Chandler ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (10:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): The question is the bill be read a third time.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (10:58): I rise to speak on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the related bill. I spent a career working in and with small businesses and I understand how important they are for local economies and the national economy, and how difficult it can be to run a small business. Let me tell you, cash flow matters. It doesn't matter how good you are at what you do; if your customers don't pay on time, you simply cannot survive with a small business.

For small-business people, landing a contract with a large firm feels like you've made it. It gives you a kind of security that you don't have with other contracts—security that you've got a buyer for your products, security that you have money coming in, security that you can pay the salaries of the workers who are depending on you. But, once that feeling passes—and, believe me, that feeling generally passes very quickly—you learn that a contract with a large firm can also give you a very high degree of insecurity. If one-quarter or one-half of your business is with one customer, you are completely dependent on them. If they drop you or if they scale back, you have to let go of employees and you might even have to shut up shop. When you're dependent on one big customer and they tell you they're not going to pay their bills right away, you're in no position to argue or to renegotiate with them at all. They are the ones who hold all of the power.

This bill will require those big customers to publicly report on their payment terms and their actual payment periods for their small business customers, and that is very much a good thing. At the very least, this will allow small businesses to check out the practices of potential larger customers and decide whether or not they're willing to take on that exposure. Of course, small businesses will take on that exposure regardless because they would see it as representing a large chunk of their business. It's going to be a useful tool for many businesspeople. The government also says that the register will create an incentive for large businesses to improve their payment performance. I'm somewhat sceptical about this for a number of reasons, but I do hope that, in the end, that will actually be of benefit to small businesses. The reason large businesses can push around small businesses is that there are plenty of small business suppliers but only a small number of large customers in any market. That's what gives the big players market power. Unless those power dynamics change, there won't be many big players changing their payment performance.

Transparency alone will do little to make things better. Indeed, my main concern with this bill is that transparency may actually make things worse for some small businesses, particularly those in concentrated markets like the banks, petrol stations, supermarkets and telecommunications. The register will allow big businesses to see the payment terms of their competitors, which is something that, I think, very few people have thought about. Moreover, it will allow some of the better performers to scale back their payment terms in a race to the bottom that can only hurt small business. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to amend these bills so that we can capture the benefits of transparency without incurring the harm. The benefits outweigh the harm, so Centre Alliance will support this legislation, but reluctantly. We encourage government to look at this as one step in a journey towards making life easier for small-business people. This means adopting some of the other recommendations of the small business ombudsman, such as the regulation of the use of supply chain finance products. But, more than anything, we need to find ways of dealing with a market power enjoyed by too many large businesses in Australia. Market power hurts small businesses, and it also hurts consumers and employees. If the government is serious about a productivity based recovery, market power itself is where the government needs to focus.

(Quorum formed)

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:06): I rise to speak on this bill, the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020. I note that on 28 November 2018, at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry annual dinner, the Prime Minister announced as part of a strategy to assist smaller businesses that cash-flow measures would be introduced. He said:

Cash flow always starts with getting paid. If the invoices you issue are not being paid, that hurts your business, that makes it harder for your business. Businesses, small businesses should never be treated as a bank by governments or large businesses. We should all pay on time.

He then spoke of the government's track record on payments and plans to get Commonwealth payments down to 20 days, something he clearly expected to flow further into the supply chain when he said that—so, when the government pays primes, we want to make sure that payments make their way to smaller businesses more quickly. He also said this:

What we have said is that anyone who wants to work with the Commonwealth Government, you've got to agree to those terms as well. You've got to pay businesses on time, because the quicker the money moves around, the better the economy does, it's just common sense. So we are working to deliver that.

We are also requiring that more businesses with a 100 million turnover, that's 3,000 business to publish information on how they pay their small businesses. I want to see the score board. You need to see the score board if you are a small or family business. Who are the big businesses that pay on time?

All good words that were coming from the Prime Minister, and I note that the number has now changed in respect of reporting. We do need to make sure that we move to a situation where you are not in a position to get a government contract if you don't pay businesses on time. I have written to Minister Cormann recently about this, because it's within his portfolio responsibility, and he assures me that the government is moving down that particular pathway—although in my view not quickly enough, and in Kate Carnell's view, too, not quickly enough.

The federal government generally does pay well. The old system directs suppliers be paid within 30 to 45 days. I note Defence, for example, has really stepped this up during COVID and are paying suppliers within two to seven days, but not always. So we've got some good things coming out of COVID in respect of government making payments on time, and I congratulate the government on those. But I do throw out this concern. Whilst the government is paying people very quickly as a result of COVID—large defence companies—and that initially started with very short payment times to the small businesses, that has, apparently, turned around. And so I'd just draw the government's attention to the fact that, whilst it is doing the right thing, some large defence contractors are not.

That kind of frames where we are as this bill lands in the Senate today. There is other stuff the government is doing. I could sit here and say, 'You're not doing enough. You're not going fast enough,' and I think those words are true, but at least you are looking at the problem.

Kate Carnell, the small business ombudsman, said in February this year:

…late payments by large businesses to small businesses account for 53 per cent of all invoices; that's $115 billion paid late to small businesses – equivalent to $7 billion of working capital to Australian small businesses every year.

So this is really important legislation, focusing on reporting payment times to small businesses with a turnover of more than $10 million.

Whilst I'll be supporting this legislation, I will also be supporting Labor's amendments that place legal obligations on companies to pay small businesses on time. The time has come to stop large businesses using small companies as banks. That is just not an acceptable proposition. It causes great harm. It causes great stress to business owners, as Senator Griff was talking about. It causes companies to not have the cash flow to grow their own businesses. It's effectively removing money from local economies and that is simply not acceptable.

I want to use this opportunity to present a particular concern that I have, and this is something that the people of small businesses of Whyalla have talked to me on a number of occasions. I have been up to Whyalla to talk about this issue in December 2018, January 2019, April 2019, June 2019, November 2019, March 2020 and August 2020. Just recently I was up visiting my brother in Whyalla and took the opportunity to talk to local businesses again. There's a problem up there. The problem relates to the steelworks. The steelworks up there has been in significant financial difficulty for years. It was given a potential lifeline in 2017 when British billionaire Sanjeev Gupta bought the steelworks and unveiled a multimillion dollar redevelopment. Much of this is still to happen.

People will remember there was a fairly serious crisis on our hands, because if, indeed, the Whyalla steelworks were to close it would basically bring the city to its knees. We might recall that Mark Mentha was engaged as the administrator. We originally saw Mr Mentha making a decision for a South Korean company to take over the Whyalla steelworks. That didn't work out. Mr Gupta stepped in. Generally he's well regarded around town—although some of that regard is wearing off. As part of the arrangements that were put in place, the South Australian government—that was then Labor—made a funding commitment. I note that the current Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, said that he would honour that commitment. There are conditions associated with it.

In the meantime, what's happening is Mr Gupta is travelling around the world and he's buying up a whole range of steel related industries, many of them that are in distress. While he's doing that he's leaving people in Whyalla unpaid—good businesses run by good people who carry out good work, either producing good products or providing good services. He's contracting them. They carry out the work and then they don't get paid on time. His payment terms are quite lengthy already, but he's not meeting those. Mr Gupta, as much as I support you in terms of your ambitions for Whyalla—you'll see no-one standing closer to you when you advocate for support for your plans, because it will transform Whyalla from a city of 22,000 to a city of 80,000. It will be the cause of dual carriageways all the way to Whyalla. We'll see desalination plants. We'll see 737s flying in and out of Whyalla to and from Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. I did talk about this on Tuesday night and in a previous speech. It's very important. I absolutely support what Mr Gupta is planning for Whyalla, but you can't continue to do what you are doing to the businesses of Whyalla.

There's well over $1 million owed to small businesses in Whyalla, and it is causing great distress. Remember that many of these businesses were receiving the same treatment as they are receiving now when Arrium were running the company. It's been a long-term hard slog for these people. It's lucky we have tough people in steel towns, but it's not good enough. We have to do something about it. I want GFG to succeed, but they have to be good corporate citizens, and, right now, they are not. It is unacceptable. Mr Gupta, you need to step up and you need to pay.

Big businesses are much better positioned to predict their cashflow. They can see what money is coming in and what money is coming out, and they should never put themselves in a position where they place an order on a small business with the knowledge that they simply won't be able to pay that provider. What we see in many instances, because these businesses are in a distressed state, is that these companies then often come up to the smaller business and say, 'If you want to get paid on time, you need to trim your price, and we'll give you a guarantee that you'll get paid on time.' That's totally unacceptable conduct.

In some sense, it's a bit of a sad indictment that we have to legislate like we are today. I support the idea that we should be reporting companies that are not paying on time. I think, when you shine a light on things, often you get improvements. They say that the thing that people who operate in dark places fear the most is light, so we do need to shine a light on some of these companies that are simply doing the wrong thing, and that's why this bill is important. But I think we need to go a step further.

We need to push forward with punitive measures where businesses do not comply with payment times. Remember: these payment times are an agreement between two parties—between the large business and the small business. No-one forces anyone to do this, and so one expects that you go into these arrangements in good faith and in good conscious. Provided one party meets their side of the agreement, the other party must also meet theirs. So I support this bill, but I also support what Labor are trying to do with this, and that is to make sure that there are penalties associated with large businesses who don't conduct their business in a conscionable fashion. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (11:18): I rise to speak in support of the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. In my previous life at the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the largest organisation representing small businesses in Australia—namely, the thousands of owner-drivers in the country—I frequently dealt with the ongoing issue of payment delays. The committee reviewing this bill heard evidence that 98 per cent of trucking operators are small or family businesses. Many operate with tight margins, often under incredible pressure, with high upfront costs, ongoing debt and unsafe working conditions. These conditions are made all the worse by the repeated behaviour of retail and mining clients at the top of the supply chain who are pushing out payment times, often resulting in these small businesses waiting 60 days, 90 days or even 120 days plus. Truck drivers and their companies are not like publicly listed companies. They cannot borrow at the rates the larger companies can. They cannot sell equities or issue debt bonds when they're not paid on time.

When the client at the top of the supply chain, often with millions of dollars in financial and legal assets behind them, decides not to pay, what recourse does a contractor or owner-operator have? What recourse does this bill propose to allow them? Nothing. The bill will require companies with turnovers greater than $100 million to report twice yearly how regularly they pay their companies and contractors. We understand that will be roughly 3,000 Australian businesses, which is a drop in the ocean of the number of companies that need to be held to account for payment times.

The government's Xero 2019 report that prompted the bill estimated that late payments from big businesses cost our small businesses up to $7 billion a year. We know from the 2016 research by Dunn & Bradstreet Australia that large companies in Australia can be 20 per cent slower in paying their bills than smaller companies. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman in 2017, inquiring into payment times and practices, found that average agreement payment times in Australia were 26 days late.

Only significantly large companies that regularly pay late, creating cashflow problems for small businesses, will be, under this bill, effectively named and shamed for their behaviour. This bill is a positive step in that regard, but one that will create some minimal transparency around this practice. Where this bill fails is that it relies entirely on this name-and-shame tactic to drive change. Similar programs in other parts of the world have fundamentally failed. This bill can really be described as a 'no-help no-harm' bill. It provides no actual help for small business and causes no harm to the larger businesses who do the wrong thing. The bill does not mandate or enforce maximum payment times. Instead, this government's relying on companies to have an ounce of shame or regret in how they treat others in their supply chain. It is really optimistic, as corporate self-regulation always is.

As the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Ms Carnell, told the committee that reviewed this bill—and I'm quoting from the report:

… some large firms simply ignore bad publicity about their practices.

That's why Labor will be proposing its own amendment to this bill to provide a fail-safe against late payments, an amendment that will deliver greater financial security and certainty to small business. While those opposite often trumpet that they are the party of small business, when it comes to actually ensuring fairness for small businesses the Liberal Party instead side with the largest of companies. As for the Nationals, I hope they will follow suit in the spirit of the great National senator John Williams, who backed the 30-day maximum payment system.

In some markets and industries, small businesses cannot shop around for other clients or other work because the market power is held by the top of the supply chain. Moreover, naming and shaming businesses with bad payment times will likely do nothing to stop the market power exercised by these firms, and that's the experience overseas. Small businesses already know which companies are good or bad operators. If Aldi builds a reputation for not paying contractors or small businesses in its supply chain, does that erode any of its market power to set the rates in the supply chain and continue its practice? The answer is: of course not. This bill on its own will do nothing to prevent these companies from riding roughshod over smaller operations.

This bill in its current form will also do nothing about the disturbing trend of supply chain financing, where small businesses are forced to engage a third-party financier to pay invoices owed to them, often for free. This is a process that sees desperate small businesses at their wit's end taken advantage of by these financiers, essentially payday lenders for small business. They're losing money in order to be paid on time. Big businesses and companies that never seem to have a problem paying their executive bonuses or their shareholder dividends can for some reason rarely be bothered to pay those in the supply chain on time. The practice of supply chain financing is unacceptable and a by-product of this government's failure to curb the practice.

There are 3.4 small businesses in Australia, many suffering the consequences of intermittent cash flow due to a delay in payment times. Instead of telling them what they already know, this government could take decisive action and mandate a maximum 30-day payment—a mandate that should not result in companies that pay in less than 30 days pushing out their payment times but, instead, ensure that companies practise payment times that treat others in their supply chain fairly. A 30-day maximum payment mandate is a proposal backed by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Institute of Public Accountants, Self-Employed Australia and, in a rare moment of unity, the Australian Trucking Association. As the ATA made clear in their submission on this bill, late payments are a chronic problem in the road transport industry, and there is a great deal that the government could to.

However, I will not hold my breath, because it was this government, only one Prime Minister ago, that abolished the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. The tribunal was brought in because the client economic pressure at the top of the supply chain is overwhelmingly the biggest factor contributing to the high rates of injuries, deaths and collapsed companies in the trucking industry. And poor payment terms are one of many features of this gross economic power that are strangling the transport supply chain. This was a finding of the National Transport Commission's 2008 report:

… the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that commercial/industrial practices affecting road transport play a direct and significant role in causing hazardous practices.

That is a finding that had been confirmed by countless inquiries, reviews and reports, including coroners' reports.

Legislating the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was a shining achievement of the Gillard government. It took action to support the tens of thousands of small businesses operating in the road transport industry. The tribunal's first order—yes, the very first order—issued in December 2019 mandated 30-day payments. If this government had not abolished the tribunal in 2016 then 30-day payment times would be the law of the road transport industry. Countless small businesses might not have gone bankrupt waiting for payment of their invoices. Drivers would have been able to maintain their vehicles and not suffer the indignity of injury or, of course, the tragedy of their death for their families and friends. The government abolished that tribunal and replaced it with nothing, and they're replacing it with nothing now. They repealed a body that was providing safety, ensuring that small businesses were paid on time, and replaced it with nothing.

In preparation for this speech I reached out to industry leaders, including Peter Anderson of the Victorian Transport Association and Hugh McMaster of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Road Transport Industry Organisation and the Transport Workers Union, and asked them questions about late payments. I was informed that among eight companies that were surveyed in the past 24 hours there were 23 invoices already 60 days late on payment, six invoices 45 days late, two invoices 90 days late and five invoices that are now 120 days late—all from clients of major companies that are serviced by the transport industry, many of them servicing multinationals. Some of these clients even have the audacity to ask for discounts in exchange for improved payment times, let alone payment on time.

This is the state of the industry post the repeal of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal as described by Frank Black, a representative for owner-drivers who contributed to a 2017 report; Macquarie University Associate Professor Louise Thornthwaite; and Sharron O'Neill of the University of New South Wales. Frank Black described the effect of repealing the tribunal as follows:

Things are going backwards and the pressure on drivers is growing. The Government can't be surprised at the high number of deaths and injuries on the roads.

The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, in their September 2016 review into the RSRT, examined the issue of payment times and terms and talked to owner-operators in the industry. One driver remarked:

BP requires me to pay my fuel bill at least fortnightly. But I can wait up to four months to be paid for my work. That means I often have to pay for fuel with a credit card.

Another driver pointed out:

Cash flow is the most important weapon with small business, it ensures accounts are paid on time, financial security. Many large companies are pushing their payments out to 60 and 90 days. No-one can survive with those sorts of terms. Fuel, wages, superannuation all have to be paid within a 30 day period.

These drivers raise an important point: there is one practice for small business and another for their clients. Small business cannot afford to miss payments to their suppliers. Delays can put them out of business, while the clients—the ones that have the market power and supply chains—can do what they want. Transport companies are not price makers; they are price takers. They are at the mercy of the client's gross economic power.

As an official with the TWU for 30 years, I've heard what that pressure sounds like. It's the pressure of struggling to make ends meet while an owner-operator goes 100 days without payment for his or her work. It's postponing overdue maintenance on your vehicle in order to make those ends meet. It's burning the midnight oil driving through the night to make an extra delivery—an extra run to earn just a little more. And it's the sound of carnage on our roads. Since the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was abolished, there have been some 706 deaths from accidents involving heavy vehicles.

While passing this bill won't do any harm, if the government is serious about addressing payment times to improve fairness for businesses at the mercy of powerful clients, to stop the callous practices of those at the top of the transport supply chains and to ease the financial pressures that contribute to deaths on our roads, then it should listen to the industry, the drivers and the opposition and support our amendments. As I've said before, I reach out to the Nationals in particular, and I will reincarnate, in senatorial terms, Senator 'Wacka' Williams: get off your backsides; do the right thing; turn around and support small businesses in your regions and in your towns. Yes, many of them are trucking businesses, but many are in the supply chains of those retailers—those ruthless operators—and non-mandated requirements on codes and nonarbitration are screwing them every day of the week. Stand with all of us—stand with the opposition and, most importantly, stand with your constituency.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (11:32): I'd like to align myself with the comments in the contribution that Senator Sheldon has just made. I rise too to speak on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. I want to say at the outset that without amendments to this bill, and specifically the payment times reporting scheme, this bill should not be supported.

The Payment Times Reporting Bill introduces a new payment times reporting scheme which requires approximately 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with annual turnover of $100 million and above to publicly report biannually on their payment terms and practices for their small business suppliers. It's an important piece of legislation if we are to get Australia moving again. After all, businesses, and in particular small businesses, are the backbone of Australia's economy. Labor understands that the policy to ensure these small businesses are supported is important work of government. There is no more important time than right now as we are emerging out of the health pandemic and the economic recession that we have found ourselves in.

Small businesses in Tasmania are the backbone of our state's economy. There are over 40,000 businesses in our community, and 95 per cent of those small businesses employ, on average, between one and 19 employees. These businesses are made up of local people; they deserve our support, because we are a close-knit community that supports one another. As we emerge from this crisis, it is crucial we support local small businesses in our cities, suburbs and regions. It would be really good if the Department of Finance, for instance, ensured that electorate office accounts were paid in a more timely manner, because many of those are local small businesses.

The objective of the scheme outlined in the bill is to improve payment outcomes for small businesses by creating transparency around payment practices of large business entities. The government argues that, by providing access to information on large business payment performance, small businesses will be able to make more-informed decisions about potential customers. The government argues that greater transparency on payment practices and performance will also create pressure for culture change to improve payment times. The opposition agrees.

The government-chaired Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment handed down its report on 30 July, and it recommended passage of the bill with the additional recommendation of a statutory review after two years. The report included additional comments by Labor senators, drawing attention to the majority of witness testimonies to the Senate committee arguing that the bill will not have a tangible effect on reducing payment times from large businesses to small businesses. As stated earlier, this bill should not be simply waved through without amendments that change the Payment Times Reporting Scheme. As noted by Labor senators, the Payment Times Reporting Scheme is in reality a transparency initiative to support self-regulation.

The efficiency of self-regulatory regimes is usually poor to questionable unless backed by the genuine threat of heavy-handed regulation. In principle, the transparency regime should be given a limited time to demonstrate its efficiency. Labor senators are of the belief that complementary back-up measures are necessary to ensure that the Payment Times Reporting Scheme improves general payment times to small businesses. The committee's evidence was consistent. Most witnesses argued for mandated 30-day payment times, or clarification that the object of the bill was to achieve payment times of 30 days or less. These witnesses were not any old witnesses. They were witnesses that those opposite should be listening to. You don't reform without consultation with a sector or with the Australian people. That is when policy fails. That is something this government just doesn't understand, because they don't like to hear an argument that they don’t agree with. These stakeholders included the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Australian Trucking Association, the Australian Institute of Public Accountants, Self-Employed Australia, and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand. These are informed witnesses. They deal with these practices every day.

We know the world over that self-regulation does not work, and certainly business is not going to start self-regulating during a global pandemic, when budgets are weakening, investment is low, business confidence is low and wages are stagnating—they were before the pandemic. Many people are in insecure work, and that has only increased due to the pandemic and the government's policies. Labor supports accountability and transparency measures. Without them, we cannot support these bills. So we are urging the government, the crossbench and the Nationals. The Nationals come into this chamber, day in and day out, talking about regional Australia. They should be standing with us and supporting our amendments. That is what is in the interests of small businesses around the country, but particularly those in regional areas of this country and in my home state of Tasmania.

The payment times fail-safe mechanism, by introducing the following features, is intended to provide an incentive for reporting entities to collectively improve their payment practices or run the risk of more stringent regulation. The regulator is required to report to the minister, after each reporting period after the first three reporting periods, on the median and average times taken by all reporting entities to pay small businesses' invoices. The reports are to be tabled in both houses of parliament. The payment times fail-safe mechanism is triggered if, after the first six reporting periods, the median time, reported by all reporting entities, to pay small-business invoices for a reporting period is more than 30 days. The regulator must report these factors to the minister.

We've talked in this chamber, over the past two weeks that we've been here, about the true impact of the pandemic both from a health point of view and from an economic point of view. We've seen the recent figures which, unfortunately, see us plummeting into recession. The last 29 years of growth in this country have now been set aside for the worst recession I've seen in my lifetime, and a lot of that rests with the government and the decisions that they've been making. Firstly, they should support our amendments. Secondly, they should ensure that government agencies are using best practice by ensuring that they pay their accounts within that 30-day period. Many of them, as I've outlined before, are with small business as well as with larger businesses.

If we are to work together, we will see better practices throughout the country. The first instance of this is those opposite, the government, supporting our amendments, if they truly want to make this bill work more effectively and see transparency. If they won't support them then we call on the Nationals to do the right thing. It was interesting to hear Senator Sheldon, in his contribution, refer to former senator 'Wacka' Williams. He was a straight shooter. He knew what was needed in the regions in his home state and around the country. So I'm calling on Nationals senators to get with the program and support our amendments.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (11:43): I'd like to thank all senators who've made contributions to the debate. As noted by many, late payments have negative impacts on small business and produce flow-on effects throughout the economy. That is why I now commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (11:44): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (17) on sheet RS116 together.

Leave granted.

Senator CASH: I move government amendments (1) to (17) on sheet RS116, relating to the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020, together:

(1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 14), before the definition of Australia, insert:

ABN has the same meaning as in the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999.

(2) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 20), after the definition of authorised officer, insert:

Business Industry Codes means the Business Industry Codes published by the Australian Taxation Office, as in force or existing from time to time.

Note: The Business Industry Codes could in 2020 be viewed on the Australian Taxation Office's website (https://www.ato.gov.au).

(3) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 24), after the definition of civil penalty provision, insert:

commencement day means the day this Act commences.

(4) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 25), after the definition of payment times report, insert:

Payment Times Small Business Identification Tool has the meaning prescribed by the rules.

(5) Clause 5, page 7 (line 2), omit the definition of small business, substitute:

small business means an entity described as a small business in the Payment Times Small Business Identification Tool.

Note: An entity will be described as a small business in the Payment Times Small Business Identification Tool during an income year for the entity if it carries on an enterprise in Australia and its annual turnover (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) was less than $10 million for the most recent income year.

(6) Clause 14, page 13 (lines 4 to 30), omit subclause (1), substitute:

Content requirements

(1) The report must:

   (a) state the entity's name; and

   (b) if the entity has an ABN—state the ABN; and

   (c) include a description of the entity's main business activity in accordance with the Business Industry Codes; and

   (d) state the reporting period to which the report relates; and

   (e) include a statement on the standard payment periods for the entity at the start of the reporting period, including in relation to the shortest and longest standard payment periods for the entity; and

   (f) include details and an explanation of any changes to the standard payment periods for the entity during the reporting period, including in relation to the shortest and longest payment periods for the entity; and

   (g) state the proportion, determined by total number and total value, of small business invoices paid by the entity during the reporting period that were paid in accordance with each of the following subparagraphs:

      (i) within 20 days after the day (the issue day) the relevant small business invoice was issued;

      (ii) between 21 and 30 days after the issue day;

      (iii) between 31 and 60 days after the issue day;

      (iv) between 61 and 90 days after the issue day;

      (v) between 91 and 120 days after the issue day;

      (vi) more than 120 days after the issue day; and

   (h) state the proportion, determined by total value, of all procurement by the entity during the reporting period that was procurement from small business suppliers; and

   (i) include the details of the principal governing body of the entity; and

   (j) if the entity is a member of a controlling corporation's group—identify the controlling corporation; and

   (k) include a declaration by a responsible member of the entity that the report will be provided to the principal governing body of the entity; and

   (l) state the name of the responsible member who signed the report under subsection (5) and the date it was signed; and

   (m) state the name and contact details of the individual giving the report to the Regulator; and

   (n) if a notifiable event has occurred since the last payment times report (if any) for the entity was given to the Regulator—include details of the notifiable event; and

   (o) include any other information or documents prescribed by the rules.

(7) Clause 14, page 13 (line 32), omit "paragraph (1)(d)", substitute "paragraph (1)(g)".

(8) Clause 14, page 14 (line 1), omit "paragraph (1)(i)", substitute "paragraph (1)(o)".

(9) Clause 14, page 14 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add:

Form and manner for giving report

(6) The report must be given in a form and manner (if any) approved in an instrument under subsection (7).

(7) The Regulator may, by notifiable instrument, approve a form or manner for the purposes of subsection (6).

(10) Clause 27, page 21 (after line 19), after paragraph (3)(b), insert:

   (ba) subsection 14(7) (approval of a form or manner for giving payment times reports);

(11) Clause 28, page 22 (line 17), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

(12) Clause 37, page 33 (line 6), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

(13) Clause 47, page 38 (lines 4 to 6), omit the paragraph beginning "This Part deals", substitute:

This Part deals with miscellaneous matters, such as the review of decisions, the continuation of certain obligations for former reporting entities, annual reporting, a statutory review and the power to make rules.

(14) Clause 47, page 38 (after line 8), after the paragraph beginning "This Part also provides", insert:

In addition, this Part provides that certain entities are taken to have become reporting entities before the commencement day, with their first reporting periods starting on or after the commencement day. It also provides for further time after the commencement day for entities to voluntarily elect to become reporting entities.

(15) Page 45 (after line 1), before clause 55, insert:

54A Application—certain entities taken to have become reporting entities before commencement day

(1) This section applies if:

   (a) an income year (the relevant income year) for a constitutionally covered entity started 6 months or less before the commencement day; and

   (b) the entity would have been covered by subsection 7(2) at the start of the relevant income year had this Act been in force at that time.

(2) The entity is taken to have become a reporting entity at the start of the relevant income year.

   Note: The entity continues to be a reporting entity until it ceases to be a reporting entity under subsection 7(3) or (4).

(3) Despite paragraph 8(a), the first 6 months of the relevant income year is not a reporting period for the entity.

54B Application—further time after commencement day for voluntary election to become reporting entity

(1) This section applies if:

   (a) an income year (the relevant income year) for a constitutionally covered entity started:

      (i) 6 months or less before the commencement day; or

      (ii) within the period of 2 months starting on the commencement day; and

   (b) the entity gives the Regulator notice in writing that the entity elects to become a reporting entity; and

   (c) the notice is given after the start of the relevant income year but within the period of 2 months starting on the commencement day.

(2) The election is taken to have been made under paragraph 7(1)(b), and the entity is taken to have become a reporting entity at the start of the relevant income year.

   Note 1: An entity that is only a reporting entity because of an election under paragraph 7(1)(b) is a volunteering entity: see section 5.

   Note 2: The entity continues to be a reporting entity until it ceases to be a reporting entity under subsection 7(3) or (4).

(3) If the relevant income year started before the commencement day, then, despite paragraph 8(a), the first 6 months of the relevant income year is not a reporting period for the entity.

(16) Page 46 (after line 9), after clause 57, insert:

57A Review of operation of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of this Act to be conducted within 6 months after the second anniversary of the commencement day.

   Note: The reference to this Act includes the rules: see the definition of this Act in section 5.

(2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

(17) Clause 58, page 46 (line 27), omit "small business", substitute "Payment Times Small Business Identification Tool".

Progress reported.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:46): I present the eighth 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—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 8 OF 2020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 2 September 2020 at 7.30pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

   (a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisionsof the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 November 2020 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

   (b) the provisionsof the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020 be referred immediatelyto the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2020 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

   (c) the provisionsof the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 be referred immediatelyto the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2020 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

   (d) the provisionsof the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 November 2020 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

    (e) the provisionsof the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 be referred immediatelyto the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);

   (f) the provisionsof the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020, and the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020 be referred immediatelyto the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2020 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);

   (g) the provisionsof the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, and the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 be referred immediatelyto the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 2020 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

   (h) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Self Managed Superannuation Funds) Bill 2020 be referred immediatelyto the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2020 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Family Law Amendment (Risk Screening Protections) Bill 2020

Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020

4. 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

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

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019

Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020

Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018

Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020

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

Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019

Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020

Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020

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

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.

5. 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 9 for a statement of reasons for referral)

Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. (see appendix 10 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(Dean Smith)

Chair

3 September 2020

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

DFAT

AGD

States and Territories

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 22 October

(signed)

Anne Ruston

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The sort of powers that the Government is talking about to override arrangements that are counter to the national interest require careful examination to make sure it is both workable and consistent with the powers of the Parliament.

Concerns have already been raised by significant stakeholders, such as universities, particularly about lack of consultation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Attorney-General's Department

State and territory governments

Universities

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Late September/ early October

Possible reporting date: 30 November 2020

(signed)    

Anne Urquhart

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020

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

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Industry participants have raised concerns about the lack of clarity on the level of fees to be set under the new arrangements

One of the major commercial users of RPAs in Australia has expressed concern the bill allows for a fee of up to $300 per drone. By comparison, they quote drone registration fees in Canada as being $5, the UK $16, and the USA $7.

If fees are set too high it will be a barrier to entry for small operators, a disincentive for small operators (eg farmers, photographers, surveyors) to register their RPA, and could see R&D currently conducted in Australia sent offshore.

A short senate inquiry would allow any issues related to fee structures to be aired before the legislation is passed.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Wing

Australian Association for Unmanned Systems

NFF and other farmers groups

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

4 November 2020

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 [and] Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consideration of the level of consultation undertaken, appropriateness of levy thresholds, and use of delegated legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Drone stakeholders and community organisations

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Possible hearing date(s): Hearing on the papers

Possible reporting date: 29 October 2020

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Substantive and controversial change to the CEFC Act, including to financial operation of CEFC, what investments qualify as investments, and how allowable investments are determined.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Clean Energy Council

Australian Energy Council

Smart Energy Council

Investor Group on Climate Change

Former CEFC CEO, Oliver Yates

Climate Council

Climate Works

Australian Conservation Foundation

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

4 November 2020.

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

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

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Seeking the views and intentions of the CEFC Board in fulfilling the legislation, acquire stakeholder views and understand the purpose of the amendments.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Chair and CEO of CEFC, Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources, Clean Energy Council, Energy Networks Association, Tesla, Snowy Hydro, APPEA, APA Group, The Australia Institute, Climate Council, State based conservation councils.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

24 September 30 October, 13 November

Possible reporting date:

7 December 2020

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complex legislation including expansion of money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation. Govt has been slow to move on expanding money laundering legislation – this is an opportunity to demonstrate where they have no moved.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Home Affairs; AUSTRAC; AFP; ACIC; Australian Strategic Policy Institute; Australian Banking Association; Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

18 November 2020.

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: concerns regarding human rights and digital rights.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Human Rights Law Centre; Law Council of Australia; Civil Liberties Australia; Australian Lawyers Alliance; Digital Rights Watch, and Electronic Frontiers Australia.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal & Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s): 30 September-1 October 2020

Possible reporting date: 10 November 2020

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: National Commissioner for Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: to allow for consideration of design of proposed National Commissioner, informed by the findings of the impending interim Commissioner, forthcoming government response to the Productivity Commission's A Better Way report, impacted stakeholder submissions and consultation.

Because the interim Commissioner (as announced February 5 2020) has yet to be appointed, the interim Commissioner's literature review, also announced in February, is also yet to commence. This review, consisting of a comprehensive review of known current and former ADF and Defence personnel suicides since 2001, as well as a progress update on the implementation of recommendations made in various reviews and reports since 2003, should be concluded to inform the design of the National commissioner's proposed functioning.

The expectation offered by the Government in February 2020 was that the interim Commissioner would produce an initial report back twelve months from commencement, with a final report due 18 months from commencement (or six months after the initial reporting date). As this has been delayed, it is reasonable to suggest that the work of the interim Commissioner should inform the consideration of the Senate committee, and such that the work of the interim Commissioner should be allowed to proceed without delay, and without undue haste. The 12-month timeline to produce an initial report should be honoured.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Families, spouses of suicided Defence personnel.

Departments.

Academics.

Legal Experts.

Productivity Commission.

Ex-service organisations.

Veteran advocates.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

FADT Legislative Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

24 April 2021

(signed)

Senator Lambie

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Scrutinise the intended operation of the bill on key issues

Assess substantiveness of some amendments

Understand why certain recommendations of Spectrum Review are not addressed in the package and when they will be addressed.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

On 27 August 2020 the Government introduced the bills in the House

On 31 August 2020 the Department published submissions on consultation on the Exposure Draft of legislation and a consultation outcomes document.

Stakeholders advise they are still considering the bills.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

4 November 2020

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Recycling & Waste Reduction Bill 2020

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

Recycling & Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Recycling & Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling & Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: This package of Bills may see significant reform to waste management and have significant environmental implications.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Recycling industry stakeholders (representing over 60,000 workers), NGOs, packaging and retail industry stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Committee

Possible hearing date(s): September

Possible reporting date: 30 September 2020

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Recycling & Waste Reduction Bill 2020

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

Recycling & Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Recycling & Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling & Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: These bills introduce significant changes to the regulatory framework for the export of waste materials and it will be important to ensure that the measures included are appropriate.

Possible submissions or evidence from: National Waste & Recycling Industry Council, Australian Council of Recycling, Waste Management & Resource Recovery Association, Boomerang Alliance and the Law Council of Australia.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date: 30 September 2020

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 8

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Self Managed Superannuation) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Merits of extending SMSFs to cover six people, issues in SMSF administration arising from larger coverage, operation of SMSFs, prudential matters relating to SMSFs with multiple members, tax implications of larger SMSFs, consumer matters relating to SMSF advice, retirement income impacts of SMSF expansion

Possible submissions or evidence from:

SMSF Association, Financial Services Council, Financial Planning Association of Australia, Association of Financial Advisers, Australian Banking Association, CPA Australia, CA ANZ, Institute of Public Accountants Australia, Prof Deborah Ralston, Prof Susan Thorp, Treasury, ASIC, ATO, APRA, Tax Justice Network, Productivity Commission, Super Consumers Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

4 November 2020

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 9

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Impact of the bill on the environment

Relationship with the Samuel Review

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

11 November 2020

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This bill would make changes to important environmental approvals processes. It would amend the EPBC Act which is currently the subject of an independent review and the Senate should understand the full recommendations of the independent review before considering this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 11th November

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

Appendix 10

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Higher Education Support Amendment (Job Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill seeks to fundamentally reform university funding; student fees; student protection and institutional audit measures.

The legislation fails to address aspects of the Government's proposed reforms that have a significant bearing on the university purpose and operations.

There has been significant public and expert criticism of the Bill on a range of matters – including the underlying assumptions, the evidence base, unintended consequences and perverse incentives.

Key stake holders have expressed the need for a comprehensive inquiry given the extent and complexity of the reforms proposed and the lack of consultation to date.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Group of Eight

Universities Australia

Australian Technology Network

Innovation Research Universities

Regional Universities Network

individual Universities

National Union of Students

Professional Associations

Deans of Science; Deans of Education; Australiasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities

NTEU, PSA

Policy experts and academics

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September - November

Possible reporting date:

30 November 2020

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To provide tertiary education providers, students, relevant unions, and other interested parties in the sector an opportunity to give feedback on the bill and comment on its likely impact on education providers and students.

To consider the likely effectiveness of the bill in achieving its stated outcomes and its impact on tertiary education providers and students.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Individual Australian universities

Individual TAFEs and Government-owned providers, registered training organisations and non-university higher education providers

National Union of Students

National Tertiary Education Union

CAPA

Universities Australia

Group of 8

Regional Universities Network

Innovative Research Universities

TAFE Directors Australia

Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia

TEQSA

DESE

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): no preference - depends on committee schedule

Possible reporting date:

30 November 2020

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (11:46): I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the provisions of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and a related bill, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation report on 30 November 2020.".

The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, it's been flagged with me that you might have an amendment to that amendment with a different date? Is that correct?

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (11:46): I do, Mr President. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the provisions of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee report by 24 April 2021".

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:47): Essentially, I just want to advise the chamber that the government will be supporting a referral of that legislation if the reporting date is 30 November 2020, because we do want the Senate to have the opportunity to deal with this very important bill so that this very important legislation can be passed by the end of the year. We don't think a reporting date next year is appropriate, because it would delay the establishment of this very important standing commission with the powers of a royal commission. I would also like to announce on behalf of the government that we intend to make an announcement in relation to the appointment of a commissioner during the month of September.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (11:48): I say to the government, look, it's as simple as this: you were going to put an interim commissioner in early this year. We are still waiting for you to do that. We still do not know who the interim commissioner is. We are now sitting in September and we've got no idea what you are doing or who it is, and there are no terms of reference. You've got a real problem here. What we're asking is: when that is done, can we overview that and have an inquiry, and watch this going through? I can tell you, you are the same government that still has not responded to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. What is wrong with you people? My thought is this: the only way you could come up with this is one of two ways. You are using information from the exact same people who are pushing these veterans to suicide—that is, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I can tell you now that I sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee during the inquiries into veterans' suicide and veterans' health. I sat on those inquiries with some of your senators, and I have watched them in tears over the years—and you want to rush this through?

If this is so important to you, why is there still no interim commissioner six months later? What sorts of games are you playing with these lives? Do you think we can do this in a month? Nobody in their right mind thinks we can do this in a month. You are being very unfair and very unjust to these veterans, and you know you are. You could be doing this. You and the Prime Minister are sticking your chests out at me because I won't give you what you want, and those veterans are paying the price. How can you do that to them? You know that one month is not going to cut it, unless you've already got this all down on paper. Have you got this down on paper? That is the question. There has been no discussion with anybody who actually cares and is heavily involved in this about who the interim commissioner should be—none at all. Today, quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves. They're going to know what you are up to. One month!

Who is the interim commissioner? Where is this magic man? Is he going to come to the inquiry? If it's so important, why wasn't this commissioner put in six months ago? If you really care about these veterans, why wasn't the commissioner put in six months ago? If you really care about these veterans, where is your response to the Productivity Commission? Where is all that? This is beneath even you. It is absolutely disgusting that you think someone can do this in just over a month. My God! There is no way you can do this in just over a month. You are kidding yourselves. I bet the interim commissioner is a mate. He'll be a mate of yours. If the interim commissioner is a mate of yours and if he doesn't do the right thing, I will be riding him from day one. God help you! These veterans are suiciding, and you're part of it over there. You've been mucking around with their lives for years. You just throw them around as if they can be used and abused like they're regimental numbers, not human beings. It's absolutely shameful of you people. If you actually gave a stuff about these veterans, you would take my amendment and leave this until April. It's your darkest day yet when it comes to these veterans. It's shameful.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:53): I urge the government to reconsider its position and give time for this committee to conduct its work, give time for the appointment of the interim commissioner and let the interim commissioner get his or her head around the issue so that they can appear before the inquiry. It's an important inquiry, and we should give it the time it needs.

The PRESIDENT: We have two amendments before the chair, and I will put them in the reverse of the order in which they were moved. On advice from the Clerk, I will interpret Senator Lambie's amendment as pushing out the reporting date in the government's amendment. The government's amendment is for a reporting date of 30 November this year; Senator Lambie's amendment is for a reporting date of 24 April next year. The question is that the amendment of Senator Lambie be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:00): Before I put the next amendment, I understand that Senator Hanson would like to speak to the debate.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:00): [by video link] In relation to the amendment that was put up by the government, I want to clarify that the reporting date for the inquiry moved to 30 November. It is not in one month. As Jacqui Lambie was saying, it was only going to be in one month.

I do support the government to move the reporting date to 30 November. I have heard from a lot of people who are fed up with inquiries into suicides. A lot of people are calling for a royal commission into it—that is true—but the government have made a commitment to put a commissioner in place. They have given an undertaking that who that commissioner will be will be announced almost immediately. I believe that the commissioner should be given the opportunity to start his work. If we hold this up with another inquiry, that means the interim commissioner cannot do anything and cannot do their job.

People have had enough with inquiries. I think there have been about 17 or 18 inquiries into this. I understand Jacqui Lambie's passion about this. I understand that she's frustrated at the answers hardly met, but we need to give the commissioner the opportunity to start investigating—and it's not about future deaths; it's about deaths in the past—those over 500 deaths have occurred in our Defence Force, and I fully understand that.

I do support Jacqui Lambie having her inquiry. But I think to extend that inquiry out for a year—which was initially until 27 August next year—was not reasonable. Even now, in taking it out to April, I think it needs to be a shorter period of time. As I explained to Jacqui Lambie, we need to get the commissioner working and to start working on this. Therefore I cannot support Jacqui Lambie's amendment—

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

Senator Bilyk: That's the first time I've heard Senator Hanson refer to Senator Lambie as 'Jacqui Lambie'. It's 'Senator Lambie', and that's how she should be referred to.

The PRESIDENT: This debate has been characterised by a little bit of dancing around the standing orders. It is a matter of some passion. I was going to draw senators' attention to the use of correct titles and addressing comments to other senators through the chair at the end. But I take your point of order; people should refer to others by their appropriate titles.

Senator HANSON: I do apologise to Senator Lambie. I am very passionate as well about the suicides that have happened in the Defence Force. Answers need to be had. But, to extend an inquiry out—and it was regarded to the terms of reference to a royal commission—there has to be no undertaking that the government will have a royal commission. What I have suggested to the government and to Senator Lambie is to let the commissioner do his job. He will be independent of the government and will do investigations into previous deaths that have happened. Let him come down with his findings. If that is not the case then the Senate can review that, look at how we will proceed with this and then possibly take it to a royal commission. But to have a commissioner in this position has never happened, and I believe that we need to actually move forward with this.

Senator Lambie, you have the opportunity now—a commissioner has been appointed and will be named—for a three-month period to have your inquiry, as you wished, and it's been referred to foreign affairs, defence and trade. So I would suggest that you've got an opportunity now to have that inquiry. I support the government's amendment to this.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the government amendment that has a reporting date for these bills of 30 November 2020 be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary, no. The ayes have it.

Senator Lambie: The noes have it!

The PRESIDENT: I heard only one voice there. I will do Senator Lambie the courtesy of doing it again; however, I will point out that that will mean the bill will not be referred to a committee if the noes have this motion. So I'll put the motion again. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:11): I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, the bill be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 September 2020".

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:12): I move:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2020".

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:12): It's good to see that the government has seen some sense in having an inquiry. But you have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table, embarrassed with your tail between your legs.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator FARUQI: No, I'm not going to lower my volume. This is a big issue and it's a shame that Senator Pauline Hanson's One Nation has become, even more so during the pandemic, just an arm of the Liberal-National government. We on this side of the chamber want to keep you accountable and transparent and scrutinise your decisions. I thank every single member sitting on this side of the chamber for doing that. We are doing our jobs and you have been pushing against us, pushing against scrutiny.

You gave us six days to look at the exposure draft of this bill—six days, not even one week! What are you afraid of really? Are you afraid that everyone will find out how destructive your uni fee hikes and funding cuts bill is? Are you afraid that everyone will find out your juvenile Murdoch-driven hatred of humanities in universities? Are you afraid that your bill doesn't at all do what you say it does? You are cowards and we will expose you. We will expose you through this inquiry. We want the 30 November date as well, but we will expose you no matter what inquiry we get. We are here to do our jobs, to keep you accountable, to make sure that every single person in Australia finds out how destructive your horrible piece of legislation is.

The PRESIDENT: I'm going to put the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher first because that pushes out the reporting date. The question is that the Senator Gallagher's amendment for a reporting date of 30 November 2020 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:14): Can we record our vote on that?

The PRESIDENT: The opposition would like their vote recorded in support of that amendment. Senator Siewert.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:14): Please note the Greens' support for that amendment as well.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Siewert.

The PRESIDENT: I'll now put the original amendment moved by the government for a reporting date of 25 September 2020.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:14): 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, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2020".

This amendment refers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, which is being debated in the House of Representatives as we speak, to an inquiry. It is unthinkable that this government would push through this piece of legislation without allowing the Senate to do its job. If they don't allow this bill to go to an inquiry, not only is this an attack on the environment; it is an attack on democracy and an attack on our children's future, because this is about the health and the sustainability of our planet. If the government don't have the common sense to know that our job in this place is to inquire into pieces of legislation, to scrutinise them, to work out what form the legislation and the amendments should take in order to make sure we actually protect the environment, then I don't know what they think they're doing on the front benches. This act and this piece of legislation require a full-blown Senate inquiry. The arrogance of this government to assume that they don't have to worry because they don't want to have to hear about it! It's just absurd. It's arrogant, it's undemocratic, and it is an attack on Australia's environment and our wildlife.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:23): I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:33): At the request of Senator Kitching, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 December 2020:

The operation and management of the Department of Parliamentary Services, with particular reference to:

(a) recruitment;

(b) workplace culture;

(c) building and asset management;

(d) contract and procurement management;

(e) general operations and management;

(f) business continuity arrangements;

(g) security arrangements;

(h) services to parliamentarians;

(i) the Parliamentary Library;

(j) implementation of recommendations from past inquiries; and

(k) any related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:33): At the request of Senators Waters and Rice, I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Allocation of Government Grants, be established to inquire into and report on the administration of government grant programs during and after election campaigns, including but not limited to the Community Development Grants, Urban Congestion – Commuter Car Park Fund, Environmental Restoration Grants, and Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Export Hubs and Drought Communities Fund, with particular reference to:

(a) program design and guidelines, including eligibility criteria;

(b) management and assessment processes;

(c) the use of closed grant programs which are not open to public applications, but require nomination by a Minister;

(d) adherence to published assessment processes and program criteria, including the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines;

(e) the relationship between election commitments and grant allocations;

(f) demonstration of value for money;

(g) efforts to influence votes through grant allocation;

(h) the role of Ministers in determining awards of grants;

(i) measures to manage the risk of politicisation of funding outcomes and announcements; and

(j) any related programs or matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 30 August 2021.

(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

(a) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and

(d) 1 nominated by a minority party or independent Senator.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and as deputy chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(10) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senators Waters and Rice be agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:46): I seek leave to move a motion relating to an order for the production of documents as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Senator SIEWERT: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Siewert moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to an order for the production of documents.

What I'm seeking to do here is to move a motion from myself and Senator Farrell that calls that there be laid on the table by the minister for sport no later than 10 am on 7 September 2020 a copy of the talking points prepared by the office of the former minister for sport concerning the expansion of funding for the Community Sport Infrastructure grant program ahead of her meeting with the Prime Minister on 28 November 2018; any records of that 28 November 2018 meeting; the subsequent exchange of letters referring to that meeting as a basis for expanding funding for the Community Sport Infrastructure grant program; and any evidence the government is able to provide on the minister's legal authority to be the decision-maker in the Community Sport Infrastructure grant program

This is a program that has stunk for a very long time. There's a long list of documents that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and his Liberal Party machine have withheld from the parliament, which I have just listed and are listed in our motion. That is why it is so important that they are provided to this chamber and the public. The government have withheld legal advice from Sport Australia, who were perfectly happy to provide responses to these inquiries. It's easy for these things to get lost in all the procedural talk, but the truth is that this matters for everyday people out there in the community. It counts, and it's important for the people who were affected by this particular process. But it's also really important that we get to the bottom of this. If we don't, it could happen again, and we never want to see this sort of thing happen again.

I want to quote from one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, Dr James Meyer, President of the Goolwa District Pony Club:

We put our heart and soul into these applications . We're doing it for nothing. We're going it for the love of the sport and the community that we're involved in. To have it tinkered with in such a disingenuous way is disappointing. Politicians might look at why we distrust them; it's activities like these that foster that distrust. We will obviously keep applying for grants, including local council, state and federal. We'll still put as much effort in, because we still want as good a chance as we can. We just want the same integrity and return that we put in to come back to us.

We can understand the anger and disappointment that people would feel on finding out about these rorts. We've heard from the Gippsland Ranges Roller Derby club, who had the highest assessment score in almost 2,000 evaluations but got nothing out of the funding in this rorted program. We've heard from clubs across the country about the hours they've put in—most of them by volunteers—preparing plans, getting approvals and writing submissions, only to see the funding go to country clubs chosen by the Liberal and National parties as part of what is pork-barrelling.

The Liberal Party should come clean with the Australian people about what they've done. They should provide us with these documents: a copy of those talking points ahead of that 28 November 2018 meeting; any records or explanations as to why they didn't minute a meeting where the PM approved an extra $30 million in funding; and a copy of the letter formalising the agreement between the Prime Minister and the minister at the time, Minister McKenzie. They should also provide some basic legal evidence for the minister's legal authority even to have been the decision-maker in this program. It is frankly just astonishing that in all of the evidence here in the chamber and in the committee inquiry, there has not been a single piece of evidence put forward as to the basis on which the minister has the legal authority to be the decision-maker.

This program stinks to high heaven. This is why we have taken the step of moving to suspend standing orders to get this OPD through to get these documents on the table. It's critically important that we get to the bottom of how these rorts happened and make sure they never happen like this again.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:51): That is now the second attempt by non-government senators to disrupt the orderly operation of the Senate. We have important business of the nation to transact including, of course, the payment terms legislation put forward by Senator Cash and the very important citizenship cessation legislation, which Labor previously indicated was very important to them by moving a particular motion earlier today. So I assume that Labor will be opposing this suspension motion because, like the government, they would want us to get to the citizenship cessation arrangements as swiftly as possible, because that is a very important reform to protect and support our national security arrangements. I will not waste the Senate's time any further. I urge senators to oppose this suspension and to get on with the business of the day.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:52): Labor will be supporting the suspension. We think we can support the suspension, support the motion, support the payment times bill and support the citizenship cessation bill getting dealt with today.

I'm not going to take up the Senate's time either other than to say that every time the sports rorts inquiry meets it uncovers another bit of detail about the dodginess that went on with this sports grants program. It says everything about this government—that program sums it up. It's all about the marketing, the spin, the secrecy, the rorting and the pork-barrelling. That's what went on in this program, and the government should actually learn from its mistakes with this program and release all the information so we know exactly what went on: what the minister's involvement was, what the Prime Minister's involvement was and why $44 million was allocated to targeted and marginal seats after caretaker began. Seemingly, the government don't mind that that's the way they conducted themselves. It's dodgy and it stinks. The information should be provided to the Senate, and that's why we support the suspension and the motion.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (12:54): Every day we learn more about the scale of the rorting by the Liberal and the National parties, and last night's hearing of the select inquiry into sports rorts revealed so much more. It is absolutely vital that the government comes clean—and that it comes clean quickly—and reveals the extent to which they rorted this grants program basically to turn it into a pre-election slush fund aimed at shoring up votes in targeted and marginal seats.

Last night we learned that, despite all the public spin, the Prime Minister was deeply involved in deciding to rort this whole program to try to buy votes in marginal and targeted seats and, in doing so, overturning the recommendations of Sport Australia and trashing the trust of people and sports clubs across the country who had thought that their grant was being assessed in a fair and objective process where it didn't matter where you lived or who you knew in order to get funded. I want to take you through some of the details of what we learned last night, because they highlight the importance of the documents that we are seeking under this order for the production of documents and why we need to see them absolutely pronto.

We found out that, before Sport Australia had even finished assessing their applications, former Minister McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister on 17 October 2018 seeking extra funding, and she provided the Prime Minister with a spreadsheet entitled 'Copy of Electorate Divisions of Applications'. What this is is pretty clear just from the title of that document. In other words, 'Here's what you need to know, Prime Minister—which electorates the grants under this community sports infrastructure program are in.' This was before Sport Australia had even finished assessing the applications.

McKenzie's office was emailing the Prime Minister's office with information about whether they were in targeted or marginal seats in order to ask for extra funding. And then, a few weeks later, in November, McKenzie's office sent two more spreadsheets to the Prime Minister's office prior to a meeting that she had scheduled with the Prime Minister on 20 November. One spreadsheet's got the details of the $30 million program, and the other's got the detail of a $100 million and identifies that there would be 109 more grants—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, on point of order?

Senator Duniam: We're currently debating a suspension motion as far as I can tell, but I can only hear from Senator Rice a whole heap of political points being made and a bit of her version of history of events. I wonder if you could ask Senator Rice to be relevant to the question before the chair.

The PRESIDENT: There's traditionally some discretion granted, but I am going to ask at least for the speech to be made relevant. There have been some slippages in this, and they seem to be becoming more common. I ask senators to address the motion to suspend standing orders, not necessarily the substantive one they wish to move.

Senator RICE: I am seeking to suspend standing orders so that we can get this OPD voted on today so that the information that was revealed at last night's meeting is there for the public to be able to realise the extent that this government has been rorting the program. Going back to the chronology, which we learned about only last night—this is why it's urgent—the day before the scheduled meeting with the Prime Minister, former Minister McKenzie met with her staff to prepare for that meeting. We found out last night that, as part of that preparation, there was a four-page set of talking points that were prepared for Senator McKenzie which focused on how many extra projects in marginal and targeted electorates would be funded if the program was increased to $100 million. These talking points are one of the documents that we are seeking to have with this OPD.

We need to see these talking points. We need to have them laid on the table. All of Australia needs to see them, especially the mums and dads who gave their all to putting in applications for the incredibly worthy projects that didn't get funded through this grants program—that missed out because the Minister for Sport and the Prime Minister were colluding on how to rort the program to buy votes. That meeting between Minister McKenzie and the Prime Minister actually didn't end up taking place until 28 November, but then, just days after the meeting, surprise, surprise, the program gets extra funding. Then there was a letter exchanged that specifically referred to an agreement in that meeting. We need to see that letter.

We also learned last night that, on 4 March—just two months out from the election—the Prime Minister's office asked McKenzie's office for information about the unfunded projects, including which ones had coalition MPs lobbying for them. The Prime Minister is up to his neck in this, and we need to see this information so that it is absolutely clear to the people of Australia how much it is. The government needs to come clean. The Prime Minister needs to come clean about his role in rorting this grants program, and we need to see all the documentation of how this occurred. This whole affair stinks to high heaven, and the longer there is a delay in sharing this critical information, the longer this stink is going to hang around.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:07): Firstly, I extend respects and greetings from the Labor opposition to the Mirarr Aboriginal people, traditional owners of the township of Jabiru, which is the subject of this bill. I do so as I acknowledge the traditional owners of this country, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people. Labor is happy to support this bill, which has been a long time coming for the Mirarr. The effect of this bill will be to return ownership of Jabiru to the Mirarr people and to allow for a community entity representing the Mirarr to hold a lease over the town.

Let me remind the Senate that it was a Labor government back in October 2009 which set this course of Mirarr self-determination, with an in-principle agreement for amendments to the land rights act. And it was former Labor leader Bill Shorten who, in January last year, committed a Labor government—which, sadly, didn't eventuate in May last year—to fund $220 million to improve the visitor experience in Kakadu National Park and to support the future development of Jabiru. Undoubtedly, it was knowledge of that commitment that spurred Prime Minister Morrison to commit similar funding for the same purposes.

Labor is glad that a new Mirarr community entity will be holding the head lease over Jabiru township, rather than the Commonwealth's executive director of township leasing, because that reflects the preference of Northern Territory land councils and traditional owners. Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation first presented a plan for Jabiru to become a service and tourism hub for the region in 2001. Even before that, in 2000, an agreement known as the Kakadu charter was signed by Mirarr traditional owner Yvonne Margarula and then president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Peter Garrett, to mark a path forward for Jabiru from uranium extraction to sustainable tourism and development.

Twenty years on, today begins a new chapter for the Mirarr traditional owners. A Jabiru settlement sets an innovative and practical standard for Aboriginal led regional economic development. The Mirarr and their team at the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation are to be congratulated on their groundbreaking achievements. This history-making is possible because of the enduring and inspired commitment and hard work of the Mirarr people themselves, especially Mirarr senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula and her next elder sister, Nida. The Mirarr have been ably served by tenacious and dedicated staff at the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, and particularly their long-term expert legal adviser, Susan O'Sullivan, who has worked tirelessly with the Mirarr for almost 20 years and is very much a driving force behind all of this. I'd also like to acknowledge Justin O'Brien, CEO of the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation. He certainly did not want to be mentioned; Justin, I couldn't help myself, because you certainly deserve to be.

This bill is about a future for Jabiru post-mining and a future that is about local landowners making and realising their own plans. There will soon be a head lease that provides security of tenure for the Mirarr to develop Jabiru. The town of Jabiru was built on Mirarr country in the 1980s, without the consent of the traditional owners, to service the needs of the Ranger Uranium Mine. The town and the mine are surrounded by Kakadu National Park, Aboriginal land which is leased to the Commonwealth's Director of National Parks. The Mirarr never wanted the Ranger mine or the Jabiru township that goes with it. The good news for them is that Ranger Uranium Mine is set to cease operations in January 2021, and the Mirarrs' vision to turn the mining town into a service and tourism hub for the region can be realised.

The Mirarr want the parliament to know that Jabiru is open for business. Kakadu is home to spectacular scenery, a pristine environment and immense cultural value, and it should be shared with the world. Traditional owners want Kakadu to be at the top of the list for Australian and international visitors. The impact of COVID has been felt on tourism in the Northern Territory, and that is obviously unavoidable in the current climate. But the Mirarr are ready to rebound, to restore the future of the World Heritage listed environmental and cultural site. This will require infrastructure investment from this federal government.

Jabiru falls within the realm of the Northern Land Council, and I'm pleased to record the NLC's support for this bill, under CEO Marion Scrymgour. After the bill was introduced back in May this year, the NLC noted that it would allow for the transition of the township from a mining town to a regional service centre and tourism hub that would drive economic activity throughout the West Arnhem region. For many years, the Mirarr people have been planning and looking forward to the shutdown of Ranger Uranium Mine next year, and they've developed a comprehensive master plan that will transform the Jabiru economy from one that's been focused on mining and ancillary services to one based on the social, cultural and natural resource wealth of the region.

I'm also pleased to record the observations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has considered the human rights implications of this bill. The committee has reported that the bill engages various human rights embedded in international covenants: the right to enjoy and benefit from culture, the right to self-determination and the rights of equality and nondiscrimination. The committee has noted:

The Land Rights Act, as a whole, promotes the right to enjoy and benefit from culture by recognising the Aboriginal system of land ownership by traditional owners and providing ways for them to own, control and use the resources of their land. … By restoring Aboriginal land to the traditional owners, the Land Rights Act has enabled them to maintain, and in some cases re-establish, their cultural identity.

They have withstood immense pressures from political and mining industry influences for so many decades, and their culture has remained strong and vibrant. Now, finally, they have the opportunity to chart their own destiny, to manage their own affairs, and to prosper from their own endeavours. I know that the Mirarr people have been looking forward, with much anticipation, to the passing of this legislation, and we on this side are happy for it to proceed without the need for further scrutiny by a Senate committee.

In closing, I wish the Mirarr people well in their future business. To the Mirarr people: there's so much work ahead of you to realise the full potential that will be delivered by the passage of this bill. I'm sure you will achieve your aspirations for economic development, and I'm sure you will enjoy the goodwill of us all. Yo bauji barra.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:15): I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020. I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of Jabiru, the Mirarr people.

This bill facilitates the execution of a township lease and the transfer of ownership of Jabiru to the traditional owners, the Mirarr people. It will be a really, really important day when this bill goes through. It makes the township lease consistent with other section 19A township leases by removing the requirement that the term of the township lease of 99 years be allowed for a shorter term of 40 to 99 years. This would allow a lease that aligns with the terms of the Kakadu National Park lease, removing the requirement that the initial grant of the township lease can only be to the Commonwealth. This will enable the lease to be held by either the executive director of township leasing on behalf of the traditional owners or a community entity representing the Mirarr people.

The Greens are very supportive of this bill. Importantly, these changes enable the township lease for Jabiru to be held by the traditional owners, which allows the Mirarr people to be decision-makers about their land. The Ranger Uranium Mine was built four decades ago and was imposed on the Mirarr people. The closure of the uranium mine and the expiry of existing leasing arrangements will occur in January next year. The passage of this bill will pave the way for Jabiru to transition from a former mining town to a tourism and services hub led by First Nations peoples. I understand how excited they are about that and what amazing visions the Mirarr people have for this area. The construction and development projects planned for Jabiru will help boost recovery for these towns, particularly post-COVID.

I would like to acknowledge and strongly congratulate the Mirarr people, who have campaigned long and hard to have Jabiru returned to the traditional owners of the land. In 2018, the Mirarr people had their native title rights and interests recognised, after first lodging a native title application 20 years prior. Putting control back into the hands of the traditional owners is an important step towards justice for First Nations peoples. It is an essential step, in fact. This bill marks an important step towards the Mirarr people realising their vision and master plan for tourism and regional services across Kakadu.

The federal government has announced a $216 million investment over 10 years to upgrade the Kakadu National Park and support the transition of the Jabiru town site to a tourism and services hub. The Northern Territory government has also promised $135.5 million to this project. I understand the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation is very keen for these funds and is raring to start the project to transform Jabiru into their vision. They want to get going sooner rather than later. I hope the government is able to support the Mirarr people as much as possible, and the corporation, to ensure that this happens in a timely manner to facilitate these visions and dreams coming true. This bill is a very important step for the Mirarr people, and we must acknowledge the hard work that they have undertaken to get to this point. We also wish them well and congratulate them and support their strength and determination to see this achieved.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:19): I thank senators for their contributions and their support, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McGrath ) (13:19): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ) (13:20): The committee is considering the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and a related bill. We are dealing with government amendments (1) to (17) on sheet RS116.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (13:20): Very briefly, in speaking to the government amendments which I moved prior to this debate recommencing, the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Employment Committee considered these bills in detail and recommended that they be passed. I thank the chamber for the support of this bill. The committee also recommended that a review of the Payment Times Reporting Scheme occur two years after its commencement. I agree with the committee's recommendation. In addition to agreeing to this measure, further government amendments to the bill have been made in response to feedback provided by various parties. The key amendments to the bill include reducing the transition period for the introduction of compliance and enforcement measures from 18 months to 12 months; moving the definition of 'small business' to the bill and inserting a new legislative note to the definition; requiring a payment time report to include additional information on payments made beyond 60 days, including payments made more than 120 days after a small business's invoice is issued; and moving more content requirements of a payment time report from the draft subordinate legislation into the main bill, including details such as the reporting entity's name, ABN and main business activity. Other technical amendments to the bill include ensuring that most reporting entities start their first reporting cycle on the scheme's commencement and requiring businesses to report in a form and manner approved by the Payment Times Reporting Regulator. I therefore commend the amendments to the Senate.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (13:22): Labor will support the government's amendments. In particular, we welcome the government listening to Labor and stakeholders about amending the reporting requirements so that large businesses with egregiously long payment times such as 180 days can't hide this data in the 60-days-or-greater threshold that exists in the original legislation.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (13:23): [by video link] I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation's amendment on sheet 1026:

(1) Page 46 (before line 10), before clause 58, insert:

57B Requirements for review

(1) Without limiting section 57A, the review must consider the following:

(a) whether the operation of this Act is meeting the objects set out in section 3;

(b) whether related government policies, including policies relating to electronic invoicing, have improved the payment terms and practices of reporting entities in relation to their small business suppliers;

(c) whether other measures such as mandating one or more maximum periods (the mandated maximum payment periods ) for the payment of small business invoices by reporting entities would be more effective in improving those payment terms and practices.

(2) In considering mandated maximum payment periods, the review must consider the following:

(a) how mandated maximum payment periods could best be implemented, taking into account:

(i) potential regulatory burdens on reporting entities; and

(ii) the need to avoid unintended consequences for small businesses;

(b) the mandated maximum payment periods that would be appropriate to improve payment terms and practices, including:

(i) whether mandated maximum payment periods of 30 days, 20 days, or 10 days or less would be appropriate; and

(ii) whether mandated maximum payment periods of 5 days would be appropriate if electronic invoicing were used;

(c) the impact of sector or industry-specific differences, including how mandated maximum payment periods could be imposed on sectors and industries with differing payment terms and practices;

(d) the compliance or enforcement arrangements that would be appropriate to support mandated maximum payment periods, including whether a penalty regime should be established for the following purposes:

(i) to require a reporting entity to pay small business invoices issued to the entity within a specified period, if the entity has a median payment period for small business invoices issued to the entity that is longer than the mandated maximum payment period;

(ii) to require a reporting entity that has failed to pay a small business invoice issued to the entity within the period specified in the terms of the relevant contract to pay interest on that payment.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (13:23): The government will be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Hanson. I thank Senator Hanson, on behalf of One Nation, for her constructive discussions in relation to this bill. As I said, the government will be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Hanson on behalf of One Nation.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (13:23): We supported the government's review into this amendment, and we support Senator Hanson's amendment to ensure that certain matters are considered by the review. While we believe the fail-safe mechanism is the only feasible way to reduce payment terms, in this parliament we don't object to these stronger terms of reference being imposed on a statutory review. I want to take this opportunity to note that such a review with these terms would help fine-tune the fail-safe mechanism before it is set to begin in our amendment. As such, I would hope Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts will consider voting in favour of the fail-safe mechanism soon. We should pass that amendment this parliament and ensure that technical clarifications can be made to it at a later date to assuage concerns Senator Hanson may have.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:24): If there's one thing everybody in parliament can agree on, it's that the Jacqui Lambie Network is truly the party of small business. Sure, Liberals claim they are, and now Labor say they are the real ones. I've even heard the Greens say they're the best party for small business. You all say it publicly, but when push comes to shove you'd have to agree that the Jacqui Lambie Network is the spiritual home of small business owners and you're all just saying, for the cameras, that you are but you don't really mean it.

I'm bringing this up because no party claiming to be a party for small business would design a bill like this one. The Liberal Party can't claim to be the party of small business and maintain a straight face. Surely, you'd give it up. The Labor Party says the problem with this bill is that there is not enough to protect small businesses. Hey! At least you're turning up to the party. Welcome to the main game. But you are still moving too slowly. I can tell you that people are getting pretty sick and tired of the major parties talking big and doing nothing about the problems facing small businesses. They’ve had enough of the government talking big and doing nothing about the problems facing Australian small businesses. Once again, the government is asking the Senate to consider 'do nothing' bills that won't help fix the problems that small business owners are actually facing. It's the same thing every time with these guys: more reporting, more reviews, more talk and no action. It is time to wake up.

While we stand up here debating these bills, small business owners are going to the wall because their invoices are not getting paid on time. They can't pay their rents, their suppliers or their workers. They're getting squeezed while big businesses make money off cash that doesn't belong to them. It's not right. Sadly, those small business owners aren't going to see anything change because of this proposal from the government. All they're getting is another marketing exercise—and they're not even good at them. I'm willing to bet my very last dollar that it won't do a damn thing. The only difference this proposal makes is to force big companies to admit that they're refusing to pay their invoices on time. This should have been done years ago.

It will set up a regulator to tell the public and the parliament how many businesses are waiting for more than 30 days to pay their invoices. Whoopee! How about you make them pay it within 30 days? My goodness! I'm sorry, but what a joke! What's the point of more reporting? What's the point of more talk? We already know what the problems are. We already know how big the problem is. The fact that we need to do something now should be bleeding obvious to everyone at this point. Instead of requiring more reporting, we should be forcing those big businesses to cough up what they owe. Stop worrying about your political donations from them.

We should stop letting those wealthy corporations make billions of dollars off the backs of our small businesses and send them down the gurgler, because that's what they're doing. You should stop letting those fat cats have all the power. You should stop standing by while small businesses are being run into the ground by much bigger players. Until we do something, not just about reporting, not just about watching, those small businesses are at the mercy of big businesses, and they will continue to be at the mercy of big businesses who can simply decide to do the wrong thing. And you guys do nothing. There are no penalties. It doesn't make sense that this is the system we are working with.

No-one else in the country gets to choose to ignore their bills. When I don't pay my electricity bill on time, my energy company doesn't wag their finger at me and give me a little tap on the knuckles, does it? No. They don't just put me on a naughty list that gathers dust and has no impact. They charge me a late fee. They make me pay extra to compensate them for not getting their money on time. They try to teach me a lesson. They try to discipline me. They will send debt collectors if I push them too far, and other businesses can choose not to do business with me if it affects my credit rating. That's the way things are for the rest of us.

Ordinary people have to do the right thing and pay what they owe. Why should big businesses be any different? That's right. I keep forgetting. It's because they are giving their political donations. What do you know! If they don’t pay the money that they owe on time, they should be chased for it. They should be hounded. You should put them in a damn corner and discipline them. They should cop a fine, and a bloody big one at that. Otherwise, you are not using anything as a deterrent, except, 'Oh, hello, you are being naughty.' Jesus! Late payment should hurt them financially, not benefit them. But that's not the situation. The only reason big businesses don't pay on time is because they simply don't want to. They have no incentive to, because you're not making them. They know they can get away with pushing out payment times, because the government isn't going to force them to behave better. What's new?

They know they can ignore their bills, hold on to their money, earn interest on it and squeeze their little suppliers out there, and make them go under. And do they give a stuff? No, they don't give a stuff. Why would they?

And the government knows that you guys over on that side will turn a blind eye, just like you have done for years. This is how it is in this country. This is where we're at. That's why nearly $80 billion gets paid late to small businesses each year. That's why more than a third of small-business invoices are paid after 30 days and why late invoices take an average of 63 days to be paid. Shocking. Some of those fat cats even charge small businesses a fee if they want to get their payment in a reasonable amount of time. Isn't that absolutely bloody disgusting! That's where we're at—because you, Labor, have allowed the government to walk all over you for so long. Where is your spine for small business? Where is it?

The government's weak response to this problem doesn't reflect how deep the problem runs. A naughty list is not a punishment for those big businesses, it's the softest rap on the knuckles you can imagine—that's because, as we know, those big companies don't have any shame. They have no shame at all. They don't care about getting a bit of bad press. Why would they? They know that a bad media day will blow over. Today's news is tomorrow's fish and chips, as far as they're concerned. They know the journos will move on. The truth of the matter is that all those big businesses care about is their bottom line, nothing else—not their personnel, not their small businesses or anything else below them. They don't give a stuff. Let's be honest about that. It's in their financial interests to stuff over their suppliers, and they'll do it every single time. They won't think twice about it. And if they get caught they'll stand up, hand on heart, and say: 'Oh, we're truly story.' Jeez, give me a break. They'll go to the government, cap in hand, and they'll beg for forgiveness—which the government will give them because they're its donors. The government will roll over every time like a dog. Because that's how it works. This is how it works these days: you give us cash, and we'll leave you alone. The little guys who are trying to do the right thing will continue to get messed over and ignored. They're fighting a losing battle. I can't believe the National Party is doing it for them—oh, that's right, they get those big donations, too, from the miners and all the rest; whatever suits them. That's fine!

The little guys need the government to come out swinging and stand up for what it says about helping out small business. That's what businesses want to see. They don't want to see lip service. They actually want to see you doing something. Lip service seems to be the story of your lives these days, you Libs. Honestly, it's all lip service and no action. That could be your new motto: 'The Liberals: lip service, no action'. Small businesses need a minister to back them up, and you're not doing that. There's no way you are. You're a long way from it, because at the moment they're getting squashed under the weight of those wealthy corporations—and you know it, Minister. With everything that's going on this year, many of them won't survive, or they're not surviving now. And you're still not helping them. This government is doing nothing to stop late payments from happening. This proposal does nothing to stop late payments. Frankly, this proposal from the government is completely meaningless. It's just another line—more lip service.

Tasmanian small-business operators have had an absolute gutful. They already know that we have a problem here. It's about time the government did something about it. It's about time the government grew a spine. Tassie small-business owners need the government to back them up. They need an enforcement bill. They want to hit those big corporations where it hurts most: their bottom line. They want some payback. They want someone to stand beside them and deliver that payback so they can keep their doors open. That's why I want mandatory payment times for big businesses. I'm sick of the fact that we're letting them get away with this stuff.

Originally I wanted to force big businesses to pay up within 21 days or risk a fine. Since I've circulated my amendments, I've had conversations with the crossbench and the ALP, and I want to compromise to get this done. That's why I'll be moving an amendment to the ALP's fail-safe mechanism to make it kick within 18 months rather than three years. I'm giving big businesses a full year and a half—only because I've had to compromise, I can tell you—to get their affairs in order. And you don't think that big businesses, with all that cash, can get their affairs in order in that amount of time? You want to give them three years? I ask, what is wrong with you people? We're in a crisis. Small business can't keep their doors open, and you're not punishing big business for what they're dishing out to small businesses. What is wrong with you people? God, no wonder we're in an economic mess. You'll have more people unemployed—what is wrong with you?

The only reason they aren't doing it already is because they aren't being forced to. My amendments are an opportunity to make sure that big businesses can't get away walking over little guys any more. I won't stand back and watch this minister kick the can down the road. No-one who cares about small business should be comfortable with that. So to you in the Liberal Party over there, and to you in the Nationals: now is your opportunity to do the right thing by the small-business owners that you supposedly look out for. Support the fail-safe mechanism, and support my amendments that go along with it—because it's about time we forced big business to put their money where their mouth is. And it's the same with you, Minister: it's about time you put it up them. Start helping small business. Quite frankly, I'm calling you out today: it's not good enough for a minister.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (13:35): [by video link] I'd like to respond to what Senator Lambie just said. Small businesses have struggled with not getting payments from businesses but in terms of the legislation it has been taken into consideration that mandating a time of 30 days for businesses to pay may be a problem for the farming sector, especially now. The farming sector has contracts with the big end of town—selling their products to Coles or Woolies—and usually they do get paid within seven days, or maybe 14 days or even 21 days. But if we mandate 30 days in the legislation, you will have big business saying, 'Now I don't have to pay you until 30 days time,' and that is going to affect farmers. Different businesses have different ways of paying. The farmers may deal with companies like Elders. Farmers buy their seed, their fertiliser and what they need for farming from them. These businesses give the farmers long contracts, and that allows the farmers to get their crops in before they pay them back. If we mandate a 30-day contract, you are going to force these farmers to try and find the money to pay back these businesses.

I agree that the regime does need to be cleaned up, which is why I support the government's bill. You're going to name and shame these big businesses, which has been proven to work overseas, because people look at their payment times. There are heavy fines for businesses that don't report their payment times. That is one way to deal with it. Then it's up to the businesses themselves whether they want to do business with these other companies that are not paying. The extension times of some of these businesses are going out to 90 days or 120-plus days. This is a way of reining in those payment times. My amendment seeks to impose a two-year review period. The performance of these businesses will be reviewed, and if it hasn't worked we could then look at setting a payment time—possibly the 30 days. But we have to take into consideration the farming sector, who have advised my office that they don't want it mandated to a certain period of time. A lot of businesses have different payment times.

The government is also trying to bring in e-invoicing and encouraging more businesses to use e-invoicing and, hopefully, get their payments done within a five-day period. Proposed subsection (2)(d)(ii) in my amendment basically says that the review will look at imposing a requirement to pay interest on a payment if the reporting entity has failed to pay a small business invoice issued to the entity within the period specified in the terms of the relevant contract. So the intention is that if businesses don't pay within a specified period of time they will be paying interest to the company they owe the money to. But I believe that, under the circumstances, especially the way things are at the moment in terms of COVID-19 and how it has affected businesses, we need to have this period of time to see how this works. My amendment requires that there be a review to see whether or not it has worked and whether or not it has changed the payment times from these big businesses and companies that are actually not paying the smaller contractors. And I do say that it is very good to see that the government have now reduced their payment times and are paying under the 30 days. They've got to set the precedent for the rest of the community, and that's exactly what they have done.

I understand the frustration of Senator Lambie. I get it. We hear it all the time. I personally have been a small-business person most of my life, so I understand where you're coming from. I hear it from tradies, the people who don't get their payments, but if we go in with a sledgehammer we could end up with nothing. You've got to try and find a balance between those people who are getting their early payments and those people who are actually paying over excessive time frames.

I support the bill as amended by my amendments. If it doesn't work, we will have in place a mechanism to rein in businesses, bring in heavy fines and look at mandating payment times then. Let's get feedback from the community to see how businesses feel about it and see whether or not it is working. If it's not working, then we can come in very hard to try and address the imbalances. I believe we should give it a go, and see where we stand in two years time.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:40): First of all, I don't know where Senator Hanson's living. Honestly, I don't. She's out there campaigning. That's what she's doing in Queensland. She'd better go and talk to some of those small businesses, I'll tell you that now. I don't know what's going on in Queensland, but in Tasmania those small businesses want to be paid within 30 days. They are not surviving. That is the truth of the matter. There is no way the Jacqui Lambie Network will support that amendment.

Question agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:41): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8972 together:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 8), after "Reporting", insert "and Enforcement".

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

   ; and (c) to enforce the payment of small business invoices by a reporting entity within 21 days of issue.

(3) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 9), after the paragraph beginning "A reporting entity", insert:

A reporting entity must pay a small business invoice within 21 days of the issue of the invoice.

(4) Page 21 (after line 26), after Part 3, insert:

Part 3A—Enforcing payments

Division 1—Introduction

27A Simplified outline of this Part

This Part imposes an obligation on a reporting entity to pay a small business invoice within 21 days of the issue of the invoice.

A civil penalty applies to a reporting entity that fails to do so.

If a reporting entity is ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty, the Regulator must pay to the issuer of the invoice an amount equal to the penalty.

A small business supplier may request the Regulator to apply to a court for the imposition of a civil penalty under this Part.

Division 2—Payment of small business invoices

27B Reporting entities must pay small business invoices within 21 days

(1) A reporting entity must pay a small business invoice in full before the end of the period of 21 days beginning on the day the invoice was issued.

Civil penalty

(2) A reporting entity is liable to a civil penalty if:

   (a) the entity is required to pay a small business invoice; and

   (b) the entity fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (1); and

   (c) the entity is not a volunteering entity.

Civil penalty:   200 penalty units.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the reference in paragraph 82(5)(a) of the Regulatory Powers Act to 5 times the pecuniary penalty specified for the civil penalty provision has effect as if it were a reference to an amount equal to the lesser of:

   (a) either:

      (i) if the invoice is paid in full before the day that the order to pay the penalty is made—5% of the total amount of the small business invoice multiplied by the number of days in the period beginning on the 22nd day after the invoice was issued and ending on the day the invoice was paid in full; or

      (ii) if the invoice is not paid in full before the day that the order to pay the penalty is made—5% of the total amount of the small business invoice multiplied by the number of days in the period beginning on the 22nd day after the invoice was issued and ending on the day the order is made; or

   (b) 0.2% of the total income for the person for the income year in which the contravention occurred.

   Note: This subsection modifies the maximum pecuniary penalty that a body corporate can be ordered to pay for a contravention of subsection (2).

(4) If an order is made for the reporting entity to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contravention of subsection (2) in relation to a particular small business invoice or particular small business invoices, the Regulator must pay an amount to the small business supplier that issued the invoice or invoices that is equal to the amount of the penalty.

(5) Amounts payable under subsection (4) are to be paid from money appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this section.

27C Requests for Regulator to apply to court for the imposition of a civil penalty

(1) A small business supplier may request the Regulator to apply to a court for the imposition of a civil penalty under section 27B.

(2) A request under subsection (1) must be in such form and be accompanied by such information as is required by the Regulator.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), if the Regulator is satisfied that the reporting entity has failed to comply with the requirement in subsection 27B(1), the Regulator must either:

   (a) notify the reporting entity of its obligations under this Part and its liability for a penalty (issue a warning); or

   (b) apply to a court for the imposition of a civil penalty under subsection 27B(2).

(4) If the Regulator has already issued a warning to the reporting entity on 3 separate occasions in the 3 years preceding the request, the Regulator must apply to a court for the imposition of a civil penalty under section 27B.

   Note: The Regulator may apply to a court for the imposition of a civil penalty even if the Regulator has not already issued a warning to the reporting entity on 3 separate occasions over a period of 3 years.

(5) The Regulator must notify the small business supplier of the action that the Regulator has decided to take as soon as practicable, but in any case by not longer than 4 weeks after the request is made.

Question negatived.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (13:42): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3), (5), (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8986 together:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 23), after "practices", insert ", including paying small business suppliers in less than 30 days".

(2) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 23), after the definition of notifiable event, insert:

payment time,for an invoice, means the number of days in the period beginning on the day a small business supplier issued the invoice to the reporting entity and ending on the day that the invoice was paid in full.

(3) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 3), after the definition of protected information, insert:

recalcitrant reporting entity means a reporting entity declared under subsection 37B(5) to be a recalcitrant reporting entity.

(5) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 10), after the definition of subsidiary, insert:

supply chain financing arrangement means an arrangement under which a reporting entity undertakes to pay an invoice before the end of the relevant supply payment period if the supplier agrees to accept a discount on the payment or to incur an additional cost.

supply payment period means a period within which a payment under a contract is required to be made in relation to a supply of goods or services.

(6) Clause 14, page 13 (after line 11), after paragraph (1)(c), insert:

(da) state the median payment time for all small business invoices paid by the entity during the reporting period; and

(db) state the average payment time for all small business invoices paid by the entity during the reporting period; and

(8) Clause 14, page 13 (after line 28), after paragraph (1)(h), insert:

(ha) include information and documents about any supply chain financing arrangement entered into by the entity in relation to a small business supplier; and

(9) Clause 17, page 16 (line 6), after "without charge", insert "and in a machine‑readable format".

(10) Page 25 (after line 15), at the end of Division 2 of Part 4, add:

30A Role of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman

(1) To avoid doubt, nothing in section 30 limits the operation of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Act 2015.

(2) The Ombudsman may inform the Regulator of an alleged contravention of this Act by a reporting entity either:

   (a) at the request of a small business supplier; or

   (b) if the Ombudsman has otherwise become aware of an alleged contravention.

(3) Within 30 days of being informed of an alleged contravention under subsection (2), the Regulator must respond to the Ombudsman to advise:

   (a) if the Regulator decides to take action in relation to the alleged contravention—of the Regulator's findings in relation to the alleged contravention and the action that the Regulator intends to take; or

   (b) if the Regulator decides not to take action in relation to the alleged contravention—of the Regulator's findings in relation to the alleged contravention and the reasons that the Regulator has decided not to take action; or

   (c) that the Regulator has required the reporting entity to appoint an auditor to carry out an audit in relation to the entity's compliance with this Act under subsection 30(2) but:

      (i) the entity has not yet given the Regulator a written report setting out the results of the audit; or

      (ii) the Regulator has otherwise not yet made a decision on what action the Regulator intends to take in relation to the alleged contravention; or

   (d) that the Regulator is using or has used:

      (i) the Regulator's monitoring powers under Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act; or

      (ii) the Regulator's investigatory powers under Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act;

   in relation to the alleged contravention but has not yet made a decision on what action the Regulator intends to take; or

   (e) that the Regulator has otherwise not yet made a decision on what action the Regulator intends to take and the reason that the Regulator has not yet made a decision.

(4) If the Regulator responds to the Ombudsman under paragraph 30A(3)(c) or (d) the Regulator must also inform the Ombudsman, as soon as practicable after the Regulator decides to take, or not to take, action in relation to the alleged contravention, of the Regulator's findings in relation to the alleged contravention and:

   (a) if the Regulator decides to take action—the action that the Regulator intends to take; or

   (b) if the Regulator decides not to take action—the reasons that the Regulator has decided not to take action.

(5) If the Regulator advises the Ombudsman under paragraph 30A(3)(e) that the Regulator has not yet made a decision on what action the Regulator intends to take, the Regulator must inform the Ombudsman, at intervals of no longer than 30 days until the Regulator has responded to the Ombudsman under any of paragraphs 30A(3)(a) to (d), of the reason that the Regulator has still not made a decision.

(6) In this section, Ombudsman means the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman established under the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Act 2015.

(11) Page 33 (after line 23), after Part 4, insert:

Part 4A—Payment times failsafe mechanism

Division 1—Introduction

37A Simplified outline of this Part

This Part creates a payment times failsafe mechanism that is intended to provide an incentive for reporting entities to collectively improve their payment practices or run the risk of more stringent regulation.

The Regulator is required to report to the Minister after each reporting period after the first 3 reporting periods on the median and average times taken by all reporting entities to pay small business invoices.

The payment times failsafe mechanism is triggered if, after the first 6 reporting periods, the median of the median times reported by all reporting entities to pay small business invoices for a reporting period is more than 30 days. The Regulator must report this fact to the Minister.

Once the payment times failsafe mechanism has been triggered the Regulator must declare any reporting entity that has a median payment time for small business invoices of more than 30 days during a reporting period to be a recalcitrant reporting entity.

A recalcitrant reporting entity is required to pay all small business invoices within 30 days and is liable to a civil penalty if it fails to do so. The rules may provide for exemptions from this requirement.

Division 2—Late payment penalty

37B Payment times failsafe mechanism

Report on median and average payment times

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of 3 reporting periods after the commencement of this Act and, subsequently, after the end of each reporting period, the Regulator must give the Minister a report that states:

   (a) the reporting period or reporting periods to which it relates; and

   (b) the number of reporting entities that submitted a payment times report or payment times reports to the Regulator relating to the reporting period or reporting periods; and

   (c) the median of the median payment times reported by all reporting entities that submitted a payment times report or payments times reports to the Regulator relating to the reporting period or reporting periods; and

   (d) the average payment time for all reporting entities that submitted a payment times report or payment times reports to the Regulator relating to the reporting period or reporting periods.

(2) The Minister must cause a copy of a report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of receiving it.

When the payment times failsafe mechanism is triggered

(3) The payment times failsafe mechanism is triggered if, after the end of 6 reporting periods after the commencement of this Act, the median of the median payment times under paragraph (1)(c) for a reporting period is more than 30 days.

(4) The report given to the Minister by the Regulator under subsection (1) in relation to the reporting period in which the payment failsafe mechanism was triggered, and each subsequent report given to the Minister in relation to subsequent reporting periods, must contain a statement that the payment times failsafe mechanism has been triggered.

Declaration that a reporting entity is a recalcitrant reporting entity

(5) If the payment times failsafe mechanism has been triggered, the Regulator must declare that a reporting entity is a recalcitrant reporting entity if:

   (a) the entity is not a volunteering entity; and

   (b) the entity's median payment time was more than 30 days during:

      (i) the reporting period in which the payment times failsafe mechanism was triggered; or

      (ii) any subsequent reporting period.

(6) The Regulator must write to a recalcitrant reporting entity as soon as practicable after the Regulator has made a declaration under subsection (5) in relation to the entity to inform the entity of the declaration and of the entity's obligations under subsection (8).

(7) A declaration by the Regulator under subsection (5):

   (a) is not a legislative instrument; and

   (b) has effect for a period of 2 years beginning on the day the declaration is made.

Recalcitrant reporting entities to pay small business invoices within 30 days

(8) A recalcitrant reporting entity must pay a small business invoice in full before the end of the period of 30 days beginning on the day the invoice is issued.

(9) Subject to subsection (10), the rules may provide that the requirement in subsection (8) does not apply in relation to a specified entity or specified entities either generally or in specified circumstances.

Note: An entity that wishes to rely on an exemption in the rules in relation to a contravention of a civil penalty provision bears an evidential burden (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).

(10) Rules may only be made for the purposes of subsection (9) after the payment times failsafe mechanism has been triggered.

Civil penalty

(11) A reporting entity is liable to a civil penalty if:

   (a) the entity is a recalcitrant reporting entity; and

   (b) the entity fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (8); and

   (c) the entity has not been exempted from the requirement in subsection (8).

Civil penalty:   350 penalty units.

(12) For the purposes of subsection (11), the reference in paragraph 82(5)(a) of the Regulatory Powers Act to 5 times the pecuniary penalty specified for the civil penalty provision has effect as if it were a reference to 0.6% of the total income for the person for the income year in which the contravention occurred.

Note: This subsection modifies the maximum pecuniary penalty that a body corporate can be ordered to pay for a contravention of subsection (11).

We won't move amendments (4) and (7) on sheet 8986 as those matters have been dealt with in agreement with the government's amendment. Also, proposed subsections in amendment (6) have been renamed '(da)' and '(db)' as a consequence of agreeing to the government's amendment.

In terms of the broader amendments, Labor believes that complementary back-up measures are necessary to ensure the Payment Times Reporting Scheme improves general payment times to small business. Our amendments would introduce a fail-safe mechanism. That fail-safe mechanism means that over the next few years, if the government's scheme does not broadly improve payment times to small businesses to 30 days or less, the mechanism is triggered. I could go on a little bit but, in the interests of time, I will limit my comments to that and ask that the Senate support my amendments.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:45): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1013 together.

(1) Amendment (11), section 37A, omit "after the first 3 reporting periods".

(2) Amendment (11), section 37A, omit "after the first 6 reporting periods", substitute "after the first 3 reporting periods".

(3) Amendment (11), subsection 37B(1), omit "after the end of 3 reporting periods after the commencement of this Act and, subsequently,".

(4) Amendment (11), subsection 37B(3), omit "after the end of 6 reporting periods", substitute "after the end of 3 reporting periods".

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments as moved by Senator Farrell on sheet 8986 be agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:53): I seek leave to withdraw amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8973.

Leave granted.

Bills, as amended, agreed to.

Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (13:55): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:56): 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 RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:56): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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—

Governments must ensure that Australia's counter-terrorism laws remain strong, targeted, and effective. There is no room for complacency in this endeavour. Our national security and counter terrorism laws are under constant review to ensure that Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to prevent terrorist attacks and deal with those individuals who would commit them.

Recently, the Government introduced the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019, adding to the suite of measures to manage Australians who present a threat to the community. Today, the Government introduces the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 to amend the terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

The terrorism-related citizenship cessation provisions were first introduced in 2015 as a response to the threat of foreign terrorist fighters returning to Australia from Syria and Iraq.

Since 2012, around 230 Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with or support Islamic State, and around 250 Australian passports have been cancelled or refused in relation to the Syria/Iraq conflict. Around 80 Australian men and women who have fought for, or otherwise supported Islamic extremist groups remain in Syria and Iraq.

The terrorism-related citizenship cessation provisions have been effective since their introduction. They have removed from the Australian community dual citizens who fought in Syria and Iraq and who would have sought to return home with new skills, combat experience, and lethal intent. These provisions have protected the Australia community.

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 continues the Coalition Government's effort to address the threat of terrorism and deliver on our commitment to keep the Australian community safe. Its central reform provides for Ministerial decision-making with respect to the cessation of Australian citizenship, replacing the current automatic operation of law provisions. Under this model, the Minister for Home Affairs can cease a person's Australian citizenship if satisfied that their conduct demonstrates a repudiation of their allegiance to Australia and that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

The overarching purpose of the Bill remains the same as when the provisions were first introduced in 2015. The Parliament recognised then, as it does now, that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations. Citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, sever that bond and repudiate their allegiance to Australia. A citizen's duty of allegiance to Australia was not created by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, but it is recognised by it and this Bill reinforces that obligation.

The current citizenship loss provisions were recently reviewed by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM), who has made a number of recommendations as to how the provisions can be improved. The Bill presented here today implements the majority of these recommendations.

In his report, the INSLM states: "the notion of allegiance by citizens to Australia is thought by some to be outdated; however, there can be no doubt of its current legal relevance in international law, the law of Australia, and the law of other countries". In recognising the importance of laws to cease a person's citizenship, the INSLM recommends that sections 33AA and 35 be replaced with a Ministerial decision-making model. This is the central amendment incorporated into this Bill.

The Bill retains three mechanisms for an individual to be considered for cessation of citizenship if they repudiate their allegiance to Australia:

First, a person can cease to be a citizen if they engage in specified terrorist conduct.

Second, a person can cease to be a citizen if they fight for, or are in the service of, a specified terrorist organisation overseas. The Bill retains provisions that a person is not in the service of a declared terrorist organisation if acting unintentionally, under duress, or providing humanitarian assistance.

Third, a person can cease to be a citizen if they have been convicted of a specified terrorism offence by an Australian court.

In accordance with Australia's international law obligations, the Bill retains provisions that no persons will have their citizenship ceased unless the Minister is satisfied they are a citizen or national of another country. As an additional safeguard, the Bill includes a provision whereby if court finds the person was not a national or citizen of another at the time of the determination, their citizenship is taken never to have ceased.

In considering whether to cease a person's citizenship, the Minister must have regard to certain public interest criteria. This, amongst other things, includes the degree of threat the person poses to the Australian community, Australia's international relations, and the person's connection with the other country of citizenship. This enables the Minister to consider a person within their specific context. The inclusion of the public interest criteria aligns with one of the INSLM's recommendations.

Once the Minister has decided to cease a person's citizenship, the Minister must inform the person in writing as soon as practicable. However, the Minister retains the right to withhold notice if satisfied that giving notice could prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia, or Australian law enforcement operations.

Similar to the existing provisions, a decision to withhold notice can remain in place for 5 years. However, the new provisions require the Minister to review this determination every 90 days. Additionally, at the conclusion of the 5 years, the person is provided notice unless the Minister extends the determination once for a year. Withholding notice does not prevent a person from seeking judicial review if they become aware of the cessation of their citizenship through other means.

Once a person is provided notice, the new provisions give them 90 days to apply to the Minister in writing for a revocation of the determination to cease their citizenship. Natural justice is afforded to the person so they can make representations on their case. This provision also aligns with a recommendation made by the INSLM.

In addition to applying to the Minister, the Bill contains several other avenues for a person's citizenship to be reinstated. Firstly, the Minister may reinstate an individual's citizenship if it is in the public interest to do so. Secondly, in certain circumstances, a person's citizenship is taken never to have ceased and it is automatically reinstated. Finally, a person can access judicial review in relation to the Minister's decision to cease their citizenship or reject their application for reinstatement.

The Bill retains existing accountability and transparency measures. The Minister must report to the Parliament and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) on the use of the provisions. In upholding transparency, the Bill also amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide the PJCIS until 30 June 2021 to review the new provisions.

The Bill includes transitional provisions to manage those persons whose citizenship may have ceased under the existing provisions, but whose circumstances are yet to come to the attention of the Minister.

There are two additional measures that expand the operation of this new model.

Firstly, the Bill amends the conduct provision so that behaviour dating from 29 May 2003 onwards can be taken into consideration when the Minister determines whether to cease a person's citizenship. This enables the Government to take into consideration and address a person's historic conduct that is incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community.

Secondly, the Bill amends the conviction provision to allow the Minister to cease a person's citizenship if they are convicted from 29 May 2003 onwards of certain terrorism offences for a period or periods totalling three years. The current requirement is a sentence of six years for a conviction from 2015 to now, or 10 years from conviction from 2005 to 2015. This amendment reflects the seriousness of a criminal conviction for a terrorism offence.

The date of 29 May 2003 is pertinent, as it is the date on which relevant offences were fully enacted under the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003.

These amendments build on, adapt and modernise the citizenship cessation provisions. They strengthen the operation of the measures in response to the increasingly complex challenges facing the national security, defence and international relations of Australia.

They further establish citizenship cessation as one of a suite of measures – which includes control orders, prosecution, Temporary Exclusion Orders, the Commonwealth High Risk Terrorist Offenders scheme and de-radicalisation programs – that can be applied appropriately and proportionately on a case-by-case basis.

Australia is a united and cohesive country. It is something we pride ourselves on. In recognising and protecting this unity and cohesion, it is essential that we continue to monitor, update and amend the way in which we deal with those who would threaten it. Behaviour that harms, or seeks to harm, our community – whether that be in Australia or offshore – is in clear opposition to the common bond and shared values that underpin membership the Australian community.

This Bill is designed to protect the integrity of Australian citizenship and to ensure we have the necessary powers to keep Australians safe. It reflects the Government's strong approach to combating terrorism, and protecting the sovereignty and safety of this country and its citizens.

I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Leave granted.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:56): I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2020. I say from the outset that Labor welcomes this legislation and will be supporting it. This legislation fixes a significant problem in the bills that were passed in 2015 to remove citizenship from those dual citizens who have engaged in terrorist conduct. There was a flaw in that bill passed by the government—a flaw that was pointed out by Labor at the time, a flaw that has been called out by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, who said that the mechanism or the provisions in that bill for automatic loss of citizenship by conduct were flawed and should be immediately repealed and revoked.

ASIO has called for this law to be repealed and for a new model providing for the loss of citizenship for those dual citizens who have engaged in terrorist conduct to be put in place—that is, to move from the automatic loss of citizenship by conduct to a decision-making model whereby the minister makes a clear decision based on evidence provided to him or her that citizenship should be revoked and it is in Australia's national security interest that citizenship be revoked. It's important to understand that ASIO's view is that it is not always in Australia's best interest for citizenship to be revoked from a dual citizen who is engaged in terrorist conduct; it might be in our better interests for that person to retain citizenship either to gather information or to prosecute that person for those serious offences.

So, in the short time I have remaining, in anticipation that we may have less opportunity throughout the day to contribute to this debate, I make clear that Labor will be supporting this legislation. We wanted it passed this sitting week, and I look forward to the government facilitating that happening before parliament rises today. This is important national security legislation. I do draw the chamber's attention to the additional comments Labor senators have provided in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in relation to the matters which we remain concerned about in this bill—things we would have done differently—but we are not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a long-overdue reform. It should have been brought by the government earlier. It is time that they gave ASIO the powers that they want and need, and on that basis Labor is happy to provide support to the government for this bill to pass through the chamber today.

I note the Greens have indicated they are going to oppose this legislation and on that I say shame on them. It is important that our national security agencies have the powers that they need to deal with terrorist conduct. We take on board the advice of the national security agencies and we will be supporting this legislation.

Debate adjourned.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:00): by leave—I move:

That the Education and Employment Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today from 3 pm.

Question agreed to.