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, we'll proceed to business.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (09:31): Families need certainty about their access to paid parental leave during these challenging times. We all need leadership from this government so that anxious families have some peace of mind when looking to the future. Treasurer Frydenberg infamously said in July that people should have more babies to stimulate the economy. But with the government taking so long to implement a change as simple as this, it provides no consolation to prospective families.

The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 also improves assistance for families affected by stillbirth and infant death in respect of payments for newborn children. The bill does this by increasing the maximum amount that eligible families can access after a stillbirth or a child's death up to the child's first birthday. This is a welcome amendment and will come as a relief to many families who are going through this traumatic event. Losing a child is a devastating and heartbreaking experience, and we commend the government for finally enacting these important provisions. Again, this is something Labor has advocated for a very long time.

Finally, this bill will allow the minister to determine the average weekly earnings trend figures ordinarily published by the Australian Statistician for child support assessment purposes. This will be under the circumstances where the publication of trend estimates for the average weekly earnings series has been suspended due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labour market.

These amendments are welcome, but they do not go far enough to ensure that Australians who continue to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic are not left behind. During the last sitting period, Labor moved amendments in the House to (1) extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March. Currently, it is scheduled to end at Christmas, but obviously there was an announcement yesterday. Christmas is rapidly approaching us and people relying on this supplement need certainty. It will help 2.2 million Australians who will face the cruel Christmas cut and bring the payment in line with JobKeeper. The government has determined that these people need additional support. Why not those on JobSeeker? That's the question. And (2) it requires the government to provide more support to pensioners who have faced increased costs during the pandemic, such as the cost of face masks, hand sanitiser, doctors appointments and the traditional costs of trying to keep safe. Three, Labor also moved to call on the government to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker again. Not only has Labor been calling for this for some time but also economists, the crossbench and industry specialists have all said that there needs to be a permanent increase to the rate of JobSeeker, or, as it was previously called, Newstart.

Right now it is more important than ever—1.8 million people are set to be unemployed. They need this support and they need it now. Numbers are still predicted to be above pre-recession levels until 2024. By increasing the rate of JobSeeker, it will have a beneficial effect on employment, health and economic growth. People shouldn't have to fall into poverty because they've lost their jobs, but reducing JobSeeker back to $40 a day will do just that. Put simply, it's not enough to cover the basic costs of housing, food, public transport and bills. How can people rebuild their lives if they can't do these basic things?

To no real surprise, the government voted against these amendments, as they have distorted views of people who live on welfare payments. The Morrison government need to give people who have lost their jobs certainty beyond Christmas. They can do this by extending the coronavirus supplement and announcing a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment. I think that we can all agree that this year has clearly demonstrated that living on $40 a day is not sustainable or suitable for having a decent quality of life in this country. An important part of our economic recovery will be to promote consumption, but now Australians on social security will have less to spend on local and small businesses, and these businesses will have less to spend on wages and jobs.

With currently around 106 jobseekers for every job, how can government start to rip away support from these people when the government can't even provide enough jobs for them to apply for? This recession was induced as a result of government mandated lockdowns to protect us from the health consequences of this virus spreading to an uncontrollable point. It is only fair that the government continues providing support until the economy and the unemployment rate shows true signs of recovering.

Labor support the changes announced by the government as they are measures which we have been advocating for from the outset of this pandemic, but, with Christmas just around the corner, the Morrison government will deliver a cut to thousands and thousands of families. In these uncertain times, we don't want a marketing manager; what we want, what this country needs is a leader. Those sitting across the aisle know that a permanent increase in the rate of JobSeeker is the right thing to do. But what we hear from them is deafening silence on this issue as they are unwilling to embrace the true spirit of Australia and ensure no-one gets left behind. As a nation, we look out for one another.

The minister is in the chamber at the moment. She has the opportunity to leave a lasting legacy, which she has acknowledged and understands. She has been listening to the thousands of families who find themselves in hardship, who find themselves unemployed. And there are many thousands of people who never expected to be unemployed and having to try and survive, because they can't live on the JobSeeker payment. They can't live on it. All they're trying to do is survive from one day to the next. So this is an opportunity for the minister to be a leader in her government by making a permanent change and speaking up for those people who don't have a voice in the government. I know the Prime Minister doesn't like to hear the minister speak too much, which we saw evidence of in the media, but the reality is, when you're a cabinet minister, when you have this responsibility, you owe it to those who don't have a voice to be a strong voice within your government. We on this side of the chamber are strong.

People on the crossbench have for a long time, along with Labor, been advocating for a permanent change to restore dignity to those people who find themselves unemployed. On many, many levels, they feel the effects of poverty and self-loathing because they're not able to support their family. For those who have never experienced that, I can tell you: that's a lived experience that will stay with you your entire life, because it makes you appreciate everything that you have. And when you are able to climb out of poverty, able to be re-employed and able to carve out a career for yourself, I can tell you firsthand: you never ever forget those experiences. When you have to say no to your children—that they can't do that school excursion or that they can't have a new dress to go to a birthday party—those experiences stay with you well beyond your time being supported by social security, which is there in this great country of ours to support people and to give them a helping hand while they find their way back into employment. So I implore the minister to stand up for those people and to leave a lasting legacy as a cabinet minister to turn this government's mind to being more supportive, to being more caring and to giving those people a helping hand.

It's easy to say that the best form of help and social security is a job. The reality is that there are more than 30 people for every job that's advertised in Tasmania, my home state. So stating that a job is the best form of social security is an easy statement to make, but it's a hollow statement if you don't lead from the front and demonstrate that you have heard, you have listened and you are going to act to help restore the dignity and the opportunity for those people who find themselves out of work. So, Minister, we on this side are looking to you, because it's quite obvious that the Prime Minister is only ever interested in photo opportunities and headlines, because he never follows through and he doesn't listen to those people who are doing it tough in this country. We as senators have a responsibility to do everything we can.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:42): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I advise that One Nation supports age pensioners, and we believe the current pension rate is too low. Our policy is for an increase in the age pension of $75 a week. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 does not increase the base rate of the pension but rather gives two payments of $250. This is a little sugar hit that will achieve very little for the economy.

Our pensioners are trying to support themselves in a very low interest rate environment. Pensioners who have saved all their lives are finding it impossible to live off the income from their savings, because there is no income with interest rates at almost zero. A permanent increase in pensions is the only way to give pensioners a fair income.

Yesterday, the Senate passed the glossy JobMaker scheme. JobMaker is nothing but corporate welfare, with payments expected to go to the government's big corporate mates. Pensioners are clearly not the government's mates. Think about electricity prices that have been driven up by Labor, Liberal, Nationals and Greens policies—doubled or, in some cases, tripled in the last 20 years. That's a highly regressive tax on the poor. How can people afford that, especially pensioners who are receiving little income? Premier Palaszczuk in Queensland, the Premier in absence, is stealing $1.4 billion a year off electricity users in Queensland. Costs are going up but pensions are not. Australia has one of the lowest pensions in the Western world. It's time to increase pensions to restore dignity to pensioners.

The cost of a pension increase to the government is very small. Pensioners are on such a low income that any increase to the pension is immediately felt and immediately spent. This is why the government has selected pensioners for this sugar hit. Treasury knows the money will be spent in the local economy, where that money will grow the local economy and grow employment, creating jobs. That money then comes back to the government in tax revenue: GST, income tax, duties in alcohol and tobacco and so on. It's a shame that glossy JobMaker payments will not work like that. JobMaker payments go to the company, not the worker. That money will increase corporate profits and from there go overseas to overseas shareholders through dividends. JobMaker, notwithstanding its glossy brochure, with lots of colourful diagrams and photos and snazzy headlines, will have little expansionary benefit because the money is in the wrong hands. Pensioners should not be underpaid so big corporates can be overpaid. I do note that the government has made this payment conditional on the pensioner being a resident in Australia—at last. I hope this new-found concern for Australian taxpayers can be extended to every other application of government policy.

Schedule 2 of the bill supports young people whose path towards demonstrating independence through work has been disrupted by the economic impacts of the COVID virus. For the youth allowance, the six month period between 25 March 2020 and 24 September 2020 will automatically now be recognised as contributing to existing workforce independence criteria. That's welcome. Without this change, many young people may not be able to meet the independence criteria and may be unable to access income support if they plan to go onto tertiary study. With this change, as many as 4,000 students will be able to maintain their plan to go to university in 2021. I have previously pointed out that the Morrison government inflates the numbers it uses in these measures to make for a better announcement. I'm sure that this will be the case here. Announcements are not achievements. Announcements are for marketers; achievements are for honest governments and come from honest governance. Announcements are not governance. Nonetheless, One Nation support this measure as well because we support students being able to co-pay their way through university to gain the education they need to better their lives. At the moment, a relaxation of the rules for student payments is a very useful measure. With the level of debt imposed on Australians by the Morrison government now budgeted to exceed $1 trillion, young Australians will need all the help they can get for the future.

Schedule 3 of the bill will make amendments to create temporary incentives in the income support system to encourage young Australians to undertake seasonal agricultural work. We welcome this. The amendment means that a person who earns at least $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November this year and 31 December next year, 2021, will be considered as independent for the purposes of student allowance and Abstudy.

It's about time the government realised we have a farmworker shortage. As Senator Hanson and I have travelled across Queensland in the last few months, we've heard from many businesses—many widely different businesses—who could not bring in the crop or run their business because there were no workers. I spoke with Jackie, for example, a florist in Rockhampton who has run a business for many years. She told me that her business and other small businesses in Rocky couldn't find workers. They now have young teenagers working there. The local waste company couldn't fill their rosters, so they couldn't turn their skips around fast enough to make a profit. That's thanks to the cowardly actions of Premier Palaszczuk, a premier in absence. Queensland farmers are ploughing millions of dollars of produce into the ground because workers won't—or can't, thanks to the Premier—go to the farms. This measure will, we hope, encourage 4,000 young Australians to go bush, where they will find the work rewarding, the pay generous and the lifestyle superb. The regional communities are very enriching.

If the government is to keep the borders closed to backpackers then more measures such as this are urgently required. It's not good enough that able-bodied Australians are languishing on JobSeeker, for years on end, when rewarding jobs are available in some of the best communities in Australia. It may take a push to encourage the unemployed to break patterns of behaviour that are failing them and embrace the move to the country. Now would be a really good time to do that. One Nation calls on the Morrison government to make schedule 3 the start of a new era of matching jobseekers to those seeking workers in rural areas. Matching employers and employees—wouldn't that be wonderful!

Schedule 4 of the bill introduces a revised paid parental leave work test. There will be $130 million spent to provide access to paid parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay, to applicants who do not meet the current work test provisions because their employment has been affected by the government's response to the COVID virus. This measure, we're told, will allow 9,000 Australians to retain their eligibility for parental leave pay and is expected to increase claimants of the dad and partner benefit by $3,500. Once again, government figures provided to spruik these measures are likely shonky; yet this measure will allow dads to give their newborns a better start. We welcome that because, for far too many years, some dads were a pocketbook and nothing more. The modern trend of encouraging dads to share in the birth and the upbringing of their children is most welcome.

The remaining measures in this bill are commonsense measures to simplify bereavement benefits and provide an alternative benchmarking system for child support payments during the COVID era only. One Nation will be supporting this bill.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (09:49): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. When the government does something good we're very happy to welcome it, and there are many good features in this bill. I'll highlight just a couple of those today. Then I'm going to talk about a huge missed opportunity this government had to address the need for a permanent and decent rate of JobSeeker.

Firstly, I welcome the government's 180-degree backflip on eligibility for paid parental leave. People might recall that just a few months ago the Greens moved amendments to the effect of ensuring that people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, because of the pandemic, could still get the paid parental leave they had been banking on receiving as folk about to become new parents or adding to their families. This government voted against that amendment, as did the folk in the One Nation party, but today we see in schedule 4 of the bill that this very same amendment is there. We welcome the government seeing reason and standing by people who are about to add to their families. I don't know why it was so difficult to do that two months ago—perhaps it was because it had 'Greens' on the header—but we're pleased to see that our original advocacy for this has ended up in a government bill that, naturally, One Nation is now supporting. I'm very keen to put on the record that our original good idea has now been adopted. We welcome that because raising a family isn't cheap, and people do bank on things like paid parental leave when they're doing their finances for an upcoming addition to their family.

When the pandemic hit the unexpected hit, and many people either had their hours reduced or lost their jobs completely and were not eligible, in many instances, sadly, for JobKeeper, which meant they were ineligible for paid parental leave. We tried to fix the eligibility for JobKeeper as well, at the time, but the government was resolute in denying short-term casuals, in denying people on particular visas and in denying people who work at universities the support that we and many Australians believe they should have received. Nonetheless, there's a backflip here, that we welcome, in extending the eligibility for paid parental leave for people who have lost their jobs due to coronavirus and, therefore, would not otherwise be eligible for PPL. We very much welcome schedule 4.

Schedule 5 talks about stillbirth, and it's a very important topic for many people. The Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education did identify the need for more support to be provided to bereaved parents and their families, with more than 2,000 children stillborn each year. The current laws make a really inexplicable and unfair distinction in eligibility for stillborn baby payments. Parents who experience the loss of their first stillborn baby are entitled to a payment, but parents experiencing a second or subsequent stillbirth only get half that payment. But the expenses don't reduce, so there is actually no justification for that reduction in payment. The support payments are designed to relieve the financial pressure, but, as I've said, those expenses don't actually reduce and the grief and the stress are probably vastly increased once this has happened a second or third time around. So, in fact, the need for support is perfectly ample. We welcome the fact that the government has belatedly addressed this. It has been an inequity for many a year and we welcome, finally, some justice being delivered there.

To come to the parts of this bill that, sadly, could have been fixed by this government were they so minded but weren't, we saw this week the government finally announce that JobSeeker would be continued for a few months but at an even lower rate again. They have already cut it once and now they have cut it a second time. Come 1 January, the coronavirus supplement for people on JobSeeker is going to be only $150. That is not enough. That is still below the poverty line. Did the government learn nothing? Did the government not see the joy and the basic needs being able to be met by so many families around this country when they had an adequate amount of income support? As my colleague Senator Siewert has said for many a year, $40 a day was never enough to live on. It's the children that suffer. It's those choices between textbooks and dinner that no Australian, no-one anywhere, should have to make.

This government could have addressed the inadequacy of the JobSeeker payment in this bill, but, no, it didn't do that. What we saw earlier in the week was the Prime Minister making a belated and patched-up announcement of another reduction to JobSeeker support. What I would really like to see, what the Greens would really like to see, would be this Prime Minister actually focusing on job creation, rather than passing the buck to the private sector. We so frequently hear the Prime Minister say that it's not up to him to create jobs. Well, dude, you are the Prime Minister. You've got the public purse strings at your disposal. Public investment in infrastructure, in schools, in hospitals—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator Waters—

Senator WATERS: I think you are going to tell me to withdraw 'dude'. I'm happy to withdraw that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you.

Senator WATERS: Prime Minister, you have the Commonwealth purse at your disposal. Use it wisely to invest in job-creating infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, manufacturing clean energy components—these are things that address issues but also create jobs. It just really irks us when the government try to claim that job creation is something that they can't do, that—gee!—they would love to but they're not able to. What an absolute crock. Instead of the $99 billion in corporate welfare that this budget represented, they should have invested in public services that create jobs and deliver the services that Australians deserve and rely upon. Rebuild our domestic manufacturing base, have top-quality public schools and hospitals, invest in 100 per cent clean energy, build some public housing so that we don't have a problem with homelessness and that people have somewhere to go—these are the job-creating initiatives and investments that could have been made by the Prime Minister. But, instead, the government chose the $99 billion to go to their big corporate mates through various different handouts and subsidies, often with no strings attached. There's still a refusal to increase JobSeeker to a rate that will allow people to live and have the ability to seek work, should work become available.

We welcome the parts of the bill that address some of those inequities. We welcome the adoption of the Greens' view that paid parental leave should have always been available to people who lost their job because of the pandemic. We welcome the fixing of the inequity in the stillborn birth payments. But we remain completely broken-hearted at this government's continued failure to see how desperate so many Australian families are and how much good it has done for those families to be able to put food on the table, to replace that broken toaster, to put petrol in the car or to buy a second-hand suit jacket to go to a job interview. These are the things that make a difference in peoples' lives. For the government to both wash its hands of job creation and still refuse to provide adequate support for jobseekers to live on is just an absolute abrogation of duty.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:59): I rise to make a short contribution on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I acknowledge that my colleague Senator Dodson has responded comprehensively to the legislation, as has my colleague Senator Polley. I associate myself with and endorse their remarks. I would like to speak specifically to one aspect of the bill, and that is the changes that the bill introduces in relation to the stillborn baby payment and the bereavement payment. In doing so I rise as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education. I acknowledge my fellow members of that committee on a bipartisan basis and acknowledge the bipartisan report that was delivered to this chamber. It was the first set of national recommendations in terms of preventing and reducing stillbirth in Australia.

The measures that are in this legislation were actually not part of the Senate select committee specifically, but arose after the committee delivered its report. I'd like to acknowledge Senator Catryna Bilyk, who participated in the inquiry, for bringing this matter first to my attention and then to the attention of Labor's shadow minister for health, Chris Bowen. With the support of the Labor opposition, we discussed the matter with the minister and Senator Ruston.

I'd like to acknowledge Senator Ruston for her reception, interest and support for ensuring that parents of stillborn babies are treated as parents—that is, if parents have a stillborn baby, they are still parents. A mother still gives birth; she goes through labour and delivery. The mother and the baby's father still have responsibilities as parents towards that child. The mother and the father both need to grieve and receive counselling and support. The mother needs to recover physically from the birth. I think for a very long time—and I apportion no blame in making this statement—many people have not understood that parents of stillborn babies are actually parents and they go through birth, delivery and recovery from the birth and they need to make decisions regarding things like autopsies, cremations and burials. There's a financial impact on a family. Sometimes there is a loss of hours at work or loss of a job. In the Senate select committee we heard terrible stories of people who were simply unable to work for very long periods of time. One family told us the story of how they lost their business because they could not continue.

Yet we had a support system across decades, with governments of both stripes, that treated parents of stillborn babies not as parents or not equally as parents. The changes that the minister is introducing here today in relation to the stillborn baby payment and the bereavement payment ensure that parents of stillborn babies are treated in the same way and supported in the same way as parents of babies whose child has died perhaps one moment or just moments after birth.

I also acknowledge that the legislation makes a change to supporting parents who have more than one stillborn baby to ensure that they receive equal support. Again the Senate select committee heard very sad stories. One couple who came before us, Bonnie and Stephen Carter, lost both of their daughters, Grace and Matilda. Bonnie has been a tremendous advocate for ensuring that parents of stillborn babies receive support and that Australia does what it can do to prevent this tragedy from happening again.

I thank the minister and acknowledge her support for this legislation. I'd like to thank senators, including Senator Waters, who spoke just now in support of the measures that are within this bill. I look forward to what I hope will be its passage through this parliament.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:04): I acknowledge the comments of Senator Keneally and thank her for her kind words. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 includes a number of beneficial measures that are primarily directed at supporting people who've been impacted by the economic consequences of COVID-19. The bill provides additional assistance through two further economic support payments of $250 to around five million payment recipients and cardholders in the lead-up to Christmas and in the New Year as part of the Australian government's response to the pandemic.

From 1 January 2021, amendments are also made so that the six-month period between 25 March and 24 September 2020 will automatically be recognised as contributing to the existing workforce independence criteria for people on youth allowance. This measure supports young people whose path towards demonstrating independence through work has been disrupted by the economic impacts of COVID. The same concessions will be available to Abstudy recipients through the Abstudy Policy Manual. The bill also creates temporary incentives in the income support system to encourage young Australians to undertake seasonal agriculture work to help address concerns across the agriculture sector about immediate workforce availability for the upcoming harvest.

From 1 March 2021, the new criteria will recognise a person who earns at least $15,000 through employment in agricultural industries between 30 November 2020 and 31 December 2021 as independent for the purposes of youth allowance student, subject to a parental income threshold. The same concessions will be available for Abstudy through changes to the Abstudy Policy Manual.

The bill will also introduce a revised paid parental leave work test period for a limited time to enable people to access paid parental leave and dad and partner pay who do not meet the current work test provisions because their employment has been affected by COVID-19. This will enable most individuals with a genuine work history prior to the pandemic to qualify for payments under the paid parental leave scheme.

The bill also makes amendments to address inconsistencies in payments for newborn children available to families affected by stillbirth and infant death by aligning the amounts that eligible families are able to access after a stillbirth or child's death shortly after birth, up to the child's first birthday. These amendments also remove discrepancies within the payment system in respect of multiple instances of stillbirth or infant death with the same family.

Lastly, the bill makes technical amendments to child support law to allow for alternative figures to be used in place of the male total average weekly earnings trend figure and average weekly earnings trend figure for the purposes of child support assessment calculations. From May 2020, the Bureau of Statistics has temporarily suspended publication of trend estimates for all average weekly earnings series due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labour market. Child support law does not currently prevent alternative trend measures to be used. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

Sitting suspended from 10:15 to 11:45

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:45): I move the Greens second reading amendment as circulated in the chamber:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) this Bill and the 2020-21 Budget fails people on JobSeeker Payment;

(ii) the 2.3 million Australians receiving the coronavirus supplement are still in the dark about the future of the supplement beyond December 2020; and

(iii) the coronavirus crisis isn't over and unemployed and underemployed Australians will continue to need support during 2021; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) announce its plans regarding the future of the coronavirus supplement beyond December 2020 immediately for at least the current level of $250 a fortnight and to ensure it doesn't fall any further below the poverty line; and

(ii) announce a permanent and ongoing increase to JobSeeker Payment and Youth Allowance so that the base rate of these payments is above the poverty line".

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment, as moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:53): I've got a couple of questions that I'd like to clarify. I'm aware that Senator Dodson has amendments to move, but I thought it would be good to ask the general questions and deal with them, and then we can deal with the amendments.

Minister, can I go to the issue around the youth allowance independent test through agricultural work. The bill states that what constitutes qualifying agricultural work will be determined by a legislative instrument made by the secretary. Can you tell us what information the government will draw on to draft the definition of 'qualifying agricultural work'?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:54): It will be the type of work that accords with the holiday working visa. It is clearly not the holiday working visa, but it will be an instrument that will reflect that kind of work—so very much around that horticulture component.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:54): Just to clarify: is it going to be exactly the same or will you add things on, just to be clear?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:54): My understanding is it will be so much the same; I won't say exactly the same. The intent is to model it almost identically.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:55): What's the timing of that instrument?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:55): Before 30 November.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:55): I flagged in my second reading contribution the issue around trying to get younger city based people into the bush, to get them over the issue of going to the regions for this type of work. I also flagged the need to support those young people, particularly if they've never undertaken or thought to undertake this type of work. What sorts of supports do you envisage being in place to support them to stay and have a good experience down there?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:55): What we are trying to do is base it around the harvest trail services. At the moment, through the employment services network, the harvest trail services support jobseekers in that endeavour. We will seek to use the same services currently available for that to make sure we are supporting these younger Australians, in the hope that they decide to take up work in rural and regional areas.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:56): What information have you got that that process is working in terms of supporting people to enjoy the experience, to be treated well and to have their needs met, or if they've got complaints or if they need reassurance or support? A lot of these people you're trying to encourage out of the cities to take up this work won't have had any rural experience, so they might need a bit of extra support to facilitate their involvement in taking up this work. We're looking at people who haven't had this experience before; I presume they're the young people we're trying to target through this particular initiative.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:57): Obviously, the appropriate provisions need to be in place to support all people in their endeavours to get back into the workforce. I have to say, coming from a rural and regional area and having employed very many young people, it's not necessarily around all the support services they might need; you might find that they need a whole heap fewer support services in moving to rural and regional areas, because of the community spirit that exists in country areas. From a physical support perspective, the $6,000 relocation allowance would be accessible to these young people if they chose to move over a longer term, if they decided they were going to move to a region for a year or so to take up this work—not that the $6,000 is constrained by having to work in an area for a year. All the usual workforce and workplace measures in support of the rights and the occupational health and safety of workers exist. As I say, the supports that are provided in many rural and regional areas are exemplary.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:58): Having lived and worked in the bush, I agree there is a lot of support available. But you have to admit there are a lot of young people who have also been exploited through this process, and I'm keen to ensure that that remains foremost in people's minds in supporting these young people to ensure that nobody is exploited. As I said in my second reading contribution, I realise that most employers in the bush and most farmers and horticulturalists are good employers. But I want to ensure that everybody has a good experience when they take up this particular opportunity.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:59): All of the protections that exist and are applicable and all workplace laws are enforced. They could be minimum employment conditions, access to superannuation, workers compensation or workplace safety. They apply to everybody. If there were a situation where somebody believed that their employer wasn't meeting their legal obligations, the Fair Work Ombudsman would be an appropriate place for those matters to be taken up. I want to assure you that all of the provisions and protections that are in place for workers exist under this program.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:00): Thank you. I will keep an eye on that to ensure that that happens. I move to schedule 6, which is the child support schedule. What data and information will be required when you're determining the alternative figure for the child support assessments?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:00): My understanding is that the information that will go into making the determination in relation to the statistic that we will be using—as opposed to, as you would know, the MTAWE number that we've used in the past—will be through consultation with the ABS, particularly with the chief statistician. That data and advice will be independently determined by the chief statistician at the ABS.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:01): You've partly touched on my next question, which was: who will you be consulting? Is there anybody else or any other body that you'll be consulting in determining that figure?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:01): My understanding is that we'll also be consulting with Services Australia because that's the organisation that implements this, but the key component of it will be through the ABS and the chief statistician.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:01): What's the timing for the instrument to be determined?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:02): Before 30 November as well.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (12:02): I have a question for the minister. How many families will end up with a family tax benefit debt because the government changed Paid Parental Leave and will now make them eligible for Paid Parental Leave? Can you give me the critical date that that becomes effective from?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:02): Because of the fact that family tax benefit is an annualised payment we wouldn't be in a position to understand what that might be until it's reconciled at the end of the year, but, in relation to families that are now going to become eligible for the Paid Parental Leave scheme who otherwise had been denied because of the criteria—and now the change enables broader access to it—we do expect that some claimants may need to pay an offsetting debt where the claimant or their partner have been receiving income support newborn upfront payment and newborn supplement for that child and family tax benefit for the backdated period. However, we will be providing information to the people who have become eligible retrospectively and would be seeking to work with them to ensure that any opportunity to mitigate them incurring a debt because they are now able to access Paid Parental Leave will be a very fundamental part of the negotiations with those people as we identify them.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (12:04): I thank the minister for her answer. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1083:

(1) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 5—Consideration of further additional economic support payments and a permanent increase to jobseeker payments

Social Security Act 1991

37 After Part 1.3B of Chapter 1

Insert:

Part 1.3C—Additional economic support payments to address inequities arising out of coronavirus pandemic

38X Minister must consider what additional payments may be required

As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider whether to do any or all of the following:

(a) extend the COVID‑19 supplement until 28 March 2021 at the amount of $250 per fortnight, in line with extensions to jobkeeper payments;

(b) better support recipients of the age pension, disability support pension and carer payment who are facing increased costs to protect their health in the face of the coronavirus pandemic;

(c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of jobseeker payments.

Labor has today moved amendments to ensure greater support for those Australians who have been left behind by this government in its economic response to the recession. It's very disappointing that the government voted against similar amendments in the House, and we sincerely hope the government has reconsidered. These amendments are reasonable and responsible, they are modest and they provide the government the flexibility it needs to deliver the appropriate support for Australians during the recession and into the future. Everyone in the parliament knows that the only way there can be support for all Australians that need it, including a permanent increase in the rate of JobSeeker, is if the government supports it. The government has the numbers in the House and it can do this.

We have structured these amendments in a way that gives the government the flexibility they need to deliver because we don't just want to make a point; we want to see change. The Prime Minister says, 'We're all in this together,' but our pensioners and carers have been left behind. He says, 'We're all in this together,' but 1.8 million Australians on unemployment support have been left uncertain as to what kind of support will be available to them beyond Christmas. If we're all in this together, why are almost one million Australians on unemployment support excluded from the hiring subsidy? If we're all in this together, the government should put their money where their rhetoric is and support this amendment moved by Labor.

During these difficult and uncertain times, pensioners and carers have experienced increased costs in ensuring they remain safe and healthy. Unlike the government, Labor acknowledge that older Australians, people with disabilities and carers have experienced increased costs as a result of the coronavirus. In June, we saw the release of a survey from People with Disability Australia which found that nine in 10 people with disabilities have experienced increased expenses due to the ongoing pandemic and 31 per cent have reported increased spending on health care. Pensioners have been facing rising health, dental, energy and grocery bills for years. Average GP out-of-pocket costs alone have gone up by $10 under this government. Labor's amendment will create an obligation on the minister to better support pensions, including the age pension, the disability support pension and carer payment receipts.

The government's announcement today that it will cut the coronavirus supplement by $100 a fortnight from Christmas is a huge disappointment. It is uncaring and cruel and will see people face hardship, poverty and, no doubt, mental stress. It's also bad for the economy, withdrawing support right at the time it matters most for local business and jobs. That's because people on low incomes and those on social security payments have such a high propensity to spend. They spend in local shops and local businesses right around Australia. Over 2. 2 million Australians will see their payments cut at Christmas because of this decision. At a time when the unemployment crisis is getting worse, not better, we can only assume that the rate will go all the way back to the $40 a day for many people from March, a rate that is simply too low to live on. The impact of this uncertainty is being strung along. It's terrible for people's mental health and their confidence. It doesn't create any jobs whatsoever. That is what this government should be focused on now. It should be focused on creating jobs and making sure people have enough to live with dignity. Instead the government's plan is yet again another cut to those out of work long before the crisis is over.

What people need is support, reassurance and certainty. Cutting the supplement a second time from $250 to $150 will leave many families at Christmas time trying to decide where to make savings in the household budget. They've already become very tight and very strict. It is a time when Australians will simply want to be able to spend quality time with loved ones after what has been such a tough year for so many.

Labor's amendments will extend the coronavirus supplement at the current rate of $250 until the end of March, in line with JobKeeper. More than that, we call on the government to deliver a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment, which is something Labor has consistently advocated for and is something that many on the other side also have been advocating for. The member for Cowper recently declared that returning the rate to $40 a days would be 'fairly cruel and unusual punishment'. We know the government used their numbers to defeat this amendment in the House, but we sincerely hope that they have used the intervening time to reflect on what this means for those Australians who have the least and have lost the most. In a country like Australia, poverty is not inevitable; it is a policy choice. It's time for the government to do the right thing and support this amendment.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:11): I indicate on behalf of the Greens that the Greens will be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Dodson. We have been advocating for an extremely long time for a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment—the old Newstart payment. We would like to see the coronavirus supplement extended. Of course, I have a bill in this place that would extend the original supplement, but the $250 per fortnight is the least we can do. Although we've been advocating since the beginning of the crisis that people on disability support pension, people on carer payment and age pensioners who are on CRA should also get the coronavirus supplement, paragraph (b) of this amendment, indicating better support for recipients goes some way to meeting the needs of people on DSP, the age pension and carer payment, who we all know are paying more costs in the face of the pandemic and need additional support. We will be supporting these amendments.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:12): The government will be opposing this amendment. I would like to reinforce in this place that the government is extending the temporary measure that is the coronavirus supplement from 1 January to 31 March. That is an announcement that was made yesterday. We're also extending a number of other measures that expand the criteria for eligibility for access to working age payment so as to include people who are self employed, people who are sole traders, people who've been stood down but remain engaged with their workplace, people who are isolating and people who are caring for people who are isolating. We're also continuing to waive a number of the waiting periods and to maintain the partner taper rate at an elevated level to ensure that even more Australians, who otherwise would not be able to get access to these payments, will be able to.

The suggestion that we are cutting anything is absolutely not correct. We will be making available to Australians $3.2 billion in the first three months of 2021 in support of the extension of measures. This government will be standing side by side with Australians who are doing it tough as they transition back to work. I absolutely reject the claim that we are cutting anything. A $3.2 billion additional spend in the first three months cannot be described in any way other than as an additional increase in payment. It is not a cut.

The amendment the opposition has put forward, which we are talking to at the moment, is not associated in any way with the measures contained in this bill. This bill delivers on a series of budget measures, in the Social Services portfolio, that provide additional support to a broad range of Australians but not in relation to the measure that the opposition is referring to in their amendment.

This bill provides two additional economic support payments to over five million pensioners, income support recipients and healthcare cardholders. It expands youth allowance through the new workforce participation criteria, provides concessional access through the paid parental scheme changes for people impacted by the pandemic and addresses inequities in the stillbirth payments and associated payments. The proposed amendment does not address any of these measures, whatsoever, and I would suggest it is nothing more than a political statement around unrelated elements of the portfolio. The government announced on 10 November 2020 that the coronavirus supplement would be extended at a cost of $3.2 billion. The legislation that will give effect to that measure will be subject to the introduction of a separate bill later this week. That legislation would be a far more appropriate place to raise this issue, if that's what you wish to do.

This government is very strongly supporting pensioners. We supported age pensioners, disability pensioners and carers as well as other recipients of family tax benefit and healthcare cardholders with two $750 economic support payments, which were provided to pensioners in April and July, and we have announced that a further two support payments will be made in the lead-up to Christmas and another one in early 2021. In respect of permanent settings for income support, the government has been very clear about making sure that we remain focused on supporting Australians, through these unprecedented circumstances, with this temporary targeted and comprehensive range of supports that are available to Australians who are doing it tough as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (12:18): Labor supports the Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Technically, the bill will amend the Biosecurity Act to allow the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 to specify different penalty amounts for infringement notices issued for different kinds of alleged contraventions of provisions of the Biosecurity Act. It also clarified that the regulations may prescribe different periods of time to pay an infringement notice depending on the kind or class of goods to which an alleged contravention of the Biosecurity Act relates. The bill will further amend the Biosecurity Act to permit the Director of Biosecurity to make a legislative instrument to specify goods or classes of goods that can attract a higher infringement notice amount. It will provide that the legislative instrument made by the Director of Biosecurity is not subject to parliamentary disallowance due to the technical and scientific nature of underlying risk assessments and is made for a period not longer than 12 months. It will permit the regulations to incorporate references to the legislative instrument as in force from time to time.

Strengthening Australia's biosecurity system is a good thing. Our biosecurity system is described as a significant national asset. Australia has a unique environment. We are an island country, which has its benefits and challenges. We can control who comes into our country and assess incoming passengers to ensure that they are not bringing in products which pose a risk to our biosecurity status and could potentially expose our farmers and the natural environment to pests and diseases. However, this is a risk based assessment, and therefore there is a responsibility on incoming passengers to declare what they are bringing into our country, and our biosecurity officers will then determine whether the produce is a threat to Australia and Australians.

This legislation reminds us all that at times many Australians and, indeed, visitors to our country don't understand the importance of our biosecurity system. Everyone in this chamber will be familiar with the program Border Security: Australia's Front Line, where we see many visitors and Australians trying to circumvent Australia's biosecurity rules, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unknowingly. Whilst the program is called 'Border Security', it is predominantly biosecurity officers from the department of agriculture who work in partnership with their state and territory counterparts who do much of the work at our airports and ports. Biosecurity is a key responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, and ensuring that biosecurity is well understood is an important responsibility of the minister and his department. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum states:

Prior to commencement of the amendments, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment will also conduct an education and awareness campaign targeting incoming passengers and crew …

COVID-19 has heightened awareness of Australia's biosecurity system because of the failings at our borders to stop cruise ship passengers infected with COVID-19 from disembarking and spreading the virus throughout Australia. This failing also highlighted that there is a lack of clear understanding as to who is responsible for assessing the passengers from a biosecurity health perspective. The department of agriculture claims in its corporate plan that their biosecurity staff work on behalf of the Department of Health to carry out health screening of international passengers, yet we know that as the Ruby Princess passengers left the ship no-one was assessed by biosecurity officers. There has been buck passing by the ministers as to exactly who was responsible for the health assessment of passengers on cruise ships. The Morrison government must do better at ensuring that our biosecurity system works so that Australians can have confidence that the system is robust and that the Department of Agriculture is working closely with its partners.

Last week the CSIRO released its report into Australia's biosecurity system entitled Australia's Biosecurity Future: Unlocking the next decade of resilience (2020-2030). The report paints a concerning picture of the state of our biosecurity system—that without proper resourcing our biosecurity will not be able to cope with the increase in biosecurity risks. The executive summary states:

Biosecurity is critical to supporting the health of Australians, their environment and the competitiveness of key industries through biosecure trade networks. While Australia has one of the strongest biosecurity systems globally, outbreaks across human, agriculture, environment and marine health are continuing to rise in volume and complexity. This is due to a range of factors including growing levels of trade and travel, urbanisation, climate change and biodiversity loss.

The report reminds us all of the economic impacts that failures in our biosecurity system will cost Australians, our natural environment and our agriculture industries. This would include $5 billion each year if a large multistate foot-and-mouth disease outbreak occurred, until it was eradicated. The report also states:

Weeds cost Australia around $5 billion annually in control measures and lost production. Approximately 20 new weed species establish in Australia every year.

It says the most significant mistake will be 'continuing along the "business as usual" trajectory of slow and incremental change', which 'could expose Australia to significant triple bottom line risks over the next 10 years'.

Over the past seven years of this Liberal-National coalition government, collaboration and genuine policy work to strengthen Australia's biosecurity have been haphazard and reactionary rather than forward-looking and one step ahead of potential challenges. Let's go back to one of the first acts of the Liberal-National government in 2013, which was to scrap the Standing Council on Primary Industries. Back then, the member for New England, who was the Minister for Agriculture, claimed scrapping SCoPI, as was its acronym, was a money-saving exercise. However, the cost of biosecurity failings which have occurred on their watch due to the chaos and confusion in the system far outweighs any so-called cost savings.

SCoPI was a COAG committee of agriculture ministers at the federal and state levels. It was through this committee that the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity was developed. The intergovernmental agreement makes it clear that biosecurity needs to be a whole-of-government approach covering areas including trade, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, the environment, social amenity and human health. We saw in 2016-17 the devastating impact that biosecurity failings can have on farmers, with prawn farmers having to shut their farms overnight due to a white spot disease outbreak in Queensland. It cost the industry close to $100 million in losses—and, boy oh boy, don't I know, because it was our committee that went up there and actually met with the farmers. These biosecurity failings could have been avoided if the Liberal-National government properly understood the important role our biosecurity systems play in keeping farms operating.

The IGAB prescribed a five-year review into biosecurity, which was undertaken by Dr Wendy Craik. The final report was delivered to the government in 2017. The report made 42 recommendations and identified that Australia's biosecurity system required—ready, Madam Acting Deputy President?—additional resources. In the 2018 budget, the Liberal-National government committed to providing $325 million to biosecurity over three years. However, like everything with the government, the devil is in the detail, and the detail is a damning indictment of their lack of seriousness about Australia's biosecurity. The government botched the implementation of the levy, and there is now a $325 million budgetary hole. Biosecurity continues to be underresourced. The Morrison government delivered very little budget funding dedicated to biosecurity, despite the fact that we are currently experiencing a terrible pandemic. This just highlights that the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management does not properly understand the responsibilities of his department with respect to the adequate resourcing of the biosecurity system.

The former independent Inspector-General of Biosecurity, a position the member for New England had tried to abolish back in 2014, found major failures in Australia's biosecurity system during her review into uncooked prawns, including that it was not providing an appropriate level of protection. The inspector-general, Dr Helen Scott-Orr, stated:

During this review, I found several deficiencies in the management of the biosecurity risk of uncooked prawn imports, with broader implications for Australia's biosecurity risk management more generally.

Dr Scott-Orr further said:

I found that specific policy elements and their implementation had sowed the seeds of failure many years before, while progressive and cumulative acts, omissions and systemic factors at many levels exacerbated the risks over time. Many of these failings have been swiftly addressed by the department and other stakeholders, but more needs to be done to manage the biosecurity risks of prawn imports in the future. I have made recommendations to improve this biosecurity risk management framework and its ability to deal with ongoing and emerging challenges. Long-term adequate resourcing will be a key success factor in this endeavour.

…   …   …

Above all, detecting and deterring deliberate or inadvertent failures to implement biosecurity risk management policies effectively must be a priority. Governments and aquatic industries must cooperate to resource and implement these efforts. Failure to do so will imperil the future development of a sustainable and profitable aquaculture sector in Australia.

The inspector-general stated that the department must 'remain vigilant, proactively review and update import requirements and policies, and maintain excellent communication with both government and industry stakeholders'.

These findings from, I believe, 2016-17 can also be applied to the more recent biosecurity failings with the Ruby Princess. If they had been taken seriously across the department, possibly, we would not have seen the tragedy and dysfunction associated with the Ruby Princess. Instead, the Inspector-General of Biosecurity is now examining the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's systems, policies and processes in place to support biosecurity officers in the discharge of their frontline prevention biosecurity responsibilities, including in cooperation with other agencies. The Morrison government should hang their heads in shame that Australia's biosecurity system failed the Australian community. The minister for agriculture, Mr Littleproud, should have ensured his department was well resourced and vigilant with regard to potential biosecurity threats relating to COVID-19. Labor looks forward to seeing the recommendations from the inspector-general once his review is complete. However, there is no guarantee the Morrison government, unfortunately, will take the recommendations seriously. Sadly, for many families across Australia, the failings have cost them dearly, and our condolences go out to these families.

The current bill before the Senate will give the department more flexibility to deal with biosecurity breaches, and to issue larger fines as a form of deterrent—such as with African swine fever, which is a real threat to Australia's pork producers and could cost the industry up to $2 billion in losses. Whilst the government has provided some additional funding for ASF, and whilst COVID-19 has seen traveller numbers decrease to almost zero, the current Inspector-General of Biosecurity, Mr Rob Delane, has found similar failings within department systems as were found by the former inspector-general, Dr Scott-Orr, with white spot disease.

The inspector-general's report is concerning. It identifies three strategic risks to the department's capability to effectively prevent ASF entering Australia, including:

inadequate agility, resulting in slow responses to evolving challenges like ASF

inadequate agility and number of resources, resulting in ASF efforts drawing resources away from vital measures to mitigate other biosecurity risks to Australia

inadequate organisational flexibility necessary for the department to address heightened ASF risk for at least 3 to 5 years, while transforming its biosecurity systems to address global growth in trade and travel, commercial system changes and changes in at-border processing of trade and travel.

The report takes an outcome based approach to the assessment of swine flu prevention readiness and summarises relevant observations and findings through an IGB assessment of key areas.

Our farmers in the broader Australian community rely on the Morrison government to get biosecurity right. So, whilst Labor supports the bill before the Senate, the government must do more and properly resource our biosecurity system and biosecurity frontline officers to ensure they can effectively and confidently do their jobs. Anything less is reckless and negligent.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (12:34): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support the Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020 as a clear example of good lawmaking to protect Australians, Australian rural industries, the safety of our country and the safety of our people. Disaster will occur if our border protections fail to prevent the entry of pests or diseases that have the potential to decimate our crops, kill our farm animals or infect our rural products such that whole industries could be wiped out. Our biosecurity officers and Australian Border Force officers are under constant strain to maintain the high level of protection needed to keep out these threats to our Australian way of life. They do a great job, and we thank them.

The nationwide loss of pollination services from European honey bees due to a multistate varroa mite incursion must be avoided. Introduced bacterial diseases such as European foulbrood could wipe out our bee population. Officers are constantly on alert nationwide to prevent the incursion of any new exotic fruit fly. A nationwide outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would be catastrophic, as would, say, a bluetongue outbreak across Australia's major sheep-producing regions. These are just a few of the threats faced when products from overseas are introduced into our country. The devastation caused to our food chain would be almost incalculable if we lost our bee population. If bees fail to pollinate, we will lose those industries and crops that rely on bee pollination.

I would like to divert for a minute from protecting agriculture to protecting people. Border security is a fundamental federal responsibility. It's one of its four core responsibilities. This virus that is now among us, I'll say, has highlighted failures in border security. The Ruby Princess, which the previous speaker, Senator Sterle, spoke about, is one example. The ship's doctor's log was completely wrong, from what we're told, and there was nothing done about it. These point to matters of governance. All the major problems in this country that I can see on energy, water and property rights point to this city and to governance in Canberra. Problems keep coming because policies are not based on data. Policy in this country both under the Labor Party and the Greens and under the Liberal Party and the Nationals is not based on data. That's what's causing people to have grave doubts about the governance in this country. Governance is now based on emotion, vested interests, ideology, stories, fashions and fads. We now have governance in this country that is aiming to look good, not do good. I'm not just talking about the Liberal and National government that's in place; I'm talking about governance in the last 20 and 30 years. It has failed this country. There's been an inability to plan because there is a lack of data underpinning policy and plans.

I'd like to contrast that with Taiwan. I'm making a plea to get back to data based policy rather than policy based science. That's not science. We have people invoking science, but they're doing it falsely, whether it be on reef regulations in Queensland or climate, energy or property rights being stolen. People are losing their incomes, losing their livelihoods, losing their futures and losing their industries. We are shipping industries overseas because we are not basing decisions on data. Let me give you an example—Taiwan. Taiwan have 24 million people. That's almost the same as our 25 million people in Australia. They have a much smaller area in which those 24 million people live, so it's much easier for them to transmit the virus. They're closer to China. They have many more interactions with communist China. They slammed the borders shut tight. Then they didn't shut down the whole country like we've done. They invoked testing, tracing and quarantining. They isolated the sick, they isolated the vulnerable and, as a result, even though they got the virus earlier than we did, in the time we've lost over 900 lives they've lost seven. And here's the punch line: they did not destroy their economy. Their economy has continued along steadily. Why? Because they trust their government. We don't have trust in government in this country, because government is not worthy of trust. That's the bottom line. We have to re-establish trust. That comes from making decisions and policies based on data.

So, while I'm talking about agriculture, it's extremely important to understand that we need to prevent these pests and diseases being introduced that affect humans as well as animals and crops. How do we prevent these pests and diseases being introduced? Strong deterrents are part of the answer. And that is the strength of this bill. I've just criticised the government of and governance in this country, but I'm going to compliment the government, because here's an example of a strong bill which is purposed to help militate against biosecurity risk. There is a light here shining, and it makes it through the pall hanging over Canberra from poor governance. This bill enables the Director of Biosecurity to determine that goods or classes of goods brought into the country without appropriate disclosure may attract a higher infringement notice penalty and provides that the determination is not going to be disallowed. We're in favour of that, because this country is worth protecting. It's worth keeping our borders secure.

People entering Australia must take seriously the need to 'comply carefully and accurately with requirements to provide written information for the purpose of assessing the level of biosecurity risk associated with the person and the goods they intend to bring into the country through their first point of entry, including airports and seaports. Quite frankly, any legislation that genuinely protects Australian rural industries is worthy of One Nation support'. This bill has our support.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): Before I go to the Minister, I am advised that the Greens amendment won't proceed.

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (12:41): Let me briefly sum up on the bill, and I thank senators for their contributions. The Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020 will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to provide for a flexible and proportionate compliance response through the targeted setting of amounts payable under an infringement notice. The bill will allow the biosecurity regulation to specify different penalty amounts and different periods of time to pay for infringement notices issued for different kinds of alleged contraventions of the Biosecurity Act, including by reference to the kind of goods or class of goods to which an alleged contravention relates.

We'll permit the Director of Biosecurity to make a non-disallowable legislative instrument to specify goods or classes of goods that can attract a higher infringement notice amount. These changes will enable incoming passengers or crew who fail to declare high-risk biosecurity goods listed in the legislative instrument to be issued with an infringement notice in the amount of 12 penalty points or $2,664. This is an increase from the current infringement notice amount of two penalty units or $444. It applies regardless of the relative risk of the goods to which the contravention relates.

This bill will enhance existing compliance and deterrence measures designed to protect Australia's biosecurity status by encouraging people entering Australia to comply carefully and accurately with requirements to provide written information for the purpose of assessing the level of biosecurity risk associated with the person and the goods they are seeking to bring into Australia. This is a sensible and timely improvement to Australia's biosecurity system that is consistent with mature regulatory practice.

I note the Acting Deputy President's advice to the chamber that the Greens amendment will not be proceeding and acknowledge the withdrawal of that from the Greens.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ) (12:43): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (12:43): I move:

That this 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) (15:35): On behalf of Senator Seselja, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the PublicWorksCommitteeAct1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – Perth Precinct Project.

I table a statement in relation to the works.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:37): I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name by changing the reporting date.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2021:

The state of media diversity, independence and reliability in Australia and the impact that this has on public interest journalism and democracy, including:

(a) the current state of public interest journalism in Australia and any barriers to Australian voters' ability to access reliable, accurate and independent news;

(b) the effect of media concentration on democracy in Australia;

(c) the impact of Australia's media ownership laws on media concentration in Australia;

(d) the impact of significant changes to media business models since the advent of online news and the barriers to viability and profitability of public interest news services;

(e) the impact of online global platforms such as Facebook, Google and Twitter on the media industry and sharing of news in Australia;

(f) the barriers faced by small, independent and community news outlets in Australia;

(g) the role that a newswire service plays in supporting diverse public interest journalism in Australia;

(h) the state of local, regional and rural media outlets in Australia;

(i) the role of government in supporting a viable and diverse public interest journalism sector in Australia; and

(j) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:48): I move:

That the title of the Education and Employment References Committee's current inquiry into General Motors Holden operations in Australia be changed to 'Regulation of the relationship between car manufacturers and car dealers in Australia'

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:22): At the request of Senator Gallacher, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

   (i) on 6 October 2020, the Senate ordered the Minister for Defence to provide to the Senate Economics Reference Committee all of the Australian Industry Capability (AIC) plans supplied to Defence by prime contractors in the future submarine, future frigate, offshore patrol vessel and pacific patrol boat programs and the Department of Defence's AIC strategy plans,

   (ii) the documents are highly relevant to the committee's inquiry into Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability,

   (iii) on 19 October 2020, the Minister advanced a public interest immunity claim on grounds centring around commercial-in-confidence concerns, and

   (iv) the bar to correctly advance a claim over commercial-in-confidence is high, particularly noting the documents are to be returned to the committee, not to the Senate;

(b) affirms that:

   (i) the balance of the public interest lies in permitting the committee to conduct oversight of the conduct of the Department of Defence in delivering on the Government's commitment to maximise AIC in Australia's $139 billion shipbuilding program, and

   (ii) the Senate does not accept the public interest immunity claim advanced by the Minister for Defence; and

(c) orders the Minister for Defence to comply with the order agreed to by the Senate on 6 October 2020 by providing the documents to the Senate Economic References Committee by 12 November 2020.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (16:23): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: On 19 October 2020 the Minister for Defence made a public interest immunity claim in response to general business notice of motion No. 786. The claim was made on the grounds that provision of the requested document would harm the Commonwealth's ability to achieve value for money, negotiate ARC arrangements and meet Australia's broader strategic objectives. Commercial-in-confidence and national interest issues are the grounds for public interest immunity and have been recognised by successive governments. The government affirms the public interest immunity claim made by the minister.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:23): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator PATRICK: It's the usual story: the Senate is being denied access to information necessary to conduct its oversight function. How do I know this? Well, one of the documents to which the order applies is one that I have FOI'd. It's one which the department originally said did not exist. They were then forced to admit that it did. I went through a process to get access to it—it was a lengthy process—and eventually the Information Commissioner ordered that the document be handed over. It then went to appeal in the AAT. An agreement was reached to stop wasting time, but here is the document that is being denied to the Senate. I have it in full; it has been provided to me for the purposes of—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, props are not appropriate.

Senator PATRICK: It's a document, Mr President. This is a document which has nothing in it that is anything other than embarrassing to the government for not signing up to what DCN has promised on the Future Submarine project. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 849 in the name of Senator Gallacher be agreed to. The ayes have it. The noes have it? Division required. Ring the bells for one minute.

A division having been c alled and the bells being rung—

Senator Patrick interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, I will do it because you haven't asked before. I can insist on the bells being rung for one minute upon repeated divisions. I've said it numerous times today. I'll reset them now for four minutes, because I didn't consult with you previously. But when I ask senators to remain in the chamber—

Senator Patrick interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: I said it earlier today. I've said it twice today, Senator Patrick. If senators aren't going to stay in the chamber when there are rolling divisions, they may miss a division—especially when they're asked.

A government senator interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: With the consent of the chamber, the government has opted to cancel the division because I called it for the ayes. Is the chamber happy for me to move on? I will take it, without objection, that we are.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:26): At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes. Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:27): I present the explanatory memorandum 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—

In his second reading speech on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020, Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton said that:

" The Australian government ' s first responsibility is to keep Australians safe and secure, and this includes protecting Australians from transnational, serious and organised crime. "

It is in this spirit that Labor today moves the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 – an effort to improve legislation introduced by the Government that fails to adequately address security threats at our airports and seaports.

This Bill will amend the Migration Act1958 to require the relevant Minister to replace the current Maritime Crew Visa with two new categories of Maritime Crew Visas under Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The two new categories of Maritime Crew Visas will include:

an International Seafarers Transit Visa for entering Australia on a continuing international voyage only (the purpose of the current Maritime Crew Visa), and;

an International Seafarers Work Visa, which would permit international seafarers to be engaged on ships authorised under a Temporary License to undertake coastal voyages made under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012.

These reforms to our visa system are needed to ensure that we can properly protect our borders – particularly at our seaports.

The Australian Government has identified that there are distinct features of 'Flag of Convenience' ship registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.

Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make 'Flag of Convenience' ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups.

This means that 'Flag of Convenience' ships may be used in a range of illegal activities including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports or exports.

This Bill seeks to reduce the risk of foreign crew working in the Australian domestic shipping trade with criminal histories that would be unacceptable under the comparative MSIC scheme.

It achieves this by requiring that foreign maritime crew on 'Flag of Convenience' vessels are subject to appropriate security screening and background checking, similar to the standard that is applied to Australians who apply for a Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC).

The provisions in this Bill will fix a significant flaw in the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crimes) Bill 2019, namely that foreign seafarers would be subject to significantly less scrutiny than their Australian counterparts, despite the potential risk of illegal activity from ships and crews that fly under 'Flags of Convenience'.

It is appropriate that we take the opportunity to get this legislation right in order to protect our community.

As such, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (16:44): I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 12 of 2020 and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In particular, I wish to draw the Senate's attention to two instruments in chapter 1 of the monitor which raise significant technical scrutiny concerns. The first instrument is the Fair Work Amendment (Variation of Enterprise Agreements No. 2) Regulations 2020. This instrument repeals changes that were made to reduce the access period for a proposed variation of an enterprise agreement from seven days to one day. In the monitor, the committee reports its view that the explanatory statement to the instrument does not currently comply with certain technical requirements of the Legislation Act 2003, particularly the requirement that explanatory statements must contain a description of any consultation undertaken in relation to the instrument.

In correspondence with the committee, the Attorney-General has provided the committee with details of the consultation that was undertaken in relation to the instrument and the measures that it repealed; however, the Attorney has so far declined to update the explanatory statement to the instrument to include this information to ensure that it complies with the Legislation Act. The Attorney has instead noted that details of the consultation that has been undertaken are already on the public record.

The committee has significant scrutiny concerns about this noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of the Legislation Act. In light of these concerns, the committee is seeking the Attorney's advice as to why the explanatory statement to the instrument cannot be amended to include the information he has provided with regard to consultation. As the committee retains significant scrutiny concerns in relation to the instrument, the committee has resolved not to withdraw its notice of motion to disallow the instrument, in order to provide the Senate and the committee with additional time to consider the instrument. The response provided by the Attorney to the committee's request for further advice will inform the committee's consideration of whether to withdraw the disallowance notice.

The second instrument I wish to highlight is the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment (Threshold Test) Regulations 2020. This instrument amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulation 2015 to set the monetary thresholds for particular significant actions and notifiable actions to nil. In effect, this means that the majority of actions relating to the acquisition of interests in Australian business or land require notification to the Treasurer under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. This measure aims to safeguard the national interest during the COVID-19 pandemic. The committee considers that this instrument implements a significant COVID-19 response measure and should therefore be time limited. Despite this, neither the explanatory statement nor the instrument itself specifies a date by which the measures will end.

Given the significance of the measures, the committee asked the Treasurer to amend the instrument to specify a date by which the measures will cease. The committee also gave notice of a motion to disallow the instrument on 1 September 2020. The Treasurer has since advised that regulations have been made to reinstate the monetary thresholds where a foreign person is renewing a lease over non-sensitive commercial property. In addition, the Treasurer advised that exposure draft regulations have been released which would reinstate the monetary thresholds for other actions from 1 January 2021. On the basis of the Treasurer's advice, which confirms an intention that the measure be time limited, the committee has resolved to conclude its examination of the instrument and withdraw the notice of motion to disallow the instrument.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 12 of 2020 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:49): On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the report of the committee on the regulation of auditing in Australia, together with documents presented to the committee.

Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (16:49): I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to take note of the Regulation of auditing in Australia report. I'll put the headline up-front: the committee has delivered a final report in addition to its interim report, which was tabled in February. In the intervening period, not much has changed about auditing but everything has changed about our economy, and that reflects the concluding comments that the committee has made today and will be tabled today.

In short, the committee stands by all 10 recommendations which were made in our interim report in February 2020. Those recommendations were made on a bipartisan basis in a unanimous report encompassing all members of the committee. I take the opportunity to place on the record my appreciation for all members of the committee who worked together in a collegiate way on this issue and in this interim report and now final report and, in particular, the deputy chair, Mr Georganas, and Senator O'Neill, who initially referred this inquiry through this chamber to the committee.

Our interim report in February found that although there were widespread concerns among stakeholders about the quality of audit in Australia there wasn't good evidence available to the committee, hard empirical evidence, that there was a systemic problem with audit in Australia. What we did identify was a perception about the problem of audit quality in Australia. Many stakeholders, whether they were shareholders or academics or industry associations or other groups, believed that there were perception issues in the industry that needed to be addressed.

We made 10 recommendations. Some were aimed at the industry, some were aimed at the regulator ASIC, others were aimed at the financial FRC and others were aimed at government in order to address those perception issues. We believe that if those recommendations are faithfully implemented by all those bodies then the reputation of the audit industry in this country will be enhanced and greater confidence will be restored to the industry, because the confidence that investors are able to place into the financial statements made by companies is a crucial part of a free market economy. It allows the efficient allocation of capital. It allows the trust in markets that are essential to this industry, and auditors have a crucial part to play in that.

In our concluding comments tabled today, we stand by all 10 of those recommendations. I won't go through all of them individually and I won't go through them in detail, but there were some which have attracted particular interest and particular comment. Our seventh recommendation in our interim report was to implement a mandatory audit tendering regime, which would require company boards after a 10-year period of using one auditor to either engage in a tender process to potentially choose a new auditor or, if they didn't wish to do so or didn't believe that it was necessary to do so, to explain that decision to their shareholders. That could be in the form of a note in their annual report or another means whereby they demonstrated to their shareholders that they had thought about this issue and they had decided they wanted to stick with their current auditor for whatever reason.

There are good reasons why you might wish to keep an auditor for longer than 10 years. Having an auditor for a long period of time allows them to develop a familiarity and an understanding of your business. It's typical that in the first few years of an audit enormous resources have to be expended to get to understand a company and its operations and that over time the audit process becomes both more efficient and more effective. However, the longer period of time that a company is audited by the same auditor, the greater the risk that the independence of the auditor is compromised and, perhaps in some ways more importantly, the greater the risk of a perception that that auditor's independence has been compromised.

We have seen a few high-profile companies and auditors who have been in audit relationships for many decades. In fact, there was one celebrated case, I think it was 67 years, where the same audit firm audited a company for that time. Of course, the audit committee chair on the board of the company that was audited would have changed many times in those 67 years. The chief financial officer in that company would have changed many times in those 67 years, and the lead audit partner in the audit firm would have changed many times in those 67 years. Nonetheless, it sent a message to the regulated community, to the audience for those audit reports, that a cosy relationship may have been established, and that has undermined confidence in the system.

What that recommendation is asking companies to do is to either undertake a tender every 10 years or to demonstrate to their shareholders why they don't believe that's necessary.

Some have said that a 10-year period is too short, and it would absolutely have been up to the committee to recommend a different period—it could have been 12 years or 15 years. I don't think there's anything hard and fast about the 10-year rule, but it is important that some sort of process is put in place here to demonstrate that boards understand that their relationship with their auditor should not be set and forget and that they should not allow the perception to form among their shareholders or other stakeholders that it has become set and forget. They should demonstrate that they're considering this.

Another recommendation that has attracted some comment and interest is recommendation 9, which is about establishing internal controls for financial reporting. It has been put to the committee that there would be costs involved in implementing this recommendation, which is undoubtedly true, and that in some instances and for some businesses this may not be necessary—for example, a family owned business where the family is both the management of the company and the owner of the company. Who would they be assuring except themselves? That is a good and fair point. It is also true that, even in larger businesses, there would definitely be transition costs in implementing this recommendation.

The committee understand that, and, in light of the changed economic climate that we're in, our recommendation is that government consider all of the recommendations, but, in particular, recommendation 9, on the basis of, firstly, the time lines for implementation—we should consider very carefully the appropriate time lines—and, secondly, the thresholds for implementation. At which level is it appropriate, whether that is by revenue or by some other measure, to implement them? We urge the government to carefully consider that, because at the moment, quite rightly, businesses and their partners—whether their auditors or other service providers—are solely focused on trying to save their businesses, to save as many jobs as possible and to grow on the other side of this crisis. The committee certainly does not want to distract them from that important task or to impose costs on them at a time when they're focused on that task. They absolutely should be focused on that crucial task. But we believe that, with appropriate time lines and by appropriately staggering the implementation of these recommendations, all 10 could be adopted—and adopted successfully—both on the audit side and on the company side, to enhance the reputation and quality of audit in this country.

I will just conclude by revisiting one of the recommendations in the interim report which most attracted my interest and enthusiasm, and that was recommendation 10, about the introduction of digital reporting. I believe there are huge gains for auditors, for the businesses that they audit and also for other market participants from digitising our financial reporting. It is amazing to me, as I discovered through this inquiry, that in 2020 there are still companies and auditors who engage in a fairly manual process of data entry to extract data from companies for the purposes of financial reporting—that it isn't automated and that it isn't more efficient. Other jurisdictions, including the European Union and the United States, have successfully implemented digital financial reporting. It has lowered the cost of audits and lowered the costs for other market participants in assessing the quality of audits. And it allows much more independent third-party verification of those numbers. It allows those numbers to be used in a lot of other ways that enhance the confidence that all market participants have in this process.

There is little more to add to the concluding comments, which are relatively brief, except to say that, compared to February, when the interim report was handed down, we are in a different world. Certainly, the committee recognises that. It hasn't changed the substance of any of the recommendations that we have made but it does change the posture, I guess, that we've taken on this. Our final recommendation to government in the concluding comments is that the government should carefully consider both appropriate time lines and thresholds for the implementation of these recommendations, taking into consideration the new and very different economic climate that we're now in, thanks to COVID-19, and of course the necessary government responses to COVID-19, which have had an enormous impact on our economy.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (16:58): I rise today to speak about the final report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into the regulation of auditing in Australia.

This is a landmark report, and it offers a timely, bipartisan and credible road map to ensure our auditing industry is accountable, transparent and appropriately regulated. I'm reminded every time I turn a page of this report—and, indeed, by the concluding remarks that have been tabled here—that this inquiry was desperately needed and that the issues the inquiry uncovered needed to be seen in the clear light of day. I'm also reminded of the high-stakes nature of this issue. If the audit concerns revealed by this inquiry remain unresolved, they could shake our already rocky economy to its core.

Auditing underpins the stock market and the economy and, with more and more Australians depending on superannuation to provide for their retirement, the quality of audit is a matter that materially effects the financial wellbeing of every Australian and their family. The big firms that Australia knows—PwC, KPMG, EY and Deloitte—are at the core of the auditing profession. This report is about what we found when we investigated them, and other entities in the field as well, over the course of most of 2018. This inquiry exposed what journalist Adele Ferguson rightly described as an 'opaque and conflicted industry'. ASIC, although under a cloud at this time, has been vocal over years in calling for an investigation into the quality of audit due to escalating concern following their annual reviews revealing that audit quality was dropping.

The elaborate and systemic exploitation of ordinary Australians by major financial institutions revealed in the Hayne royal commission into banking was a wake-up call to many of us that something was deeply wrong in so many areas of our financial services industry. The conflicts of interests between the consultancy and the auditing businesses of many of Australia's largest professional firms deeply troubled me in that context. The evidence put on the public record in the course of this inquiry about how terribly corrupting financial incentives can be for far too many people and businesses, especially the biggest banks and corporates in the country, is not of the same scale in the audit industry, but we need to be mindful of the power of financial incentives to corrupt.

This report is an achievement. It's an achievement for my colleagues on the committee, who listened to many hours of evidence, read dozens of submissions and contributed in ways big and small. It is an achievement also for all the whistleblowers who bravely stood up and revealed practices and attitudes in the major Australian auditing companies that compromise any commonly understood definition of ethical business behaviour, integrity and professional audit scepticism. Their insight and generosity in sharing their knowledge with me on behalf of their fellow citizens marks them out as genuine servants of our democracy. Truth must be told. Companies that don't hear internal whistleblowers are short-sighted. I hope that more civic-minded Australians see that their truth-telling to parliament can make a profound difference that benefits millions of us. I thank them.

I personally ran into some strong headwinds when I initially moved to establish this inquiry. Indeed, I had to advance it and put it to a vote on the floor of the Senate. I'm happy to say it was carried that day on the voices, but I thank Senator Whish-Wilson and his team, Senator Lambie, Senator Griff, Senator Hanson, Senator Patrick and Senator Roberts for their commitment to supporting my motion, which enabled this committee to do its work. Without their initial support, I don't think the work of the committee that's been reported today would have been undertaken at all. I particularly thank my Labor colleagues, my own wonderful staff and the committee staff for their vital role in bringing forward this report. I also thank the chair of our committee, Senator James Paterson, and the other Liberal members of the committee for their endeavours as well.

Once the direction of the Senate for establishment of the committee was achieved, Senator Paterson approached the inquiry with a calm and steady hand during all of our hearings, private meetings and other deliberations, always happy to reach across the aisle when in the interests of the nation. It's a credit to Senator Paterson that he's worked carefully and collaboratively throughout this inquiry. I listened to his contribution this afternoon and I accord with him in his assessment of where we are. I note in particular his comments around the necessary changes to the implementation of recommendations 7 and 9, which are impacted by practical realities at this time. The report goes out under Senator Paterson's signature, and I hope he will be just as zealous as I will be in ensuring that the recommendations in this report are taken seriously by this government and that implementation occurs as soon as is practicable.

It's fair to say there were significant variations of practices by each of the big four, but the report reveals the necessity of the inquiry, the need to reform outdated and potentially dangerous conflicts of interest, the need to establish more oversight of the practices in the profession and the need to change the perverse and reckless behaviour that we saw in some of the big auditing firms.

This inquiry also found a deeply troubling culture at many of the auditing giants, including evidence of ineffective management of conflicts of interest. I also received in-confidence reports of sexual harassment across the entire sector. It also uncovered that Westpac's anticrime provisions were inadequate and that the board, having known about that failure for years, should have acted much sooner on the reports provided by their auditors. Westpac was subsequently investigated by AUSTRAC over 23 million breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act.

I remain concerned about the use of the CPS 220 reports, which are provided by auditors, about perceived and real conflicts of interest which auditors determine by their own reckoning. Their professional right to undertake work as both an internal auditor and an external provider of assurance services was something I simply couldn't believe they were saying on the record. There might be some technical alchemy of magic words that, with a wand and some swift hand movements, can be employed to continue to justify such practices, but decent, straight-talking Australians know what the word 'independent' really means. You can't be an outsider and an insider at the same time. It's time the sector accepted that fact and fixed the problem, and changed the perceptions as well.

This report has some key recommendations that I would like to speak to briefly: recommendations 3, 4 and 5. In my view, they go to the heart of why I brought this inquiry to bear. I was worried that auditors were too close to their clients and that information barriers declared in internal policy documents were in fact non-existent or severely compromised by lax consideration. It became clear that auditors were auditing their own firm's work. That is just beyond the pale. It cannot happen—not if we're going to have the integrity of financial reporting that we need in this country. I remain concerned, despite denials, that audits are being employed in some instances as loss leaders for far more lucrative consulting work.

The pandemic has shown that we cannot always take for granted that traditions will hold and that inertia and ennui will carry us safely into the future. We need to ensure that ethical practices and culture are not only assumed to be in place but also subject to critical review and, where necessary, regulated and carefully overseen. In Australia, we cannot risk an Enron style auditing failure, and this inquiry, I believe, has brought us back from the brink. Our economic prosperity cannot be rebuilt on falsehoods, on foundations made of sand, and an unreformed and unrepentant auditing industry will put all we seek to achieve here at risk.

I commend the report to the Senate and I give very strong voice to encouraging the government to get on with the job. I know that Senator Paterson will be sharing in my delight as it is implemented. I think we'll all get the benefit of that.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (17:08): It's a really great pleasure to rise to speak to the PJC on Corporations and Financial Services' final report on the regulation of auditing, which of course follows the interim report. I started my career, for better or worse, as an internal auditor at Ernst & Young and got some good skills for life there. Learning how a risk and control framework can do great things for an entity is a good skill. I would say in relation to this inquiry—which, as Senator O'Neill reminded the chamber, was initially referred by her to the committee chaired by my colleague Senator Paterson—that this report has landed 10 quite good recommendations, which are bipartisan and, I think, really could improve the quality of auditing in Australia.

Certainly, there is a sense in some quarters that there is too close a proximity between auditors and audit clients, and perhaps this is a consequence of there being these four large auditing firms and then a second tier of much smaller audit organisations. I would say from my own experience of working mainly in internal auditing that there were certainly instances where their proximity was too close and there were audit partners that I don't think had the independence required to perform an external or internal audit.

These recommendations, which appear in the interim report and have been endorsed in this final report that's being tabled by my colleague Senator Paterson today, are effectively a way to shore up and improve the existing system. My reading of these recommendations is that they are designed to ensure that there is more confidence in the system. I'll look at a few of these recommendations in detail.

Recommendation 4 deals with the question of a more detailed declaration. That does address the comment I made about where an external auditor providing advisory services to an entity can give rise to a conflict of interest. In many cases, there's been a price war to win the auditing contract. That is almost a bit of a loss leader. Advisory services are where the audit firm or the professional services firm can make a considerable amount of money—which is all good; I have no problem with people making money. But the audit function is so important to our corporate governance structure in Australia that, where there are conflicts, where there are misaligned incentives, they really ought to be stamped out, given the importance of having an audit that reflects the true and fair position of a company's financial accounts. Just as important, I would say, is the role that internal auditors play. I don't just say that as a former internal auditor. Genuinely, there is a greater appreciation of the importance of having a proper risk and control framework.

One of the great disappointments in the last few weeks has been that the corporate regulator has failed to comply with its own risk and control framework. The corporate regulator appeared at Senate estimates two weeks ago, I think it was. It's very embarrassing that the corporate regulator has a risk and control framework, has a control on remuneration, and was unable to comply with that control. That sends a very bad signal. It shows how important it is that internal auditing—a lot of this is about professional services firms winning the contract for the external auditing and providing advisory services which then distort or conflict with the sort of audit you would expect of a public company. In my time, I saw it happen.

Recommendation 4, which provides more fulsome confidence to the market that there will be a full disclosure of services provided, is an important one. Equally, recommendation 5 gives a safeguard that there are no secret commissions or additional payments happening in the background. Recommendation 6 deals with tenure. I think tenure is very important. I'm not certain there is a case for people to be the audit partner for more than a decade. Generally speaking, 10 years is what the ASX Corporate Governance Council would say is a period in which someone can be an independent director on a company board, and after 10 years they lose the right to call themselves independent.

APRA has said that it should be, I think, eight years for people to be on a superannuation board. Like many things APRA does, this has not been enforced. In fact, there are people who are currently sitting on superannuation boards who have been on a board for 26 or 27 years. I'm 36 years of age. That's a long time. That's a good deal—27 years on a board. I do think that tenure is important. If all the other transparency arrangements are in place and the market can make a judgement about the capacity and the appropriateness of a long-term audit tenure, then I think that is okay. The question is: what about the individuals? I think that's what recommendation 6 really asks the government and, ultimately, the parliament or its delegated authorities to put more detail around.

The other recommendation that I want to touch on in the time that I have remaining is recommendation 9. It is a good reminder of how important the control frameworks are and that anything we can do to improve confidence in these control frameworks so that, when people invest in a public company, whether it's a large or small public company, they feel that the accounts are a true and fair position and there is no funny business going on.

Finally, recommendation 10—I'm always interested in all things digital. We have a problem in this country of still doing too many things on paper. The Corporations Act, which was written in 2001, still requires paper delivery of documents and doesn't provide for technology neutrality. This has been a real drag on our productivity and efficiency. I've had many representations from listed companies that have had to chase around small retail shareholders at their last known address for seven years after they were last able to contact them, and send them, effectively, phonebook style correspondence for seven years. We have a plan to try and digitise and modernise the Corporations Act, or many of its provisions. In future, the more that we can provide for technology neutral delivery in a digital age, the more it will enhance our productivity and efficiency. Certainly, the next time we write a Corporations Act we should provide for that form of technology neutrality. I understand that some people will always want to have paper documents and when you have retail shareholders who want a particular form of paperwork there should be a protection so that can be supplied. But, in the main, my sense is that digital accounts will be the way to go and that recommendation 10 is another good contribution.

I congratulate everyone who was involved with this committee report, particularly Senator O'Neill and Senator Paterson.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (17:18): On indulgence, can I acknowledge the secretariat, Dr Patrick Hodder and Dr Jon Bell, for their outstanding work in the context of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (17:20): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (17:21): 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—

It is with great pleasure that I introduce to this Parliament the Family Law Amendment (Western Australia De Facto Superannuation Splitting and Bankruptcy) Bill 2020.

The Bill will end the inequality faced by separating de facto couples in Western Australia for the past 10 years, by allowing them to split their superannuation as part of a family law property settlement. It will also allow WA de facto couples to have bankruptcy matters heard concurrently with their family law proceeding, avoiding the need to pursue them as separate proceedings in two different courts.

These important measures will provide greater access to justice for WA de facto couples by providing fairer and faster resolution of their disputes. The Bill will mean WA de facto couples will be able to achieve a fair split of their superannuation assets as part of a property settlement, while also saving them valuable time and money in resolving bankruptcy and family law disputes together.

In doing so the Bill will bring WA de facto couples in line with other de facto and married couples across Australia, ensuring they are treated in the same way.

Superannuation splitting

Between 2003 and 2010 all states, other than WA, provided the Commonwealth with a full subject matter referral of powers for all de facto financial matters, including superannuation. Since these referrals were given effect, all de facto couples, except for those in WA, have been able to split their superannuation interests following the breakdown of their relationship.

In 2006, WA provided a narrow referral of power to the Commonwealth for de facto superannuation splitting only. Previous governments have not accepted this narrow referral because it did not extend to other de facto financial matters - the allocation of property interests more broadly, and spousal maintenance.

It has become clear that the inability for de facto couples in WA to split their superannuation is resulting in inequitable property settlements in some cases. This is because the court has to try and offset the value of the superannuation with other assets of the relationship, like a house or savings. This is not always possible, particularly for couples with large mortgages, or few other assets between them.

Superannuation is an increasingly valuable asset for Australians, and can be the largest single asset in the property pool of a separating family. Being unable to split this important asset disproportionately affects women, who accumulate less superannuation, on average, than men.

To ensure de facto couples in Western Australia, like other de facto couples across Australia, can achieve a fair split of their superannuation in property settlements, the Morrison Government agreed in 2018 to accept the narrow referral of power, and end the disadvantage faced by WA de facto couples.

The narrow referral is implemented through Schedule 1 of the Bill, which will create a new Part VIIIC in the Family Law Act1975 (Cth), dealing solely with superannuation splitting for separating de facto couples in WA.

This new Part largely replicates the existing superannuation splitting provisions and definitions that apply to married and de facto couples in other states and territories, which are located in Part VIIIB of the Family Law Act. Having the provisions in a single Part of the Act will make it simpler and easier for judges, lawyers, and separating de facto couples in WA to find and use the new regime.

Under the Bill, de facto couples will be able to split their superannuation by court order, or by an agreement made between them. The Bill provides that any financial agreement relating to a couples' superannuation interests will form part of a broader financial agreement made under the relevant WA law, the Family Court Act1997 (WA). This will ensure that de facto couples only need to make one agreement which covers their superannuation interests and other property, such as their house.

The Bill provides that appeals with respect to superannuation interests of de facto couples will lie to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, ensuring that de facto couples have a single appeal pathway for their family law property disputes.

The nature of the narrow referral of power means that all other aspects of property division for separated WA de facto couples will continue to be dealt with under WA law.

Bankruptcy jurisdiction

The Bill will also end the disadvantage faced by WA de facto couples in resolving family law matters where either or both parties are also involved in bankruptcy proceedings.

Currently, WA de facto couples need to resolve these matters through separate proceedings in two different courts: family law proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia, and bankruptcy proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

Schedule 2 of the Bill will extend federal bankruptcy jurisdiction to the Family Court of Western Australia, which will allow bankruptcy and family law matters of de facto couples to be heard concurrently in a single court. This will avoid the need for couples to commence proceedings in two different courts, saving them valuable time and money.

Schedule 2 of the Bill largely mirrors existing provisions of the Bankruptcy Act that provide the Family Court of Australia with jurisdiction in bankruptcy when a party to a family law proceeding is a bankrupt.

The Bill also provides that appeals in relation to concurrent family law and bankruptcy proceedings for WA de facto couples will mirror existing appeals pathways for married and de facto couples in other jurisdictions. To achieve that consistency, appeals will lie to the Full Court of the Federal Court where the bankruptcy matter originates in the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court and is subsequently transferred to the Family Court of Western Australia. These proceedings generally involve complicated questions of bankruptcy law and are best considered by the specialist bankruptcy court, the Federal Court. Matters that originate in the Family Court of Western Australia will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The ability to have bankruptcy and family law matters heard together will bring de facto couples in line with married couples in WA, and with married and de facto couples in the other states and territories. The Bill will therefore provide for a nationally consistent approach to the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction in concurrent bankruptcy and family law matters.

The remaining schedules in the Bill outline the required consequential amendments to other Commonwealth Acts, along with the application and transitional provisions, necessary to support the smooth implementation of this important new regime.

Conclusion

The reforms in this Bill will play a vital role in ending disadvantage for WA de facto couples and their families. By enabling these couples to split their superannuation, and to commence concurrent family law and bankruptcy matters in the same court, the Bill will help WA de facto couples resolve their disputes in a fairer, faster and simpler way.

Debate adjourned.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:23): I move:

That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:24): I seek to debate the motion before the chair, before the question is put, and say that the Senate should insist on its amendments to this bill. This bill requires the transparency that has been put forward by the Senate in this legislation, such as the quarterly reports and the protection for workers that this place has seen as valid and important to be in the JobMaker legislation. It's all very well for the government to try to slate blame on this place for, indeed, wanting to put reasonable legislative amendments in place, but it is on the government's head if this legislation doesn't proceed today because it has not seen fit to agree to these extremely reasonable amendments.

These amendments simply put forward the idea and put into the new rules that there needs to be transparency so that we can see properly that the JobMaker hiring credit scheme is working and that we can also ensure that workers aren't worse off under this legislation. It is critical that the Senate stand up for itself and say to the government, 'What we've put forward is absolutely and entirely reasonable.' The government has the opportunity to get on with this legislation, because in the Labor Party we have, unlike the crossbench, expressed our support for this legislation.

But what the Senate has resolved is that the legislation, if it were to proceed—and this we have in common, irrespective of whether there are senators here who don't want to see the legislation proceed at all—needs to be amended in this transparent way. So it is entirely up to the government to say, 'Look, what the Senate has asked for is entirely reasonable; it's not difficult to do.' In fact, the government hasn't even finished drafting rules for this legislation—the delegated legislation inside it. The fact that the Senate expresses some opinion about what should be in those rules is not a difficult thing. It is an entirely reasonable thing. The drafting of the rules can be done in a way that is entirely consistent with what the Senate has asked for.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:27): The Greens have a very strong position that the Senate should insist on its amendments to this Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. We've been here for the last two days debating the JobMaker hiring credit scheme which, in the legislation, is no scheme at all. There have been members who have stood up—many members over the last two days—and spoken about the bill. And many on this side have expressed their deep concerns about the bill and the implications of the bill.

The Greens really believe that it is, at the end of the day, a corporate welfare scheme with very little chance, or indeed no promise, of creating good, secure, well-paying jobs. We have expressed our concerns that the bill does nothing to prevent the wage subsidy from being used to bolster corporate profits, because we know that many businesses which will be eligible for the scheme have made profits during the pandemic. They have given millions of dollars of dividends to their shareholders through the public purse. They have paid their executives bonuses using public money. We know that there is nothing in this bill preventing wage thieves, for instance, from not having their eligibility revoked—and we know the history of many of the big corporations which have really been exploiting and underpaying their workers. This bill doesn't provide a dispute resolution process. This leaves workers who have their hours reduced or even lose their jobs really exposed. And we know that none of the regulations are in this bill.

On all these issues we have moved amendments, to make sure that this bill, in some way, shape or form, is improved. Although I'm very disappointed that the Greens amendments on these issues haven't been supported by the majority of the Senate, I have to accept that that's the way it is. But there have been amendments that the Senate has approved and passed. One of those is a very crucial amendment that I moved on behalf of the Greens. It makes sure that there are safeguards for workers and makes sure that there are protections for existing workers, to ensure that they do not lose hours of work or their jobs so that businesses which fiddle their books can hire workers who might be eligible for the credit. New jobs should not come at the expense of existing jobs and workers must be protected. We know who the workers will be that will go. It will be older workers. With the way this legislation stands now, companies can easily get rid of those older workers to make way for other workers who they will get a benefit for through the scheme.

We note that the Senate accepted an amendment about creating transparency and reporting on what happens. The government in the House of Representatives did not accept the Senate's will. That's in a way really subverting what the Senate said. We won't let that happen. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. We have been here discussing and debating. The will of the Senate should stand. This bill should be accepted in the way that it was amended. We are here right now making sure that that will happen.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:30): The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 should stand as it was when it left the Senate because the amendments that were made to this legislation were sensible and necessary, particularly the amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on behalf of the Australian Greens that would prevent businesses from firing existing workers in order to hire workers who are eligible for the hiring credit so that those businesses can receive the subsidy. The amendment also protects the ordinary working hours of existing workers. It makes sure that their hours are not reduced to make way for the minimum 20 hours of work those eligible for the credit must do.

The government claims it has headcount and payroll protections in place; however, these are not adequate and will not stop businesses from rorting the scheme in order to take advantage of the subsidy. We have to enshrine protections for workers in law because the government's track record on protecting workers shows that they cannot be trusted and that the draft rules are insufficient. We need to stand up for workers and make sure that this bill does not allow unscrupulous companies to fire existing workers in order to turn around and hire workers who are eligible for the hiring credit.

This amendment is particularly important for workers in my home state of Tasmania. The labour force data from September this year shows that there are 252,000 people employed in Tasmania. This amendment will protect those workers from being fired so that businesses can replace them with workers eligible for the credit. This amendment will also protect those Tasmanian workers from having their hours cut so that businesses can turn around and give those hours to workers eligible for the credit so that they meet the 20-hour criteria. The unemployment rate in my home state of Tasmania is 7.6 per cent. That is obviously too high. This amendment will stop that rate going up, by ensuring existing Tasmanian workers retain their jobs.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (17:34): I will make a few comments. The fact that the government has refused to accept the amendments and is asking the Senate to not insist on them without an explanation really begs the question: why is the government opposed to amendments that stop employers from being able to sack existing workers? I think that is the question that the government needs to answer here. It is very instructive, and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this, because the government never works collaboratively with the chambers. When it's convenient the government works collaboratively with the Senate, but not this time. The Senate has expressed its view in these amendments, the amendments were returned to the House and the government has said no. There was no engagement, no explanation, no justification for why relatively minor but important amendments could not be agreed to.

We have a lot of issues with the JobMaker hiring credit scheme. I think JobMaker was announced in June, when the employment department knew nothing about it. JobMaker existed for about 4½ months before any detail was released. Some detail was provided in the budget, and at that time the government claimed that the hiring credit scheme would create 450,000 jobs. In estimates we found out that the Treasury view is that only about 10 per cent, or 45,000, of those jobs will be created. We have concerns about this scheme. We are in a deep recession. We have nearly a million unemployed people. We will have 160,000 extra people in the unemployment queues by Christmas, and the queues are already long. We have seven jobseekers for every job ad.

This hiring credit scheme may do some good for young workers, and that is why we have supported the scheme, albeit with concerns. Those concerns go to issues like job security, the fact that the scheme is pretty modest and the fact that government has no answer for what it will do for unemployed workers over the age of 35. The Restart scheme has been a failure in terms of the government's own targets. Despite having concerns about the scheme, in the same spirit of bipartisanship with which we have engaged in tackling the pandemic, we have been prepared to work with the government and support proposals, even if they weren't perfect. We worked with the government on JobKeeper. We called for a wage subsidy scheme weeks before the government finally agreed to one. When the scheme was introduced, it excluded a lot of workers and now the government is reducing the payment way too soon, in our view.

We will support the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, but we think that protections should be put in place to protect existing workers against rogue employers. Frankly, it's been months since the JobMaker scheme was announced. The government has had enough time to put in place sensible legislation, but it hasn't been able to do so. We have half-baked legislation, with rules being written on the side but not released until quite late. We are prepared to work with the government, and that's why these amendments exist. The amendments specifically offer some protections for existing workers, so that rogue employers cannot churn through employees. Rogue employers will be prevented from sacking existing workers and bringing on other workers. We think these amendments offer the necessary protections that should be in the legislation.

There is also an amendment concerning transparency, so that this government, which we know likes a fair bit of secrecy and refuses to provide information, can report on how this scheme is going. Those are the reasons that we believe these amendments should be supported. We will be insisting on the amendments. We wish the government would work more collaboratively when the Senate expresses its views on things like this, instead of making a flat rejection without any explanation. These amendments are about protecting working people. We want people to keep their jobs and we want the government to create new jobs, but we don't want a scheme with loopholes and room for rogue employers to manoeuvre to force existing employees out of work just so these employers can access the scheme. It's up to the government to explain why it finds these amendments offensive. If the government finds these amendments offensive, it obviously has no problem with the lack of job security in this country and the ability of some employers who are not eligible for this scheme to lay off people and bring on others. That is our major concern and it remains our major concern. We wish the government shared this concern.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:39): The cheek of this government to bring this bill back in here and try to insist on removing a change that this Senate put in to protect older workers—I am flabbergasted! We know this government has no respect for workers' rights, but this is rich even for them. This Senate did its job. We are not a rubber stamp. We did the job of amending this bill to put in place protections for existing workers so that they can't be sacked by an employer who can then hire someone else and get the benefit of a subsidy. So much for JobMaker! It's why this scheme has been called 'JobFaker'. This government won't even come at that basic protection for existing workers. Now, as we've all been standing here for the last 15, 20-odd minutes, we see that it looks as though Pauline Hanson's One Nation has joined with the government to sell out older workers, to remove the protections that this chamber put in place to ensure that people can't be sacked. I hope that their voters are paying close attention, and I hope that the voters for the government are paying close attention. Conventional wisdom has it that older voters might tend towards the conservative side of politics. Well, you've just sold out your own constituency!

The Senate is not a rubber stamp. We are here to amend laws, to scrutinise them and to improve them where we can. We did that job yesterday, and you folk cannot even come at a small amendment to protect workers from getting the sack so that your corporate mates can get free taxpayer money to hire two other people on insecure and precarious contract arrangements. This is a very low day for this government. It's a very sad day for older workers in this nation who this chamber protected yesterday. Now this government, with the support of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, is ripping away their protection. I understand those discussions are still underway, and perhaps they'll backflip yet again—I hope so. Older workers deserve protection. We are in a pandemic. It is hard enough as an older worker to find work, let alone keep work. This was a small protection to give them some job security that this government and One Nation are now forcing the parliament to remove. Shame on you!

I'm going to keep on talking because there are some discussions happening over there. I'm an eternal optimist, and I live in the hope that they will change their position yet again to their original position of ensuring that workers can get protection. I know you're not meant to say these things out loud, but here I am doing it, and we're on broadcast. This is what's happening: democracy is being sold out.

I believe we're in the committee stage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I can ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I'm really interested to know what offer was made to Pauline Hanson's One Nation in order to secure this backflip, to deliver you her votes and to ensure that you can remove the protections that this Senate gave to older workers from getting the sack. I don't imagine the minister's going to take up my invitation, because they don't actually have to stand up. We can ask them questions, and they can just stay seated. There's no recourse for senators to hold them to account. So we'll see. But I think the public deserves to know what deal was made. What did you offer, and what did they accept for them to do a 180 and sell out older workers? This is our democracy we're talking about. The Senate has a job to do. We are not a rubber stamp. I don't care if I've broken the rules in calling out what's actually going on in here. I would like to know what deal you did with them to get their support and abrogate and abandon older workers. Chair, I seek your clarification. Can I indeed ask the minister questions in this committee stage?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): We are in committee.

Senator WATERS: I now invite the minister to do so.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:44): To avoid any doubt, this is what is going on here in the Senate: Senator Waters has asked a completely legitimate question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. That question is: what secret, dirty deal has been done between the government and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party to sell out workers? What secret dirty deal has been done between the government and One Nation to ensure that companies actually can fire a worker and then turn around and hire other workers to take advantage of the hiring credit?

I referred in my earlier contribution in this debate to workers in Tasmania and the need to protect them. Here is a bit of news for Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts: those arguments apply equally to workers in Queensland. When Senator Waters asked this entirely reasonable question of Senator Birmingham, what did we get from the government? Absolute crickets. That's what we got. The big bagel. We got absolutely zilch out of this minister. This is his first week in the gig and he's squibbing it already. He won't even answer questions. Interestingly, he couldn't even mount an argument when he moved the motion as to why the Senate should not insist on the amendments passed yesterday. So we've had no argument from the government, no restating of a position and no stating of any new position. Again, all we've had is crickets. When Senator Waters got up and asked that incredibly reasonable and sensible question about what backroom deals had been done, all we got was crickets once again.

Let's be really clear about what is going on here—a deal stitched up between Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the Liberal and National Party government in this country to do over workers and to look after the interests of the big corporates. That's what's going on here. Once again the interests of those big corporates take precedence over the interests of ordinary Australians. It's no surprise that that is what the Liberal Party would do. They are the agents in this parliament of the corporatocracy. But One Nation pretend that they are the party of the battlers. Yet they turn around and vote with the government to do over workers right around this country.

Senator Birmingham, in your first week on the job, you have a chance to show you take this chamber seriously and you take the role of Leader of the Government in the Senate seriously. Will you please answer the question: what deal has been done with One Nation? What did you offer them in order to induce them over to your side of the chamber when in fact they were saying in here yesterday they wanted this bill defeated utterly?

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Senator McKIM: I think I heard Senator Birmingham respond to me and say, 'None.' If that's your answer, could you please get up and put it into the Hansard because waving your hands around, mate, is not helping anybody.

Senator Birmingham: None.

Senator McKIM: I'll take that interjection. It's on the record now. He is suggesting that there has been no quid pro quo here at all, no offer or proffer from the government at all, and he is asking this Senate to believe that One Nation have magically and without any inducement from the government gone from saying, 'We hate this bill; we want it killed off completely,' which was their position yesterday, to, 'Oh, okay; we'll facilitate the government's agenda to look after the big corporates today.' That's what Senator Birmingham is asking this chamber to believe. It's on the record now. We will ensure that there is an opportunity for Senator Hanson to confirm or deny that. It's a sad day when the Senate is actually failing to stand up for the very sensible, the very logical and the very necessary amendments that it passed yesterday.

The final point I'll make is this: there is absolutely no skin off the government's nose for it to support these amendments. The amendments are sensible. They are logical. They'll protect workers from being exploited. And the government should show maturity, it should be reasonable and it should ensure that the interests of working Australians are protected.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:50): There is plenty of time for the government and the Senate to sort this out. Should the Senate indicate a preparedness today to say that it will insist on these amendments—and I hope it does—I note, with the minister, that the regulations will be in consultation until November 27, so there is no rush today for the government or the Senate to finalise this legislation. There's plenty of time for a message to go back to the other place and for them to consider that what the Senate has asked for is entirely reasonable. Indeed, payments are supposed to start flowing in February—again, there's plenty of time. In terms of the architecture of the regulations that need to be written for this legislation, these are simply some suggestions from the Senate to guide the writing of that legislation. They in no way at all impede the government's ability to progress all of the other regulations and rules that go with this scheme. Minister, please can you confirm for me that the regulations are in consultation until late November?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:52): Certainly the government is consulting on the rules. That is exactly as the government has said and I explained multiple times during the lengthy committee stage on this bill. And, during that committee stage, I responded to the various amendments, a couple of which we are dealing with and reconsidering here.

Let me, for Senator McKim's and Senator Waters's benefit, restate what I said across the chamber before: no deals have been done. Let me equally restate the important merits of this program, which are to ensure that we have incentives in place to stop young Australians from being on unemployment queues for too long and to help get young Australians into jobs. That's what this is all about. Look at it. We've now got a filibuster, in planned preparation happening across the chamber, from those who seem to want to impede the passage of a program to help young Australians get jobs. That's what this program is all about. I've now heard all manner of arguments put to somehow impede, block, complicate or stall the legislation or create different barriers as to why this program needs changing when, at its heart, it's a program that has clear safety valves in place. You don't get the subsidy unless you are employing more people overall—that is, unless you've increased the headcount of the people in your business. You also don't get the subsidy unless your payroll has increased. So not only do you have to employ more but your payroll has got to have gone up. It's designed to ensure and support additionality of employment to help young people get in.

It also doesn't supersede in any way, shape or form any of the different measures in relation to how fair work laws work, unfair dismissal laws work or the like, so we have all the existing protections in place. The program is designed to ensure additionality, and businesses ought to have certainty in terms of this legislation passing so they can get on with making decisions. Yes, the rules are out for consultation but, Senator Pratt, in relation to your question, the scheme applies to new hires from 7 October. Businesses can be, should be, making decisions now about putting young Australians into work, yet the actions of the Labor Party and the Greens in seeking to filibuster this are putting doubt in the minds of Australian businesses. That doubt may well mean that a young Australian misses out on getting a job that otherwise could have been there. That's what those opposite are doing: jeopardising the potential employment of young Australians. Shame on them.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (17:55): I want to bring to the chamber's attention that we understand there has been a change in position from Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. They will be not supporting these amendments, on this occasion. They will be folding and selling out to back in the Liberal-National government yet again. This has very big consequences for older workers in my state of Queensland, which is the home state of Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts. If you had believed them when they were out there you would have thought Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts had had the interests of older workers in Queensland. Instead, as we could have predicted because we've seen it so many times before, they've rolled over, they've caved in and they've backed in the Liberal-National government.

I really would have thought that after the most recent Queensland election, where Pauline Hanson's One Nation party was demolished by Queensland voters, they might have learnt something from that. They might have learnt that you pay a price at the ballot box for selling out your voters. What we saw in the lead-up to the Queensland election was Pauline Hanson's One Nation party sell out older voters by demanding, over and over again, that Queensland's borders be opened. If you have a look, as I have done, very closely at who votes for Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, it tend to be older people. Despite that, Pauline Hanson's One Nation party and Senator Hanson herself repeatedly called, through the Queensland election campaign, for Queensland borders to be opened, exposing older people in Queensland to the risk of contracting COVID and dying.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): Excuse me, Senator Watt. Senator Hanson?

Senator Hanson: Point of order: it needs to be drawn back to the issue we're dealing with. It's not about the Queensland state election.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt, if you could—

Senator WATT: I'm happy to do so. I understand that Senator Hanson is embarrassed about her recent performance in the Queensland election and I understand that she's embarrassed to have it pointed out to her that she has sold out older Queenslanders, again, but why that's relevant here is that it's exactly what she's doing here in this bill. The amendment that Labor succeeded in having passed by the Senate, when the bill was last put here, seeks to protect older workers. It seeks to stop employers from sacking older workers, replacing them with younger workers and then putting their hands out to get a subsidy from this government to help pay for it. This is a measure that is designed solely to protect older workers—the very people who Senator Hanson constantly goes around Queensland saying that she cares about.

Just as Senator Hanson did in the Queensland election, where she sold out older Queenslanders by demanding the borders be opened, one-and-a-bit weeks since the Queensland election she comes back down again, sells them out again and says that their jobs are expendable, that they should be replaced by younger employees and that she's not going to stand up for them. I'm sorry, Senator Hanson, but if you're prepared to sell out older workers in Queensland, Labor isn't.

We're going to stand by older workers in Queensland, and we're going to tell older workers—over and over again—that you've sold them out. Your vote's down to seven per cent in Queensland because you sold out older Queenslanders over COVID and the borders. It'll go down further when they find out that you're selling them out about their jobs. Older workers are concerned about their jobs and job security right now, and Senator Hanson is prepared to trade them off as yet another deal with the Liberal-National government. The reason she does that is that she cannot be trusted. She always votes with the Liberal-National government. She's doing it again, and this time older workers are paying the price. Senator Hanson's going to be held to account for this, and she still has time to reconsider her position.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (17:59): The minister said, 'We wanted to make sure there aren't different barriers.' The measures that are being proposed are not barriers; they're actually making sure that people have appropriate opportunities, that workers don't simply get replaced. This is not actually an argument about older and younger workers. Yes, that's part of it, but this is also a situation where younger workers can be replaced by other younger workers. The reason they've going to be replaced is that this government has not put in place obligations not to sack those people. The government are doubling down on a ludicrous situation. The party I'm a member of was going to support the legislation if they were prepared to put into it the appropriate safeguards. It's purely because the Prime Minister got caught this morning on his own incapability to have a bill that works—all show, no go.

I've had a few arguments with Woolworths over the years, in my previous life, and I've made a few comments about them in this chamber as well, but Woolworths, to their credit, have said that they will not replace their workers—their casual, young or older workers—with subsidised workers. They've done that by choice. But their competitors, like Aldi, haven't said that. Quite frankly, if Woolworths' board change their mind because their competition isn't doing it, they'll be able to do it, too, because the government is not agreeing to this amendment. Even the scoundrels that I've called out before, companies like Woolworths, have said they're not going to be scoundrels anymore; they're going to turn around and do the right thing. That's to their credit, their absolute credit. I think it's the first time I've given them credit for anything in this chamber! But the government is letting all their competitors off scot-free, and it will be letting the board of Woolworths off scot-free if they change their minds.

Then we go to the situation with Qantas: 2½ thousand workers replaced. 'Don't worry; we've put great conditions in place,' say the government. It's all show, no go! These 2,500 workers are being outsourced after the government gave $800 million to their employer to keep people connected. What are the government doing? The exact same thing. Do you know what they're going to say? 'We spent hundreds of millions of dollars to give young people jobs.' It's so they can have a one-line answer when people say, 'What the hell did you do with a trillion dollars?' This money will be spent in a way that will see hardworking young people replaced and people over the age of 35 discarded. This government, through its own arrogance—just as we saw from the Prime Minister when he doubled down on the incorrect claims he made earlier this month—does not want to accept that it made a mistake about what this program will look like.

I do come to this chamber with a bias. I'm a member of the Labor Party and a very proud trade unionist. But that experience also gives me the opportunity to say I've dealt with many fantastic employers, people who did the right thing when they did haven't to. They did it because they believed it was the way they should run a business: fairly and squarely. Those opposite have just opened up a situation in many decent companies I've dealt with where their employees, among them active union members who participate with their employer to make sure their operation is successful, will be undercut by subsidies from this government. They're going to be throwing out our hardworking Australians; that's the reality.

I've taken cases to court for the reinstatement of casuals, on the off-chance not that the judge was going to make a decision but the employer would be embarrassed enough to say, 'Look, we're rethinking what we did.' I've gone through conciliation on the odd occasion it happens. But, I'll tell you what, I've never been up against a wage subsidy from the government to make it happen or for it to continue to happen. This government has made a decision that will undermine the fabric of hardworking jobs in this country. If you work hard then you expect your employer to look after you. They're going to subsidise that out of every employer they can.

And let's make it one step clearer: we have seen an avalanche of people moving from permanent to casual work—a lack of job security, a lack of capacity to raise a family or to decide when the bills are going to be paid and how they get paid. And now the government is turbocharging not only the dismissal of many, many workers, young and old—to be replaced—but they're also going to turn around and put in the situation where permanents are also dismissed because the incentive is if you're there for over 20 hours. Let's casualise the workforce—we don't have enough casualisation! We don't have enough job insecurity! We've seen it under their watch, where wages have collapsed. We've seen it under their watch, where permanency has declined. And now we're seeing the worst part of it.

They've been running the strategic line about how they would deal with the Industrial Relations Act and the many other wage subsidy programs they misdirect. But they're now actually being very barefaced about it. We don't want barriers to people having decent jobs. We don't want to have barriers where the employer can turn around and sack somebody. That's because it's a lie: you can sack people. Everyone knows that the industrial relations system will not protect those casuals. The employers know it, I know it, this chamber knows it and, by hell, I'm sure the government knows it.

We have the situation here—and I'll go back to the great credit to Woolworths and many, many other companies; I know that many companies would fall into this position—where some companies have said, also leading into Christmas and New Year, that this is a time for them to reward their staff when they've done it so tough. They reward their staff because they know that family incomes are based on the wage cycle of that industry—the income of that industry. It's not about going for a holiday, it's actually about paying your bills and making sure that you have insurance, pay your car repayments and pay your rent. People factor that in, and yet this government is now subsidising every competitor with Woolworths to say, 'If you don't do the same thing you'll be competitively disadvantaged, because we're going to put government money in to make sure you get rid of those people'. That's the effect of what this government has proposed.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (18:07): I just want to take a brief moment to make sure that everyone in the chamber understands the effect of the amendment to the bill.

I just had a brief conversation and I would like to place on record that under our existing workplace laws there are no protections from being dismissed unfairly if you have been employed for fewer than 12 months with your employer. Contrary to an opinion that was just expressed, there are no protections for existing workers who have been employed for less than a year with their employer. That's what this amendment seeks to address. This amendment says that the government isn't going to give a boss an incentive to fire those people who they can legally fire; it's not going to incentivise that firing through this scheme.

I want to make it crystal clear that the purpose of this amendment is to protect existing workers from being sacked and from being incentivised to be sacked so that an employer can simply hire two additional employees to get the subsidy that this bill would provide them with, in fact on lower hours and with lower wages. The Greens don't think we should be using public money to incentivise insecure work and to encourage older workers—or even younger workers, for that matter; any worker—who have been hired for less than a year to get sacked. I said my piece before, but this is a very sensible amendment. This was an improvement to a scheme that we hope creates jobs—we hope it does what it promises to do. But this protection is a necessary one to make sure that older workers, or even younger workers, for that matter, are kept on by their employer in this time of economic precariousness and huge unemployment rates. This is an important protection. I just want to make sure that everyone in the chamber understands that that's what this amendment does.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:09): It would be ironic if this legislation were to proceed to the other place with the Senate not having insisted on its amendments—if it were to proceed with, in effect, the support of a party who have expressed their very strong opposition to this legislation. It is the Labor Party that have said we are prepared to support this amended legislation, because we believe in the principles of the scheme, but we're not happy with how it's designed, in many ways, and we would have done it very differently. We are the ones that want to see this injection of cash into the economy in order to support young Australians to get work.

But, let's be clear, we're the ones that said we supported this legislation, and it would be a great irony, indeed, if this legislation were to proceed back to the other place with the Senate not having insisted on its amendments, because that would, in effect, be expressing your support for the legislation—because the Senate's capacity to insist on the legislation is the only thing that stands in the way of its passage, ultimately. We want to see this legislation amended, and amended according to the very solid principles put forward by the Senate.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:11): I might just direct this to the chair. Can I get an understanding of the question that is before the chamber?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): The minister has moved that the committee not insist on the amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, and so the question before the chair is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Senator PATRICK: So I presume—again, just to assist me—if the motion is agreed to, the bill doesn't go back to the House; it is effectively passed. If it's not agreed to, it does go back to the House. Is that correct?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If the motion is agreed to, then the bill is essentially passed without amendment.

Senator PATRICK: That's clarified things for me. Thank you very much, Chair.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:12): I have a question for the minister. Can you clarify, please, how casuals are protected using the headcount system outlined in the draft legislation, where a casual's hours are reduced to near zero?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:12): As outlined, there's a duality of tests applied in terms of the way the scheme works under the rules that are out for consultation at present. The consultation on those rules is about ensuring that we do make them as robust as possible. But the dual principles being applied relate not only to the headcount but also to the increase in payroll, ensuring that you can't simply substitute one person for another.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:13): That really doesn't rule out the possibility that an individual casual might have their hours reduced in order to bring on a subsidised worker, particularly in large corporates. Can you explain to me how an individual worker is protected from having their hours reduced to zero?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:13): As I indicated, the details there relate to the measure of increase in payroll, and that is the duality of the test that's applied, as a precaution and a safeguard, to ensure that substitution can't occur. Businesses have to be not only employing more people overall but paying more overall, so that they do actually get more people on the books, people getting more work overall, and that they're helping to get young people into work.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:14): My understanding from reading the rules is that someone needs to be on the books for 20 hours over a reporting period in order to qualify for a subsidy. Minister, people on JobKeeper are ineligible for the scheme. Will someone who receives JobSeeker payments and already works for an employer be eligible for the scheme if there's an increase in the headcount?

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Senator PRATT: I'll put it like this. I work part-time at Coles but I also get the JobSeeker payment. Can Coles offer me extended hours using this subsidy?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:15): If you're already working for the employer then you wouldn't be an additional employee, so you wouldn't be eligible for the subsidy, no. You would be an existing employee at that time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:15): Minister, my understanding of the rules is that ineligibility of the employee is based on them receiving JobKeeper and that, overall, the legislation counts new recruits via a headcount, so you could employ new employees and they might not receive this subsidy but you could offer the subsidy to someone else.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:16): The subsidy relates to new staff being employed and those new staff, in terms of the growth of payroll, adding to payroll. Of course, the wages that they are paid are the wages as dictated in awards, EBAs or other employment conditions. In that sense, what the staff member receives, whether they be an existing staff member or a new staff member, are the wages to which they are entitled.

The payment is designed as an incentive or a wage subsidy. It is an incentive for employers to take on more young Australians. That is the fundamental premise behind this. All the evidence—from the past and recently—is that, when young people get stuck on unemployment benefits, when they get stuck on JobSeeker, they can be stuck for a very long period of time. So this is an incentive for employers so we can avoid that. The evidence from the last recession we had was clear. Youth unemployment took far longer to recover to its pre-recession levels than the overall unemployment rate did. What we are trying to do here is tackle a known problem in previous economic downturns. We are targeting that particular problem and providing an incentive to get young Australians out of the perennial cycle of unemployment that could plague their lives for a long time without this type of intervention.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:17): Minister, is it possible for an employer to reduce someone's hours to one or two, replace them with new people and have both the headcount and the payroll increase? How do the rules mitigate that? The reporting mechanism that you outlined does not address that. It's only the amendments put forward by the Senate that do.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:18): In terms of Senator Pratt's argument, I'm not convinced that the amendments as they're constructed achieve the outcome she's claiming in any event. However, the payroll test is a genuine payroll test. Senator Pratt seems to be assuming that, just because one person works fewer hours, you somehow still achieve a payroll rise by the second person coming on board. That's not necessarily the case. That's why we designed it with the duality of tests to make sure that we have maximum incentives for additional people to get that start in life. Indeed, we know that that start in life—that opportunity to get a job and start a job—provides the platform for further shifts, further hours and further jobs. That is what we see as being crucial in terms of getting people off that awful treadmill of unemployment.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:19): Minister, can the government create rules for a hiring credit scheme until March next year under existing legislation?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:19): As outlined before, the scheme is structured so that employment decisions can be made now. Yes, the rules are still in draft form, but within clear parameters people who are well and truly acting in ways that are within the obvious stated intention of the scheme can have certainty, as long as this legislation passes. If the legislation doesn't pass then there is no certainty for the employer who wants to take a young Australian off the unemployment queue and put them in work. We're trying to make sure that, in getting this legislation passed, there is certainty for Australian businesses and that the incentive the government promised in our budget will be available to them so that they can give those young Australians jobs.

Those decisions may already be underway, because many employers would have thought that the Labor Party would not join the Greens to filibuster, delay, defer and, potentially, defeat this legislation that will introduce this subsidy and support for the employment of young Australians. Many businesses would get a rude shock if they were to tune in right now and find the Labor Party standing in the way of wage support for the employment of more young Australians. We want to get this legislation passed to provide for certainty so that employment decisions can be made. Yes, we will continue to consult to finalise the rules to make sure that the types of hypothetical scenarios that you're raising, Senator Pratt, are addressed and appropriate standards and mechanisms are in place in the rules. The government will continue to consult to ensure that these rules work effectively for both employment decisions, to get the outcomes the government wants and to ensure the integrity and the operation of the program.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:21): I want to share two figures, but before I share them I want to point out that, when we get new data, we have the courage and the integrity to change our mind. That's the way our leader works and that's why I'm with her. These two figures were new to us until a little while ago. The Australian unemployment rate for people aged under 35 years is 10.4 per cent. Where do they go when they are unemployed? Drugs, street. The second figure is that the Australian unemployment rate for people older than 35 is four per cent. I know damn well that people around Australia who are over 35 years of age will recognise those figures, because they care about younger people, not just themselves.

Senator Watt appeals to the green in people. We appeal to the good nature in people. The people of Australia will understand that a 10.4 per cent unemployment rate is not acceptable, and something has to be done. As I said, when we get new data, we have the courage and the integrity to change our position. Senator Hanson consulted with me. I might remind you all who initiated the apprenticeship program: the lady in front of me with the red hair, Senator Hanson. That shows we care. As I said before, older people do care about younger people. I now go to the amendments. We only supported two of the amendments; we didn't support the rest of the amendments.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): Order! Senator Roberts, resume your seat. Other senators were given the courtesy of making their contributions without interjections. You may not agree with Senator Roberts, but in this place people are allowed to express their view. You'll give Senator Roberts the courtesy of listening in silence. You'll have your opportunity to make your contributions.

Senator ROBERTS: We agreed with only two of the amendments, and one refers to the quarterly reporting. The Treasurer has completely assured us that quarterly reporting will occur. The second amendment we agreed with refers to the duplication of benefits. The Treasurer has shown us the provisions that prevent duplication. There are many details in this legislation that protect people, not just in this bill and not just in the ATO but in the Fair Work Commission. So that's my second point. We were wrong on the amendments and we stand corrected.

The third point is the fear that is talked up by people like Senator Watt—the misrepresentations, the lack of honesty—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): Order! Senator Roberts, you will withdraw that. That is an imputation against a member of the Senate.

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw. The appeals to fear have got to stop. We work with all parties, including the government. We vote with the government more often than the Labor Party, but the Labor Party votes with the government almost 60 per cent, almost two-thirds, of the time. What we do is work with the government and all parties—yes, even the Greens—and shape and mould legislation and change it for the better. Why wouldn't we support it once we've improved it? Why wouldn't we support it when it's been improved? That's what we're doing; we are modifying legislation almost every day, either in this chamber or in government offices or our own offices. We're making sure that only bills that we are happy with come here; if we don't like them, then we vote them down. I didn't like this JobMaker bill initially, but I've given you two figures that changed my mind. I care about young people and older people. Those two figures, again, are that only four per cent of people above 35 years of age are unemployed, and 10.4 per cent of people below 35 years of age are unemployed.

I ask the Labor Party, for the whole of Australia: you often vote with the L-NP government because many of the bills are for the day-to-day running of the country, but how many times do you vote with the Greens? We will support the young and we will support all Australians, and I know that every Australian will support the young.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (18:27): I have a few comments to make. In regard to what Senator Murray Watt said earlier about me not caring about older Australians in Queensland, that's not the case at all. The borders needed to be reopened, and my concern was for the whole state and everyone there. We had businesses going under, more suicides happening and more people with mental health problems as well. It was the matter of coronavirus that had people, and those older Australians, in fear. If you have health issues and if you are an older Australian, then you should take care of yourself and possibly think about going and locking yourself away if you want to protect society. But we can't stop businesses and people from getting on with their lives because of the fear factor. That's what it was; it was the fear factor. So, as for not worrying about older Australians—I do, constantly, all the time, but I don't use it as a political football, as I have seen happen in Queensland, in the lead-up to the Queensland election.

This whole debacle going on this afternoon is occurring because One Nation—I and Senator Roberts—have now decided not to support the two amendments. We're now not giving our support to them—support which you need to uphold these amendments so that the bill will then go back to the lower house, where you know they will reject it. You want the bill to come back here again, hoping that it will be put on hold for three months so that it will either never come back again or actually cause a double dissolution. These are the games that are being played in this chamber. That's why you're attacking One Nation—because you know that can't happen without our support.

Now, I had a meeting with the Treasurer this afternoon in regard to this. This information was put to me in those discussions, and, because I supported the amendments, I raised concerns. What you've got in those amendments about people losing their jobs—under the Fair Work Act they can't just be sacked. That can be questioned under the Fair Work Act. Those protections are in place. That is no different to what it is today in the workplace. Any dismissal can be challenged under the Fair Work Act. If you take up this scheme, you can't have a reduction in the payroll. You can't sack people just to put them on. There are oversights to see to that.

An opposition senator: You just don't know what you're talking about.

Senator HANSON: I do know what I'm talking about. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, you are actually laying the blame because you don't want to see this bill get up. I'm not playing your games in this chamber by using One Nation. After having consultations and talking to the Treasurer, initially, I wasn't in support of this bill—I can tell you that—because I felt that we've paid out so much money. There's the cost to the taxpayer, and businesses out there are saying that they don't particularly need this money. There might be some who will, but what they want are workers. They want people to go out and get these jobs.

Youth unemployment in this country is of great concern to me. The average figure is 10.4 per cent. Majority areas of youth unemployment in Australia have 27 per cent youth unemployment. If this is going to help those youth get jobs—give them some incentive to get jobs—then maybe I am wrong. I'm quite willing to admit if I am wrong if it will get the jobs. The Treasury figures are saying there will be 450,000 jobs; I hope that is the case. I'm very sceptical of it, but I hope that is the case. I'm willing to admit if I believe the information that's come before me is wrong.

The other amendment was to do with the quarterly reporting. Those reports will be made available to the public. They will be reported to the COVID committee, so they will be available. You put up I think about 10 or 11 amendments yesterday to this bill. I think it's the most I've ever seen in any bill—why? Because you're playing your games again in this place. That's the truth of the matter. If you say that I vote with the Liberal Party all the time—

An opposition senator: You do.