Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (09:31): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Labor will be supporting this bill before the Senate today. This legislation makes a number of sensible changes based on the recommendations of Professor Coaldrake's independent Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. Labor welcomes efforts to simplify provider categories and make the threshold standards for universities simpler and clearer to use. We should also welcome the strengthening of research requirements for our universities. We should always be pushing to improve our world-class research efforts. I can tell the chamber that in Victoria, for example, there are actually more researchers per square metre than in Boston. Everyone always thinks that Boston is the research capital of the world, but it's actually Melbourne, around the Melbourne university precinct.

Labor does, however, hold some concerns over the practical effect this bill may have on the education sector, and we call on the government to ensure that these changes will not jeopardise the reputation of our world-class university system. With this bill, the minister has also partly ignored Professor Coaldrake's expert recommendations. This bill expands the role of TEQSA, the higher education regulator, but provides no additional resources. Further, while Professor Coaldrake recommended that the term 'institute of higher education' be used for non-university providers, the government is instead proposing the term 'university college'. Labor shares concerns raised by the university sector that the use of the term 'university' could create confusion and allow private providers to present themselves as universities without being subject to the same strict standards for teaching and research and that this would represent a risk to vulnerable students. Universities Australia told the Senate committee on the matter:

As we have said, we would prefer the university college category not be used to describe things that did not conduct both research and teaching.

The NTEU further said that a different term should be used instead of 'university college', citing their concerns about the way that research quality is specified. There was a minority report written by Labor senators on the committee, and in that minority report we recommended that any reference to 'university college' should not be included in the regulations and should be replaced with 'institute of higher education', as was the full intention of recommendation 1 of the Coaldrake review. We encourage the government to ensure relevant regulations reflect this.

Much of this bill concentrates on research standards. Excellence in Research for Australia remains the best means of judging performance against standards. It is the responsibility of the Australian Research Council to ensure that ERA is not diminished by gaming or rorting. It is the ARC's responsibility to ensure that ERA remains fit-for-purpose, and that should be the focus for the current ARC review into ERA.

Given the limited research funding that is available, it is important that the national interest is pursued by ensuring excellence-in-research effort in the development of key national priorities and industries. While the government has promised short-term relief to the crisis through its $1 billion research fund for 2020-21, there is no long-term strategy to deal with our universities' funding crisis. Spreading limited research funding too thin and lowering our research standards will only endanger Australia's international reputation.

Labor does support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. We know the Liberals, this current federal government, really have underfunded Australia's world-class university sector. At the end of last year there was a deal done in this chamber with Centre Alliance which hiked up fees for thousands of students, many of whom will be now paying more than double. I myself was the recipient of quite a classical education and I think it is incredibly important to maintain that Socratic method, to maintain critical thinking, in our universities and in the students we produce in this country. That kind of learning is very important in order to have a civil society and to ensure that our civilisation, our Western liberal democracy, is maintained.

When I look at the cabinet of this government, every single member of that cabinet went to university. We want to ensure that all children can have the same opportunity to go to university. The proportion of people in this parliament who have received a tertiary education would be far higher than the average in the community, and I think we all deserve, and all children deserve, that opportunity. Under the job-ready graduates legislation, students will have their fees increased to $14,500 per year, doubling the cost for thousands of young people. That means people studying the humanities, commerce and communications will pay more for their degrees than doctors and dentists.

We're in the depths of a recession, as we know. Senator Hughes, Senator Carr and Senator Ciccone, who are all here, are Victorian senators. Our state just came out of a lockdown last night. When you walk in the CBD of Melbourne, what you know is that it has been pretty badly hit and that, as a country, while there is economic recovery, there are a lot of people who are still suffering. Youth unemployment has gone through the roof, rising by 90,000 people in recent months alone. The demand for university places has surged. In New South Wales, twice as many people have applied for university this year than last year. Job prospects are weak, so the choice for many people will be between waiting in the dole queue and getting an education. Year 12 students have persevered through incredible uncertainty in the last year. In fact, in Victoria, a lot of children attended very little school at a physical school last year. So the last thing we should be doing now is making it harder and more expensive for children to get an education and get into university.

We on this side have been urging the federal government to finally step in and help universities to save jobs. Since then more than 17,000 university staff have lost their jobs around the country, with thousands more to come. University Australia forecast 21,000 job losses in coming years. What we need to do and what this government need to do is step up to ensure that these job losses cease and are as minimal as they can make them. They've done nothing to stop these job losses. In our fourth-largest export industry, the Prime Minister has shown very little interest in the thousands of university staff losing their livelihoods or the communities that depend on their jobs. The federal government has actually excluded public universities from JobKeeper. The rules have been changed to ensure that those employed at universities don't qualify for JobKeeper.

When I think about regional universities, the impact of the coronavirus pandemic is going to be devastating upon them, and is in fact already so. Universities support 14,000 jobs in regional Australia. We're talking about the academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners, security—all of these people in regional towns depend on regional universities for their jobs. All of those people, remember, have families. They're all trying to make ends meet. We're relying on our brilliant universities and their researchers to find a vaccine for COVID-19, but this government has done very little to protect their jobs.

Our record on universities is good. The last Labor government opened up additional universities, giving an additional 190,000 people a higher education. That is what we should still want. That is what this government should want. We boosted investment from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. Under these policies we saw a new diversity in universities. Because of Labor's policies, the number of students from poorer backgrounds was up by 55 per cent, Indigenous student numbers had jumped by 89 per cent, enrolments by students with a disability had more than doubled and enrolments by students from country areas had grown by 48 per cent. These are the kinds of goals that should be driving any government's education policy, and they're the aspirations that will continue to define Labor's policies at the next election. We support the bill.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (09:41): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This bill seeks to make changes to the TEQSA Act to implement recommendations of the provider category standards review undertaken by Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake. The bill will facilitate the overhaul of higher education provider categories and the standards to which higher education providers are held.

The government claims the main goals of the bill are to raise standards and simplify the processes for universities to follow in order to meet those standards. Other proposals in the bill to are to ensure prospective First Nations students are eligible for student assistance grants, give TEQSA the ability to regulate undergraduate certificates, make changes to provider registration, take control of student records when an institution shuts down and ban the inappropriate use of the word 'university' in domain names. While the Greens will be supporting this bill, we are concerned about some of the proposals from the government about what will be included in the eventual regulations provided for by the bill and about the government's continued use of framework bills to bypass parliamentary scrutiny.

There is a lack of clarity in the bill about factors TEQSA must consider when determining research quality and the extent of the powers delegated to the minister and TEQSA. We oppose the government's stated intention to use the title of 'university college' as a category for high-performing non-university higher education institutions in the forthcoming instrument. The extent of the delegation of decision-making power to TEQSA and the minister in this bill is not proportionate and neither is it appropriate. The standards by which we judge our universities and the research they produce should be scrutinised by the Senate. The Greens do not share the Education and Employment Legislation Committee's view that the extent of the delegation of decision-making power in the enabling legislation is proportionate or appropriate and agree with stakeholders who have expressed concerns about this.

While we acknowledge commitments from the department and TEQSA to consult with key stakeholders in the development of the regulations, we echo the comments of the Queensland University of Technology in their submission to the committee inquiry into this bill. They said:

… it is surely the Senate's prerogative to consider all sides of a complex argument and exercise its legislative authority, when a significant regulatory change is on the table that has the very real potential to be materially consequential to the management and perception of the Australian tertiary sector as a whole.

At the very least, the primary legislation should set clear guidelines for the establishment of threshold standards in the regulation to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight and legislative boundaries.

The Greens share concerns expressed by the National Tertiary Education Union with respect to the lack of clarity in the primary legislation about how threshold benchmarks of research quality will be developed by TEQSA. At the moment, proposed benchmark standards appear to suggest that Excellence in Research for Australia outcomes will be used to determine quality. They don't say much else. I note that ERA is currently under review and that many academics and other stakeholders do have concerns about transparency in regard to the methodology used to assess outcomes, particularly in the humanities, arts and social sciences. At a time when the humanities are under sustained attack by this government, it is particularly important to ensure the standards used to judge the quality of HASS research are fair and can properly evaluate cross-disciplinary research. I acknowledge TEQSA's assurances that a matrix other than ERA outcomes will be used to determine quality; however, this commitment should be included in the primary legislation, rather than being left to the discretion of the minister and the government agencies. I will move an amendment in the committee stage to ensure that that can happen and to make sure that, in developing the regulations determining the quality of research, we can actually include that. TEQSA must take into account a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors and specify what they are and why they have been chosen.

As the committee report identifies, many submissions and witnesses were opposed to the government's proposed use of the category title 'university college' for high-performing, non-university higher education providers. I share those widely held concerns that using the term 'university college' risks inaccurately redefining what it is to be a university. It is inconsistent to hold that the conduct of research or a certain quality and quantity of research are fundamental features of a university and yet to also enable providers which are not research active to brand themselves with the word 'university'. Recommendation 9 of the provider category standards review begins with the statement:

The essential purpose of regulating the nomenclature of institutions via the Higher Education Provider Category Standards is consumer protection.

It is entirely foreseeable that a university college category could cause confusion amongst prospective students about the standing of a given institution.

The government has not provided a policy rationale for discarding the clear recommendation of the PCS review to title the category 'national institute of higher education'. The prior existence of an 'Australian university college' category isn't a persuasive reason to allow institutions which do not conduct research to refer to themselves using any variation of the word 'university'. Likewise, we do not consider the desire of non-university higher education providers, many of whom operate for private profit, to brand themselves as university colleges. A particularly compelling reason is that it would risk confusion among students and the public and a decline in the perception of university quality. In drafting the instrument, the government should implement the original recommendation of the Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards to title the non-university category of high-performing higher education institution as 'national institute of higher education'. I will move a second reading amendment to this effect.

At the recent Senate inquiry into this bill, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium spoke to the goal of a future First Nations university in Australia. They brought to the fore the importance of Indigenous representation in the determination of research standards. They spoke of the need to consider First Nations research and scholarship against appropriate standards which take into account Indigenous knowledge and are aligned with benchmarks of global Indigenous research. Professor Steven Larkin, CEO of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, noted:

There has been a history of telling us that research has been quality and having impacts and outcomes that haven't aligned with necessarily our world view or our priorities.

He went on to say:

The analytical framework—

of research assessment—

tends a lot of the time to be Westernised or orientated. It is almost a subtle form of assimilation in an intellectual space.

Our systems of assessing research quality must ensure that the unique position of First Nations research and scholarship be included in the setting of benchmark standards and that First Nations voices are prominent in the determination of the standards used to assess Indigenous research.

I'll also note the NTEU's advice that the Senate be wary of the potential impact of the increasing focus on short courses and microcredentials on the higher education landscape. We need to be vigilant about the creeping privatisation and deregulation of the university sector and continue to fight for universities as places of public good. Indeed, the Liberals' willingness to throw money at short courses through the budget and JobMaker programs without corresponding funding for meaningful, long-term qualifications tells us everything we need to know about the fragmented, profit-driven future they see for Australian post-secondary education. It is an appalling future that we must resist.

The Greens value high-quality research. It is appropriate to expect high standards of our universities and the research that they produce. The conduct of high-quality research is fundamental to universities, and we should never allow that core aspect of our university system to be devalued or decoupled from teaching.

The Morrison government's cuts to university funding will reverberate through the university sector for years, if not decades. This is a sector already reeling from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and decades of austerity. The paltry amount of new funding for research in the 2020-21 budget will not go anywhere near to covering the funding shortfall caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and years of funding cuts.

To guarantee the future of high-quality research in Australia, it is essential that our public universities are well resourced by the government. University staff should enjoy secure work and good conditions. Social, economic and institutional barriers to diversity and inclusion in university education and the field of academia itself should be knocked down. Our public universities must be fee-free, they must be well funded democratic places of excellence in teaching and research. I move:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) there is widespread opposition to the Government's proposed use of the category title 'University College' for non-university high-performing higher education providers, and

(ii) the Government has not provided sufficient policy rationale for discarding the clear recommendation of the Provider Category Standards (PCS) Review to title the category 'National Institute of Higher Education'; and

(b) calls on the Government to implement the original recommendation of the PCS Review to adopt the title 'National Institute of Higher Education' for the category of non-university high-performing higher education institutions when drafting the instrument giving effect to its changes to provider categories"

Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (09:52): It is a pleasure to rise today in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The bill proposes to amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and will enhance the system design, provider aspiration, research quality and regulatory flexibility within the Australian higher education sector. The bill that we're debating here today will also implement the recommendations of the review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards, which was completed in 2017 by Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake AO.

Professor Coaldrake recommended amending the provider category standards to clarify and streamline the regulatory framework to ensure it is fit for purpose for all stakeholders, including students, the regulator TEQSA and current and future providers. The Morrison coalition government accepted all 10 of the review's recommendations with a key recommendation proposing to simplify and enhance the categorisation of higher education providers in Australia.

A key recommendation from this review has reduced the number of domestic university categories from three down to one—being an Australian university—and has reduced the number of overseas university categories from two down to one—being an overseas university. In addition, a new university college category has been created to better recognise high-quality, non-university providers. The university college category will introduce a mark of quality and better signal diversity and differentiation in the non-university sector. It will provide an opportunity for the highest quality providers to operate in regional and thinner markets without the burden imposed by the need to undertake research that other university categories might have. The new categories also clarify how the quality of research activity will be assessed in the Australian university category, giving more certainty to institutions about the expectations of research quality.

The bill we are debating here today will also make provisions to protect the word 'university' from being misused in internet domain names. This is a really important provision to be included. This will limit the ability of an organisation to mislead the public by claiming to be something they are not. Use of the word 'university' in an Australian internet domain name will require ministerial consent. This measure is consistent with the existing provisions that protect the use of the word 'university' in company and business names. Where a domain name has been issued with 'university' somewhere in it and there is no record of the minister having provided consent, the purchaser will be asked to seek that consent retrospectively. If consent is not provided, use of the domain name will be suspended by the domain administrator. As I said, fundamentally, this is about ensuring that the public is not being misled as to what may or may not be considered a university. These changes align with similar provisions that protect the use of the word 'university' in company and business names.

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 also will include reference to the Australian Qualifications Framework qualification type 'undergraduate certificate' in the definition of 'higher education award'. It will allow the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, to extend the period of a provider's registration or course accreditation more than once, which will help TEQSA manage its regulatory workload better and provide low-risk providers with additional flexibility, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and allow review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, of a decision by TEQSA not to change a provider's category, if this was requested, to ensure that there is an appropriate review and appeals mechanism in place.

The Morrison coalition government understands that higher education plays such an important part in Australia's future, helping to educate and upskill the next generation of workers for life in the workforce. This bill that we're debating here today is just one part of our broader policy agenda in this space. It is so important right now that we ensure that Australians are being trained with the skills that our community and our country need now and in the future. History has shown us that the make-up of the workforce changes over the years, so we need to be continually aware of what skills the workforce requires and ensure that our higher education providers and our skills and training providers are equipping the next generations with the right skills for the workforce that they will be entering. This is something I spoke about in my first speech in this place.

We need to ensure that growth occurs in the areas of greatest need and demand. Therefore, I think it's incredibly prudent that our higher education institutions deliver training in these growth areas of the economy. In September the Morrison government announced $326 million of funding for an additional 12,000 supported university places from this year. In October last year the parliament passed the government's Job-Ready Graduates legislation, which will grow the number of university places for domestic students by 100,000 in 10 years. More young Australians are going to benefit from the opportunity to get a university education.

It will also make degrees more affordable in areas of expected job growth. To encourage students to tailor their studies to learn the skills that will be in demand, students will pay less to study teaching, nursing, agriculture, maths, science, health, environmental science, information technology and engineering. I was scrolling through social media yesterday—at a time when news did appear in my social media feed; apparently, it doesn't this morning—and I saw an article from the ABC talking about how more young Australians—and it was on ABC Hobart, so it was particularly focusing on young Tasmanians—are looking to study agriculture as a result of the changes passed by the coalition government last year. I think that is just fantastic. Coming from Tasmania and knowing the strong agricultural background of our state, I am so pleased to see that more young people are looking to agriculture as a potential career path. Not only is it a great industry to work in, and I know many who work in the agriculture industry; it also ensures that we are getting more young people out into the regions, where agriculture plays such an important part in the local economy. It encourages young people to live in regional areas. I was very lucky to grow up in a regional area. I know what an amazing experience that was, so I hope many young Australians, in particular many young Tasmanians, will now choose to pursue agriculture as a career path and, hopefully, live in some of the more regional spots in Tasmania. It really is a beautiful place to have a life.

The Morrison coalition government has, of course, put in place other mechanisms to develop the workforce of the future, as I alluded to earlier in talking about how important it is that we equip our young people with the right skills for the jobs of the future. Not specifically in the higher education industry but more broadly, we've provided $2.8 billion for the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy. This is helping employers to retain their apprentices and trainees, and we know that that is more important than ever during the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. We've created the $900 million National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund, established to enhance engagement between higher education and industry, with a strong focus on STEM industries. We've provided $7 million to subsidise short courses in areas of national priority. As I said, the Morrison coalition government has always been committed to ensuring that our young people have the appropriate skills for the future workforce. Given what has happened in the last 12 months with the COVID-19 pandemic, we know just how important it is that those linkages are supported and young people are provided with good options for study that will link them to a job in the future. These education and training opportunities, I think, will make Australians, particularly young Australians, job ready and help our country bounce back from the global pandemic.

The Morrison coalition government is continuing to work hard to deliver better education and training outcomes for Australians to ensure they have the skills they need to successfully find a job, succeed in the workforce and contribute to the future of our country, because there is no greater dignity than the dignity of work. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, which we are debating here this morning, will reduce red tape and simplify the regulation and administration of Australian higher education. I think anything we can do to reduce red tape in the sector will only increase the ability of our higher education and training sectors and our education sector more broadly to respond to the needs of the future. As I've said many times already in this contribution, that is now more important than ever. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:03): I might just indicate to Senator Faruqi that the Labor Party will support her second reading amendment and the Greens amendments to the bill. We participated together in the inquiry into this bill, so we're familiar with the terms of engagement. As Senator Chandler indicated, many of the matters that are before us involve technical, non-controversial matters. But, more substantially, there are questions as to the government's claims about this bill, particularly those in regard to the raising of standards in universities, which do require closer examination. This is in the context of this government's approach to universities, which, I say, involves a consistent and systematic hostility, and therefore it's appropriate that we view the claims about the raising of standards with some scepticism. It's claimed that this bill applies to the findings of the Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards undertaken by Professor Peter Coaldrake, which reported back in 2019. It's also claimed that the bill will simplify the processes that universities need to follow. It is doubtful whether the bill as it stands will do any of these things.

To understand why, it is necessary to consider how this bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, works alongside the related bill concerning university funding which passed the parliament last year. It passed in this chamber by one vote, as a result of some of the shifty arrangements entered into with the crossbenchers. Consequent to the bill becoming law, it led to a substantial cut in funding of about $1 billion a year. The link between the funding of student places and the funding of research was also severed. The government provided stopgap funding for one year to provide support for some research projects. Now we have before us a bill that purports to raise university standards, including the setting of revised research requirements, in a context where universities are being asked to do more with less. So we have a bill that appears to confuse the aims of simplification with the aims of enhancing research performance. This confusion, given the continued under-resourcing of the regulator, TEQSA, and the government's long-held goal of encouraging new private entrants to the scheme, puts the international reputation of Australian universities at risk. This is in the context of the government having a persistent war against our researchers, in the name of national security, under the auspices of a government funded company, funded by a foreign government and claiming to be in the interests of defending national sovereignty—namely, ASPI.

The reputation our universities have in teaching, in research, in civic engagement, which is critical to the definition of what a university actually is, needs to be remembered at all times. The bill's changes to nomenclature do not, in fact, conform with the changes that are actually recommended in the review which is said to underpin this bill—that is, the Coaldrake review. So it does raise the question of whether the government's real motive is its declared aim of raising standards or whether the real purpose of the bill, together with the funding changes, is to increase the role of private providers in higher education. Coaldrake's review recommended the existing term of 'higher education provider' be replaced by 'institutes of higher education'. It did not support the use of the term 'university college', which this bill introduced to describe higher performing non-university providers. Is there any wonder that this term creates confusion? Is it reasonable to suggest that maybe that's deliberate? It allows new entrants to the scheme to be represented as universities but without the title of 'university' and without the implications of the terms for standards in both teaching and research. This is why, in the Senate inquiry into the bill, the peak body, Universities Australia, and the National Tertiary Education Union both opposed the use of the term 'university college'. They preferred Professor Coaldrake's term, 'institute of higher education', and Labor senators made exactly the same point in their minority report on the bill inquiry.

In the bill before us, however, the government chose to ignore the arguments of the sector and Professor Coaldrake. The bill introduces the term for the new category of 'university college', which the government claims is consistent with Professor Coaldrake's findings. The government appears to be uncertain about what 'new and improved standards' actually means. There is no generally recognised methodology for determining research quality. The Excellence in Research for Australia metric, which is administered by the Australian Research Council, underlies much of what Professor Coaldrake calculated to be the best way forward. Remember: I was responsible for the introduction of ERA, so it's only natural that I would defend it. But there is a very strong reason why we should defend excellence in research in Australia. The problem is that both TEQSA and the department of education have stated that other metrics might be applied when new entrants have an insufficient quality of research output to meet ERA standards. In other words, they're prepared to reduce the criteria if the new entrants can't measure up. Professor Coaldrake recommended:

… a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards.

The recommendation resulted in the draft criteria being recommended by the Higher Education Standards Panel. From 1 January 2030, to be registered as an Australian university, a higher education provider must conduct research that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour in at least three, or at least 50 per cent, of the broad fields in which it delivers courses of study, whichever is greater, or in all broad fields of education in which it has authority to self-accredit, in the case of a university with a specialised focus. The benchmark standards for research are research that is 'world standard', measured using best practice indicators, or research of national standing in fields specific to Australia, in the case of research that is not easily captured by existing standard indicators. The adoption of such criteria, even if it is out by 2030, will have significant consequences.

The Group of Eight noted in their submission to the Senate inquiry that, among the institutions currently registered as Australian universities:

3 institutions are under the 30 per cent level for the PCS standards up until 2030;

A further 2 institutions are under the 50 per cent level for 2030 PCS standards; and

A further 4 institutions may be considered "at risk" between 50 per cent and 60 per cent.

The University of Sydney, in its submission on the legislation, made the comment that the standards would mean:

… that some current universities will potentially fail to meet the new threshold due to the lack of research capacity (partly as a result of the impact of COVID-19) or reinforce the fundamental structural flaw in research funding outlined above.

The department of education, in its submission, stated:

Analysis of 2018 ERA data suggests that all public Australian universities would meet the proposed initial research quality benchmark …

They've already got the answers. However, the department did concede that it's arguable that some of Australia's smaller, private universities may struggle to meet these standards if assessed on ERA ratings alone. It seems to me that the standards under this bill are so low that the universities will meet them because of the time lag involved, given that the government has not announced any additional resources that will be available. For me, two questions come forward as a result of proper examination of the detail of this bill: Firstly, is the government confident that the standards that are being proposed are, in fact, sufficiently rigorous? Secondly, what is the point of standards if they are so low?

The government needs to be aware of the consequences of the failure to maintain quality in higher education, particularly in terms of research. The history of higher education regulation in this country offers numerous examples of the price of failure. The failure in ministerial discretion, delegated powers, inadequate assessment of new entrants to the system and the misuse of title all arose in relation to the University of Greenwich scandal in the early 2000s. Greenwich University was an institution that was established out at Norfolk Island. It had a chancellor who was a convicted embezzler and a vice-chancellor who had bought some titles to the Russian throne. It was allowed to use the term 'university' because the then minister for regional affairs, former senator Ian Macdonald, directed the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly to approve it. Greenwich University established its own degrees. It had a teaching staff who awarded their own PhDs. And, of course, then they could administer other people's qualifications. It was fundamentally a threat to Australia's international reputation as a quality higher education provider. That was only one of several examples of regulatory failure over the last 20 years, and this bill does not do enough to ensure that such scandals will not be repeated.

Given the history of regulatory failure, it is a matter of profound concern that the threshold standards are not set out in the primary legislation. The minister has stated that to do so would be an impediment to innovation—an impediment to innovation! It's an extraordinary concept, isn't it? It's an impediment to crooks! This is a perplexing remark at best, since we're given no examples of what he means. Incorporating standards into primary legislation would not prevent changes being made to them, but it would allow a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight than is possible in delegated legislation.

The minister has advised that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had a long period of consultation and has undertaken a review of standards. That shows just how important the standards and their impact on the sector should be. It is a reason for including a requirement for a regular review of the standards in primary legislation. The lowering of standards will undermine Australia's ability to develop research excellence. It will weaken our international research collaborations and make this country less attractive to international students. The application of provider category standards is not an abstract or obscure policy matter; it is not just a technical question. And, in fact, if we repeat the failures of regulatory disasters like Greenwich University or repeat the previous farcical international policies we've seen—new entrants cannot be allowed to dilute the quality or the reputation of Australia's higher education system.

The government's decision to remove research funding from the allocation of Commonwealth supported places has made the problem even more acute. And so, despite the government's stopgap measure providing extra money for one year, the long-term funding crisis of our research system in this country remains. The spreading of limited research funding too thinly across the system endangers our international reputation. ERA remains the best means of judging performance against those standards.

The Australian Research Council should do its job properly. I am deeply disturbed that, at the moment, it is not. It should ensure that the ARC focuses on ensuring that it is able to build the research capability of this nation and protect the reputation of our researchers and their place within Australia's international research contribution. (Time expired)

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (10:18): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Before I get into the details of the bill, I do want to pick up on an issue that was raised by my colleague Senator Chandler. It's not an issue; it's actually a success story. It is a success story of this government's commitment to higher education and reform.

Because of changes that this government passed last year, we are already seeing the results of those changes. The ABC reported this week that the enrolments in agriculture courses in the university sector are booming, and this is good news. This is good news not just for our agricultural sector but for our regional communities and for our young people, because they can see a career path in agriculture. They can see a future. My friend and former colleague Professor Jim Pratley said it's great because agriculture is no longer 'plough and cow'. I thought that was a great quote! Agriculture is all-encompassing. It is now high skill, high technology and a real career option for young people who don't want to spend their futures locked in an office working nine to five. They want the challenge, they want the excitement and they want the variety that agriculture provides.

Agriculture, in particular, is so exciting. There are so many innovations happening in agriculture at the moment. And it is all encompassing. You can work in agriculture and IT. You can work in agriculture and climate change. You can work in agriculture and product innovation. So I am very pleased that, as a result of this government's reform, we are already seeing real outcomes on the ground, and these are practical outcomes. And I am sure that we will see further results from our reform in higher education: more job-ready graduates and more people going through the higher education system and coming out the other side actually qualified to work and ready to work. I think it is fantastic and it is proof also that our government is absolutely committed to trying to reduce the education gap between regional and urban students.

Our government will be spending more than $400 million over the next four years, including for more university places for Australian students. The fastest-growing part of that will be in regional universities. We know that, if you learn in the regions, you earn in the regions. We have seen it time and time again. If people go out to the regions and experience regional living, they love it out there. So I'm very proud of our government and the National Party's commitment to regional education. We are increasing the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding to regional university campuses by 3.5 per cent per annum. Our annual grants for regional universities to enable them to develop research partnerships with other education providers and/or industry collaboration is going to be over $48 million, and that's really important. The industry collaboration part of that is so vitally important, because that is research that will make a difference. It is research that industry knows is needed to fill the gaps.

We've also got the new Regional Partnerships Project Pool to support activities aimed at young regional school students to increase their participation in university. We've allocated $21 million to establish additional Regional University Centres, and the education and employment committee heard last year from Mr Duncan Taylor, from the Country Universities Centre, just how important it is for people to be able to progress a university course from their home base. We know access to university is one of the biggest impediments for regional people seeking higher education. We're spending almost $178 million from 2021 over four years to support higher education students from outer regional and remote areas who have to relocate to undertake full-time study, and, early this year, we hope to establish a regional education commissioner to monitor the government's regional education strategy and to provide further advice to address the barriers that regional and remote students face to access higher education.

All of these are critical initiatives that make a difference to the education attainment and opportunities for people who live in country Australia. To complement all of that work, we need this bill to pass. It simplifies university classifications. I always thought a university was a university. Who knew that we had multiple classifications of 'university'? It is common sense to streamline that and just have a single category of what an Australian university is, and to be able to identify the highest quality higher education institutions that don't do research so don't fall into the university category and allow them to be called 'university colleges'.

This will result in very good outcomes in regional Australia. We all know that, when it comes to education, one size does not fit all. We also know that being able to undertake university-quality research and development, research in particular, is not a simple process. By allowing university colleges to exist, we are allowing people to access high-quality education without also having those increased burdens and allowing our universities to concentrate and focus and be the pre-eminent institutions of research that they are. The university college category will allow a pathway for institutions to grow and develop and, if it is their goal, then progress to becoming a university.

Another change included in this amendment bill is the ability for students to access their records going forward. The bill also allows universities and higher education providers to use Indigenous student assistance grants not just for existing Indigenous students but also to promote and encourage new Indigenous students. These are all a positive for our university sector and our higher education sector more broadly. It is for that reason that I commend this bill to the chamber.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (10:27): As with so many of these smaller pieces of legislation before the Senate, Labor comes to this debate not with a deep hostility to the bill before us, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, but a sense of disappointment about the coalition government's approach to higher education and the university sector in total and a deep sense of the inadequacy of the opportunity provided by this bill to do some of the things that it should have done.

So many of this government's approaches to issues are driven by the bigotry and prejudice of dominant members of its backbench to particular sectors of society. We saw that last night in the passage of a bill that abolished the Family Court of Australia, which has been a mainstay of modern Australia's approach to family law, to treating men and women equally and to looking after the interests of children. More broadly in the area of higher education, because of the prejudice of some, the scepticism of others and the ignorance of the bulk of the coalition backbench, we see that hostility borne out in a legislative agenda that is hostile to the university sector. You only have to listen to the bellowing out during question time, the scepticism towards experts, the hostility to expert advice and research, and the weird muttering about cultural Marxism.

I've hung around with a lot of Marxists in my life. I've never really known what a cultural Marxist is, but apparently it's a bad thing. It's part of the sneering of those opposite about the university sector as if it is some kind of privileged elite, instead of what it actually is, which is people who have worked hard all of their lives to get the qualifications that are necessary, to have done the actual research based upon the evidence, to have engaged in a battle of ideas, to deliver research that matters, whether it's in agriculture, science, business, commerce, law or, indeed, foreign relations or defence—a whole range of matters that are vital to the future of our country and the communities that we seek to represent in this place, and vital to our national interest.

Of course, universities also do teaching. That matters to domestic graduates and, as my colleague Senator Davey pointed out, that matters in particular in a regional context. She is right to say that, if you learn in a regional university, you are much more likely than other school leavers to continue to work in the community that you got your higher education in. Universities are of immense economic, cultural, research and teaching and learning benefit to the communities that they are in, none more so than those universities that exist in our regional centres.

Senator Davey is also correct to point to the vital role of agricultural research in our publicly funded universities. It is a shame, of course, that, under successive governments over the last 30 years, the amount of publicly funded agricultural research in Australia has declined significantly and that the uptake of the private sector of privately funded agricultural research and product development research has not filled that gap. What that means is that, in agriculture, we've got much more short-term research focused on the interests of business, rather than the long-term public research that is required to deliver a long-term benefit for Australian farmers and Australian agriculture more broadly and to anticipate the kinds of threats and the kinds of challenges that our agricultural sector faces.

The government's legacy in higher education is a disgrace. It will be regional universities that will be the hardest hit. This bill does nothing to develop a stronger policy platform in universities. Regional universities support 14,000 jobs. They are critical to the future development of regional Australia, and they are already reeling from the impact of government cuts. Charles Sturt University has an $80 million revenue decline, a nearly $50 million projected budget deficit and up to 110 full-time equivalent jobs gone in June, second round in September; an estimated $73 million worth of extra debt under the fee changes that this minister has presided over, and 63 per cent of that additional debt will be paid by female students; 48 courses cut, seven revitalised and 61 modified—not modified to make them better; modified to make them worse.

At the Wagga Wagga campus of Charles Sturt University, there have been cuts to psychology, business, IT and creative industries. Psychology courses have been moved to different campuses or gone online. The Wagga Wagga campus has a proud tradition of theatre. Their community has had to come together to save theatre at Charles Sturt University and, in particular, the CSU Riverina Playhouse. Dr Dominique Sweeney said: 'Creative arts have been slowly wiped out in Wagga over the last 15 years. It feels like we're getting closer to losing it altogether. But we're an integral part of the community. We're not a waste of money.' The response of the local member, Mr McCormack, who as I understand it is still the Deputy Prime Minister, said: 'I would not expect any institution or business to offer services or goods which are not financially viable. In this case, taxpayers' money should not be wasted to support a course which is not adequately patronaged.' Until today I wasn't aware that 'patronaged' was a word.

He went on to say, 'Psychology degrees and others besides will still be offered online, which will mean students looking to study these degrees will stay in Wagga and look to seek employment here when they complete their degree.' What a mean-spirited, shallow response. The richness of country communities is in no small part due to a capacity—sometimes leveraging off the university system, sometimes leveraging off people in our high schools and sometimes leveraging off the endeavours of local creative arts people—to bring life to country towns. Here we have a federal government delivering cuts that have taken this away.

In Dubbo, the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary) and the Bachelor of Educational Studies have been cut. In Port Macquarie, exercise science and the Bachelor of Human Services have been axed. In Orange there have been cuts to science, and postgraduate sustainable agriculture and courses have been axed. A report on the roundtable meeting with regional universities says, 'Increasing the cost of studying social work, behavioural studies and psychology may have adverse impacts on the rural and regional mental health workforce, and the community.' Mr Gee, in response, said he would take all the issues back to the Nationals party room to get the viewpoint of other country MPs on what their position should be. What a stimulating discussion that must have been, if it ever in fact happened.

Southern Cross University is in the electorate of Mr Hogan. In fact, I notice Mr Hogan was the only MP who wasn't on the list of who was for or against nuclear power. He often goes missing when the hard questions are asked, Mr Hogan. We saw Senator McGrath there—a long-term proponent of expensive nuclear power stations in coastal areas in Queensland. He's always blowing hard on these issues, particularly when there's a preselection coming up in Queensland.

Southern Cross University had a $58 million shortfall. Over 25 per cent of students in 2019 were international. There has been no action from the Commonwealth government to deal with this. Job losses across the Lismore, Coffs Harbour and Gold Coast campuses are inevitable. All of these are in tourism-dependent economies, which have been hardest hit by the coronavirus. Staff have voted to forgo a pay rise to try and sustain the financial position of the university. The academic calendar has been changed to a six-period calendar, creating an intensification of work for staff. They are putting an effort into that university to try to sustain as many courses as possible and have closed the Liverpool Football Academy in Lismore. Southern Cross University has the lowest enrolment cap of any university.

The University of New England, in the area where I grew up, had a $25 million shortfall. Last year, UNE announced a plan to cut costs with job cuts for 218 people, which was absolutely devastating for the country community of Armidale. Have we heard much from the member for New England? Not much. He is one of the characters who are most vocal in their hostility to science and the university sector. In response to the cuts, he said: 'You can't give as much to everyone as you'd like on every issue. If you go down that path, you'll run out of access to credit and there'll be no money to give to universities at all.' I mean, what mumbo jumbo. It makes more sense than many of the things that the member for New England says, I suppose, but indeed it is a very low bar to get over.

Regional universities should be the future of regional economies. Last year, a survey by the Regional Universities Network revealed that regionally headquartered universities are a driving force in those communities. The University of New England, Charles Sturt and Southern Cross are all members of that group. A study by Nous, who we hear quite a bit about from time to time, and the Centre of Policy Studies into the economic impact on the network showed that universities contributed $2.4 billion to real GDP in regional Australia and created 11,300 jobs.

Scenario modelling has demonstrated that the greater the investment in regional universities, the greater the benefits to regional Australia—

said Professor Helen Bartlett, the network chair. I suppose some of these characters on the coalition's backbench would be hostile to her views as an expert as well! She said: 'The Job-ready Graduates legislation'—which made its way through this parliament—'will have a positive impact in the regions through funding for more places and regional research.' If more students are denied places in our universities because of the actions of this government, if more jobs are lost, if more courses are cut, if our approach to the university sector continues in the direction that this government has set us on, it will do irreparable damage not just to regional communities but to the national interests.

Finally, I might say, nowhere more emblematic is the government's failure in this area than in its treatment of students from overseas. I will never forget the food queues that I saw of foreign students who we should have been looking after. It was a solemn contract really, between Australia and the parents of those young people who've come here for undergraduate or post-graduate study. A solemn contract is, 'We will look after your kids.' I don't know how it is possible for anyone to conceive of their own kids studying in a foreign university being forced into food queues to sustain themselves. But the enormous damage that has been done by the last minister for education, the new minister for education, the Prime Minister and this government to the reputation of Australia's higher education sector and its capacity to do its job on behalf of all Australia will be long-lasting and very difficult to reverse in what I hope is a future Albanese Labor government.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (10:42): I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill. I intend, unlike speakers before me, to actually speak about the particular subject of the bill and to really focus on what the Morrison government is intending through this bill, and what we'd like to see achieved to continually improve the university and education sector more generally.

This government is incredibly focused. Everything that this government, the Morrison Liberal government, does has one identifiable goal—that is, to make life better for Australians. Whether that be lowering the cost of living, making it easier to find a job, keeping Australians safe or supporting the country, as we're doing right now through this once-in-a-century pandemic, the Morrison government stands with and for Australians. That is why we are introducing this bill.

Working in concert with existing legislation, this amendment will future-proof Australia's higher education system, cut red tape and simplify regulation. This bill complements the other reforms to higher education undertaken by this government, including steps to ensure free speech is protected on campus and adjustments to fee structures to ensure that our universities are training Australians for jobs of the future—for jobs that actually exist and not just jobs that are in the never-never, aren't actually practical and aren't actually going to lead somewhere—jobs that exist and jobs that we're predicting will exist into the future. We are setting Australians up for the very best opportunities in their lives. The Morrison government wants to ensure that we support school leavers, international students and those looking to gain new skills or to re-skill through higher education in Australia.

Our education system is of course an extremely important pillar of our national economy. Pre COVID, it was one of our largest export industries, with hundreds of thousands of international students enrolled in Australian universities and an increasing number of Australian school leavers enrolling in courses to improve their employment prospects and their horizons. Over 50 per cent of Australians now hold some form of tertiary education, with over 30 per cent gaining their qualifications at university. Nothing is more important to Australia's future than a resilient and diverse economy, and our education sector is both a part of this economy and an enabler of economic diversification. Now, I'm a product of the vocational educational system. I didn't go to university; I completed a trade once I had finished school. I went to Midland College of TAFE and did my electronics servicing training there. Not having gone to university might put me in a minority in this place—

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Senator Sterle. I'll take that. But its benefits certainly do not escape me, because in Australia we certainly bat way above our average. I point to the success in seeing the long history of many students, many people, going through university, and you can think about the research and the developments that have occurred as a result of a highly educated nation. But we owe it to future generations to make tertiary education efficient, robust and effective. This will not only benefit future generations who enrol in courses but answer our obligations to the broader tax-paying public who fund the system.

This bill will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to implement recommendations of the Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. It will introduce a measure preserving the academic records of students whose higher education provider has ceased to exist. This is very important so there's portability of that record and that information. It will better recognise high-quality non-university providers. This is also an important reform in enabling specialised, boutique and unique providers to get the status so they are able to provide a quality education. Through this bill, we will formally recognise and include the new undergraduate certificate qualification type in the higher education system.

We'll be making a small number of other adjustments to the legislation intended to improve the regulation of Australia's higher education sector by strengthening the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency registry role. Also, through this bill, we will give effect to an outstanding recommendation from the report of the Review of the impact of the TEQSA Act on the higher education sector, referring to the threshold standards as a single, unified framework. We'll be replacing references to 'Indigenous students' with the term 'Indigenous persons' to provide clarity around the scope of Indigenous student assistance grants. This final change really is just a simple administrative change, referring to an existing definition that is already defined in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. This definition is the standard legislative definition of 'Indigenous persons' used across the Commonwealth statute book, so it is a very minor change, but nonetheless important.

The government is confident that our universities will have little trouble in demonstrating the quality and significance of their research against the benchmarks laid out in the threshold standards. The government has ensured that research of national standing in fields specific to Australia is also considered within this benchmark. This will encourage research to and in the national interest and not unfairly penalise smaller, regional universities. Regional universities form integral parts of our regional economies, as they are, among other things, drawcards for younger people who are vital for flourishing local economies. It is of utmost importance that these smaller campuses are considered in any changes to higher education legislation. Having sat on the Senate committee that this legislation was referred to, I'm reassured that the government has undertaken this due diligence. We heard from the regional university sector, and their support of this bill was made very clear.

I had the privilege last year of visiting the Pilbara Universities Centre. In Western Australia, as Senator Sterle my colleague from Western Australia knows, our population is very much centred down in the south-west corner. Over 80 per cent of Western Australians live in the south-west corner. We have this enormous state that takes up more than a third of the continent and yet our population is centred in that bottom corner. So there is not the ability for communities, towns and cities around the state to establish a university in their own right, because we don't have the sort of scale you see in places in New South Wales and Queensland. But the Morrison government has backed the Pilbara Universities Centre, which is enabling multiple universities—not just Western Australian universities but universities from across the country—to offer courses there in a supported format, in Karratha. Karratha is quite a booming little city. It has city status now. It didn't about 15 years ago. It has grown and it has a great future, with enormous potential going forward. Almost a third of Australia's GDP comes from exports out of ports like Karratha. It's a thriving place. But the Pilbara Universities Centre, run by Susan Grylls, is just a fantastic example of where, through collaboration, through community-driven approaches, you can really see some big change. It's been running now for two years almost and it really is having a significant impact. This bill goes to supporting these kinds of initiatives, supporting regional universities, supporting regional education so that young people don't have to leave and go to their capital city or elsewhere and they can actually stay resident in their home towns, in their home regions, and, importantly, give back once they have finished their studies in that area.

Universities sometimes face difficulty in adhering to new standards, but these universities are going to be supported, because there is quite a long runway before any kind of enforcement action will be undertaken. There will be support provided to universities, but there is a 10-year runway to enable those universities to put in place the necessary procedures and standards. Then there will be enforcement action if standards haven't been met by that time. This is an extremely generous runway, ensuring that no abrupt changes to our research and education system can occur. I think that ought to provide an enormous amount of comfort to providers, in the understanding that the role of TEQSA is to be supportive and to help shape and guide. With that 10-year runway, there certainly shouldn't be any reason why an organisation couldn't adjust to meet these new standards.

The bill will facilitate important innovations that will enhance the design of the higher education system, fostering provider aspiration, increasing research quality and all the while increasing regulatory flexibility within the Australian higher education sector. These improvements are needed now more than ever for us to keep producing high-quality graduates and world-class research, even in times of global pandemic and economic turbulence. Perhaps now we will start to see a reduction in taxpayer funding of research of questionable benefit like, for example, the University of Sydney study to work out whether or not having colleagues chatting in an open-plan office creates a noise and affects productivity, which cost taxpayers $405,000. I'm pretty sure employers and businesses can figure this stuff out on their own. We don't need to be spending such large sums of taxpayers' money on these sorts of research projects. Hopefully we'll see, through this, some improvement in that regard.

Some will attack these amendments as moving the goalposts on universities, but it's simply not the case. These amendments simply clarify already existing requirements for taxpayer funded university research—that is, universities already have a requirement to demonstrate that they undertake research that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour. This requirement, however, is not currently defined, so these amendments will remedy this. Stakeholders have expressed strong support for the direction of these proposed clarifying changes, no doubt.

Finally, I want to assure Australians that there will be no change to their privacy with TEQSA collecting and holding their records. This change will, in fact, centralise the database for Australians to access their education records. It will mean Australians who attended now defunct institutions will still be able to access their transcripts. TEQSA will undertake a privacy impact assessment as part of its implementation of this measure, and it will ensure that this handling of personal information under the new provisions in the bill complies with the Privacy Act. I think that should provide good comfort to Australians wondering about this. You're not going to have a whole heap of different organisations holding different records. When an organisation is no longer operating, you won't be wondering whether you can still access a record. It will be stored in a central repository, which will have a big impact.

This comprehensive amendment to our higher education legislation will streamline and improve the sector. It's pivotal to our future economy. It is for that reason that I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (10:56): I thank all senators for their contributions to this debate. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, known as the TEQSA Act, to facilitate implementation of the recommendations of Emeritus Professor Coaldrake AO's Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. It will also make a number of other amendments to the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to simplify the structure of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards), to guarantee that higher education students will have future access to their student records, even if an institution ceases to operate, to protect the use of the word 'university' in Australian internet domain names and, finally, to confirm that higher education providers can use Indigenous student assistance grants to assist prospective as well as existing Indigenous students. The bill also demonstrates the government's commitments to the needs of students, employers, higher education providers and the wider community through the creation of higher education standards that support a diverse and high-quality education sector and underpin the reputation and quality of our world-leading universities.

I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for its consideration of the bill and of the minister's response to its questions. I also thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for its consideration and inquiry report and welcome its recommendation that the bill be passed. In response to the committee's comments, in particular at paragraph 3.93, where a student has transferred to a new higher education provider, the government considers it is reasonable to assume there is an implied consent to access academic records from a previous provider. Indeed, these records will be needed to justify graduating the student in the new provider's name. The government notes the comments and additional recommendations from both Labor and Greens senators. As requested by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and as recommended by the opposition, the explanatory memorandum has been updated to include the minister's response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.

On other matters raised, the government has accepted the view of key stakeholders that retaining a category with the title 'university college' is important to both the reputation and aspiration of high-quality, independent higher education providers. A category of this name has been part of the Australian higher education sector since at least 1935 when New England University College was established, which, of course, became the University of New England. So, while it wasn't specifically recommended by the review, it is a reasonable and appropriate response to the review.

The Labor Party's call for additional resources for TEQSA to administer the new provider category standards is, in the view of the government, unwarranted. As those opposite would be aware, the need for TEQSA to assess research quality is not new. The new research quality benchmarks will, however, provide clarity to both TEQSA and institutions on the quality of research required to both achieve and maintain university status. The government considers that the appropriate place for those benchmarks to be specified is in the threshold standards legislative instrument, along with all other thresholds and baseline requirements.

TEQSA's consultative process to develop guidance on how it will assess the benchmarks will provide a further opportunity for universities to contribute their ideas on factors and measures that should be considered and how different disciplines should be assessed. There's no need to specify, indeed, that TEQSA take a variety of factors into account, as the Greens suggest, as that is actually the only way that such a threshold can be assessed. Different providers will have different evidence to offer.

Again, I thank all senators for their participation in this debate. I commend the bill.

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

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (11:09): I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1130:

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (after line 15), after subsection 59A(4), insert:

(4A) A determination under subsection (4) must provide that, in having regard to the quality of the research undertaken by the entity or provider under subsection (1), TEQSA must:

(a) take into account a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors; and

(b) specify the factors taken into account for different discipline areas; and

(c) specify the benchmarks, including weightings, given to each specified factor.

(4B) Subsection (4A) does not limit subsection (4).

The metrics used to determine research quality shouldn't be left up to the minister and government agencies. They should be in the primary legislation. I disagree with the minister when the minister says they shouldn't be, because the Senate should be able to scrutinise the metrics that are being used to assess research. The standards to judge the quality of research must be fit for purpose, and they must be fair. They must take into account the diversity of research across and within disciplines and account for cross-disciplinary research. So these broader overall metrics must be included in the primary legislation.

This amendment really seeks to ensure that the higher education regulator, TEQSA, take a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors into account when they set the benchmarks for research quality. It is also to provide clarity on what those factors are. TEQSA would need to specify the factors taken into account for different discipline areas and specify the benchmarks. This amendment would make sure that they do that, and that should include weightings that are given to each specific factor. By including these requirements in the primary legislation, we can have greater confidence that the standards against which the research in universities is judged are appropriate, that these standards are fair and especially that these standards are transparently developed, which the Senate can make sure of today. The opposition have already indicated that they will support this amendment. I hope the crossbenches do as well. I commend the Greens amendment to the Senate.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:12): The Labor Party supports this amendment. We need much greater transparency in decision-making by our regulator, TEQSA. In particular, we need to strengthen, not undermine, the research quality and the auditing of that research quality across institutions. TEQSA told the inquiry that it would be absolutely essential to take into account measures beyond the Excellence in Research for Australia methodology. Given TEQSA would be the organisation required to make judgements about that research and its national standing, they told us that it requires using approaches, metrics, indicators—both quantitative and qualitative—that sit outside the ERA processes. So this is, indeed, a grave concern when it comes to the kind of legislation that's being put forward today. We, along with the Greens and, I hope, the crossbench, are asking for transparency about the factors that TEQSA is looking at when making these decisions. It means that we need to see Australian institutions have the highest standards for Australian research, and it's difficult to see how those high standards will be maintained if the metrics that the regulator have available to them don't give the full picture. Australia will only be able to trade on its international reputation for good research that's supported by strong regulation for so long, until the metrics that we put forward are no longer trusted by institutions here in Australia, the Australian public and, indeed, internationally. This will affect the global standing of our research and, I would expect, in time, the quality of Australian research as well.

The failure of the government to acknowledge and understand these issues and ensure that TEQSA has the broadest array of information available to it, I have to say, is quite telling, particularly in the context of the other parts of this legislation that indicate which institutions are allowed to call themselves a university. Because, as we know, this Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill also allows colleges and institutes of higher education—higher education colleges—to now call themselves universities. In the Australian tradition, as is the tradition in many other countries, places are only called universities if they do both research and teaching. You can't be a university unless you do both teaching and research. So this bill is not only failing to put forward the sufficient standards around the assessment of research, such as quality and depth et cetera; it is also, at the same time, confusing the field around what a university looks like. Perhaps they think that the Australian public will be able to distinguish between an institute of higher education and a university, as we've done in the past, and they'll see an institute of higher education in the same way as they see a university college. But I don't think that that is the judgement that the Australian population will make. I think we are in danger, culturally, of adopting far more American norms around this, which, as yet, have not been part of our tradition here in Australia.

I have to say that it appears to me that the government, in putting this legislation forward—which, indeed, Labor has said that it supports, because there are some necessary things that need to happen—have gone in their own direction. The Coaldrake review, for example, said:

Along with teaching, the undertaking of research is, and should remain, a defining feature of what it means to be a university in Australia; a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards.

It should have its own distinctive provider category standards.

This threshold benchmark for research quality should be augmented over time.

The issue is: I don't think what this legislation provides for today gives TEQSA access to the adequate array of information to do that properly. The recommendation of Coaldrake, in fact, said that the Higher Education Standards Panel, in amending The Higher Education Standards Framework, put forward quite different benchmarks to those that are being pursued today.

The department claims that no university would be adversely affected, and that some would be affected. When you look at the assessment of this by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, they say:

Analysis of 2018 ERA data suggests that all public Australian universities would meet the proposed initial research quality benchmark requiring research at or above world-class standard that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour in at least three, or at least 30 per cent, of the broad fields of education they deliver …

I won't repeat the whole quote, but the department highlighted that it was 'arguable that some of Australia's smaller private universities' might not meet those standards 'if assessed on ERA ratings alone'. The department then goes on to say:

No university has indicated any concern or risk that they would not satisfy the benchmark. This is a testament to the already high quality of research in Australia.

The department is saying that no-one's got a problem meeting these thresholds, yet small institutions might struggle to meet that threshold. What does it say about the standards of quality for research that TEQSA will be prepared to support as a result of using those ERA ratings? The Labor Party and I don't believe that those ERA ratings are enough to make quality judgements about the quality of research going on in our institutions. We're concerned that the standards are so low that universities will meet them, given the time lag involved in this implementation and given the government has not spelt out any additional resources that would be available to TEQSA to put in higher quality assessments. It raises questions, for me and for the Labor Party, about the extent to which this government can, and should, be confident that the standards are sufficiently rigorous.

Before we vote on this amendment, I have a few questions to ask along these themes. I ask the minister: will extra resources be made available to TEQSA as part of the implementation of the responsibilities in this legislation?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:21): The resources to TEQSA will remain as they are.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:21): Can you please give me a detailed assessment of how TEQSA will be able to juggle the new responsibilities under this bill within its existing resources?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:22): TEQSA already assesses quality of research.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:22): Indeed they do already assess research, but this changes the framework and it also changes the kinds of institutions that will have to apply to TEQSA to have their research quality and teaching quality judged. If you're expecting more institutions to become universities using research, they also have to regulate institutions that become self-regulating. Currently, universities are self-regulating and higher education institutes are not. The playing field here is being changed in relation to who gets to be a university and who they are assessed by and how.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:23): As I indicated, this is a function that TEQSA already undertakes. There will be new guidance provided to TEQSA to assist it with undertaking those functions.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:23): Do you expect the number of institutions that TEQSA is responsible for to change under this legislation? I wouldn't necessarily expect so, but I'm interested in hearing about self-accrediting institutions and how their regulation with TEQSA will change.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:23): It's not our expectation that the number of institutions will change, which aligns with your perceptions.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:24): What was the government's response to Universities Australia when they said they would prefer the 'university college' category not to be used to describe things that don't include both teaching and research? Why is it that the government has made a decision to allow institutions that don't conduct research to use the word 'university' in their name?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:24): I understand the previous minister has made a response to Universities Australia, and I can't speak any further to that.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:24): Can you tell the Senate what the rationale is for enabling non-research institutions to have the word 'university' in their names?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:25): The government has accepted the view of key stakeholders—and this is from the summing-up speech, for the information of the chamber—that retaining a category with the title 'university college' is important to both the reputation and the aspiration of high-quality independent higher education providers. A category of this name has been part of the Australian higher education sector since at least 1935, when New England University College was established, which became the University of New England. So, while it was not specifically recommended by the review, it is a reasonable and appropriate response to the review.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:26): On New England University College, did it conduct research during all of that time?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:26): Because there was no specific requirement at the time, I can't speak to that as a specific matter.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:26): Okay, but you're now confirming that institutions that don't perform research will be able to use the word 'university' in their names when this legislation is implemented?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:27): University colleges will be required to use both words: 'university' and 'college'. They won't be able to call themselves a 'university'. This will be an element of the threshold standards in the legislative instruments.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:27): I'd like to go back to the questions I was asking before about TEQSA and its assessment of quality. We heard, in the Senate inquiry, concerns about how quality will be assessed by TEQSA, and so I'm keen to ask you, Minister: how will TEQSA go through the process of assessing quality, and how will they work with the sector and other stakeholders to develop new quality assessments?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:28): My advice is that TEQSA will undertake the same stakeholder consultations as they do currently.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:28): I asked you, Minister, how they will work through the sector and other stakeholders to develop new quality assessments. Using the phrase 'it's the same as they do it now' doesn't actually explain to the Senate how they do it.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:28): My advice is that TEQSA has committed to establishing a working group with the sector, to ensure that those processes are established in conjunction with the sector.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:29): What consultation took place with institutions that do call themselves 'university colleges' but are not teaching institutions but residential colleges, and other colleges that are affiliated with universities and teaching institutions? How are you dealing with the confusion between an organisation like St Catherine's College, which is a residential college affiliated to UWA—they call themselves 'university colleges' because they're residential. Have you consulted with that sector as well?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:30): They won't be using the term 'university college'; that is my advice. They are a different category and, in that context, there has been no specific discussion with that type of college.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:30): I just want to clarify, Minister. You said that they won't be calling themselves 'university college'. Many residential halls do call themselves residential colleges, so I'm just seeking clarification.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:30): That is not my advice. This is a specific category with respect to this legislation, so I suspect, in that sense, we have a difference of perspective here, or a difference of view.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:31): Minister, the university colleges that are residential halls et cetera are not regulated by the regulator in terms of teaching or research. So, in that sense, they fall outside. But they're very much part of the university sector and the need to regulate the university sector. For example, university colleges and universities are regulated by TEQSA for issues like how, as an institution, they deal with sexual assault complaints on campus. University colleges are very much part of the regulation and those institutional arrangements. So I'm somewhat confused. I understand that they're not a provider category, but they are very much also regulated by TEQSA.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:32): They are a residential college. They fall outside of this process. If they were to change their operations and seek to move into this space, they would then have to comply with the regulatory frameworks that apply under this legislation.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:32): Are you telling me that any institution that currently calls itself a university college will be regulated under this framework?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:32): No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, if they want to provide services that are regulated under this legislation, they will have to comply with the legislation.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:32): That would be true of any institution that wanted to provide services under this. What if they already call themselves a university college and they provide some of those services, but they don't currently provide them to the standard required by this legislation?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:33): If they want to provide these services, they will be required to meet the standard. If they're not providing services that are impacted by this legislation, then they won't be impacted.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:33): There are many such institutions—for example, University College at the University of Melbourne, University of Canberra College and Canberra University College. Have you checked with them? They're affiliated with the universities. They're independent institutions. Have you consulted with them about whether they do in fact conduct any of the activities that will be regulated under this legislation?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:34): My advice is that, if they're not education providers, they're not impacted by the legislation.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:34): I know, from my own experience in university colleges, that they can do things like tutoring and short courses—things that they will have a quality standard for. But, if they conduct teaching and they charge fees for people to come in and participate in that teaching—and it might be a whole range of different courses and support—but it's not historically part of the higher education standards, I'm unsure whether those courses will be required to meet the current standards of TEQSA.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:35): If these organisations are seeking to supply services that fall within the realms of the legislation, they will have to apply to register with TEQSA.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:35): Nevertheless, they'll be able to call themselves university colleges while continuing to market themselves for short courses or other kinds of activities as well?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:36): I think I've actually quite clearly already answered that question, but I will say that residential colleges that are not subject to the TEQSA Act do not all use 'university college' in their name. For example, St Catherine's College doesn't call itself St Catherine's University College. But I think I've actually, in my previous answers, answered the questions that relate to this matter.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (11:36): As the minister would know, Emeritus Professor Coaldrake was commissioned in October 2018 and reported in 2019 with a set of recommendations that go to some of the issues that the minister has been canvassing. Can you outline to the Senate what relationship recommendation 5 of the Coaldrake report has to the legislation?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:37): I don't have the Coaldrake report with me, nor specifically recommendation 5, so I'm going to have to take that on notice.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (11:37): In order to be helpful, Minister, I do have recommendation 5 in front of me. It says:

Along with teaching, the undertaking of research is, and should remain, a defining feature of what it means to be a university in Australia; a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. This threshold benchmark for research quality should be augmented over time.

Universities Australia in their response and, I assume, in discussions with the government say that 30 per cent of a university's research should be at a world standard in the areas that they provide specialty in now in order to be properly regulated under the framework that this government is administering and that, in 2030, 50 per cent of research should be assessed as being at a world standard. Australia—despite the efforts in some parts and lack of effort in others, despite hostility in some other parts and lack of care, I suppose, despite that attitude from the federal government—does 2.6 per cent of the globe's research that is assessed as being at world-standard research level, despite us having 0.3 per cent of the world's population. Indeed, it's that research, over the course of the postwar period, that has led to the greatest advances in Australian agricultural production and Australian industry, the advances that have led to the greatest growth in Australian jobs and indeed good quality jobs. That's pretty important not just for the future of the university sector but for the government having a strong approach to regulating the proportion of world-standard research that each of our universities conduct. Can the minister advise the Senate what this legislation proposes to do in that regard?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:40): That's a really important question. This legislation will enable the standards that you have just discussed, which have been drafted based on consultation with the sector, to be enacted. So this legislation will enable those standards that you have just been talking about and calling for to be enacted.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (11:41): How will the passage of the bill assist with the assessment of the performance of universities against that standard? Who will be doing that work? How will that be reported through to the parliament? And what is the evidence in front of the government now about Australian universities' performance in terms of those benchmarks?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:41): That assessment process will be undertaken by TEQSA, as we have discussed earlier in the debate. The legislation states:

TEQSA must have regard to the quality of the research undertaken by the entity or provider.

   …   …   …

TEQSA may, in writing, determine matters relating to the quality of research for the purposes of this section—

of the act.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (11:42): You outlined to Senator Pratt, in response to her questions, that the proposal is, as I think you've agreed, absolutely critical for the future viability and reputation of Australia's universities; absolutely critical for the development of Australian research and the future prosperity of Australians; absolutely vital for the future of Australian businesses that need good quality Australian research in order to develop products and develop equipment and to lift productivity; and absolutely vital to our agriculture sector in particular, where the level of public funding for Australian agricultural research has fallen through the floor not only under this government but under successive governments at the Commonwealth and state level, leading to long-term problems, a crisis in fact, in agricultural research in Australia. Despite the importance of that regulatory assurance work, is it really the case that the government proposes no additional resources for the oversight body to perform that important work?

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (11:43): I'm not sure that I completely agree with you with respect to what's been occurring within the agricultural research sector. Through its interactions with agriculture, particularly through the agricultural levy process, the government has continued to facilitate the investment of something in the order of $700 million plus in agricultural research on an annual basis. As I discussed in answer to a previous question, and this is something that we agree on, the number of institutions that are being subject to the oversight of TEQSA is not expected to change. On that basis, the government is maintaining the level of resourcing that is provided to TEQSA to undertake its work under the new regime.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (11:45): Can the minister advise, I think at a future juncture in time—

Debate interrupted.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:46): I present the second report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 2 OF 2021

18 February 2021

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)

Senator Raff Ciccone

Senator Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator the Hon James McGrath

Senator Rex Patrick

Senator the Hon Anne Ruston

Secretary: Tim Bryant ph. 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 2 OF 2021

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 17 February 2021 at 7.35 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 May 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)

(b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 April 2021.

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

Air Services Amendment Bill 2018

Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021

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

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020

Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018

Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021

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

Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021

Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021

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

Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020

Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021

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

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019.

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021.

(Dean Smith)

Chair

18 February 2021

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Independent Review of the EPBC Act - Final Report (October 2020) states "There are fundamental shortcomings in the interactions between Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) and the EPBC Act" and the Independent Review of the EPBC Act Interim Report (Samuels 2020) stated that "Legal ambiguities in the relationship between EPBC Act and the RFA Act should be clarified...".

The RFA framework is such that the Commonwealth accredits the State Government's regulatory framework to ensure there is independent oversight of forestry operations and robust powers to conduct audits and impose sanctions if forestry operations breach regulations.

The finding of Justice Mortimer (Friends of Leadbeater's Possum Inc v VicForests) has created ambiguity on the interaction of the EPBC Act and RFAs.

Referring this Bill will allow consultation with a broad range of stakeholders to ensure all have opportunity to provide input to obtain the greatest understanding of issues relating to the interaction between RFAs and the EPBC Act by state, and potential legislative solutions that remove ambiguity while enabling forestry operations to continue to operate with best sustainable practice in line with state and Commonwealth environmental objectives.

Time sensitive given state government decision making.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Forestry industry stakeholders

State governments / state government forestry and environmental agencies

Environmental groups

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

March, April, 2021

Possible reporting date:

11 May 2021

(signed)

Bridget McKenzie

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Examine nature of the bill and its implication - employment and environmental - with regard to the context of the bill, including but not limited to the Samuel review.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Industry, unions and environmental stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

May 2021

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (11:46): I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 March 2021".

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:46): I would like to move an amendment to the government's amendment, which I understand has been circulated. I move:

At the end of the proposed amendment, omit "12 March 2021", substitute "7 May 2021".

It's important that colleagues realise that the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 was introduced into the House only yesterday. Among other things, it will reduce the obligation on a company to publicly report information that might affect a company's position, whether that be a good position or a bad position. On the face of it, the watering down of continuous disclosure requirements will increase the opportunity for insider trading. It's incumbent upon the Senate to properly examine what the government is proposing here and whom it will impact. There are millions of Australians who depend on the proper functioning of the stock market so that their superannuation accounts aren't eroded by people trading on inside information.

This amendment would change the reporting date from 12 March to 7 May. The Australian Greens, to be frank, would prefer an even longer inquiry time and believe that this bill warrants an extremely thorough examination by the committee, but we are putting forward 7 May as a sensible compromise here. I urge senators, and particularly One Nation senators, to give the Senate enough time to understand exactly what is being proposed, who it is going to affect and whether or not, in fact, the watering down of continuous disclosure requirements will increase the opportunity for insider trading.

The PRESIDENT: The question is the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the amendment moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:59): At the request of Senator Kitching, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes at the time of lodgement of this notice of motion:

   (i) 631 answers to questions on notice from the 2020-2021 budget estimates in the following portfolios remain unanswered:

      (A) Attorney-General's, answers to 76 questions,

      (B) Foreign Affairs and Trade, answers to 2 questions,

      (C) Health, answers to 22 questions,

      (D) Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, answer to 1 question,

      (E) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, answers to 143 questions,

      (F) Prime Minister and Cabinet, answers to 323 questions,

      (G) Social Services, answers to 60 questions, and

      (H) Treasury, answers to 4 questions,

   (ii) 7 answers to questions on notice from the 2019-2020 additional estimates remain unanswered,

   (iii) 20 answers to questions on notice from the 2019-2020 supplementary budget estimates remain unanswered, and

   (iv) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has the worst performance in responding to questions on notice from Senate committees considering estimates of all Commonwealth Government departments, being responsible for 53 per cent of all overdue answers, which is grossly inconsistent with its self-described role as being responsible for "Fostering a high performing public sector" and is a direct reflection on the Prime Minister; and

(b) there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by no later than 9.30am on Wednesday, 24 February 2021, the answers to all 658 unanswered questions on notice from the 2020-2021 budget estimates, 2019-2020 additional estimates and the 2019-2020 supplementary budget estimates.

Question agreed to.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:44): Labor supports this bill. It will assist the rollout of Australia's vaccine program and, as such, should be supported by the entire Senate. However, this bill will not ensure we have a well-trained workforce ready in place to administer vaccines. It will not ensure GPs will be registered to administer vaccines, and it will not ensure the online vaccine booking system will function smoothly.

The Prime Minister has said all Australians who wish to be vaccinated will be by the end of October. We want the Prime Minister to keep his promise. We urge the government to address all the logistical issues around the vaccine rollout urgently.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (12:45): This bill makes a number of practical and sensible amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Some of these amendments respond to the challenges COVID-19 has created, including the ongoing, secure supply of certain medicines. The bill also ensures Australia is able to ratify international treaties, such as the Minamata Convention on Mercury, and, importantly it allows for the establishment of a medical device identification database to track and monitor all implanted medical devices in Australia.

In 2018, the collective efforts of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists highlighted how little protection was offered to patients globally from poorly manufactured and tested medical implants. Whilst the series of stories, dubbed the 'Implant Files', showed problems globally with the industry and with regulatory environments, they also raised a number of questions about Australia's responsiveness and its approach to quality assurance. The Implant Files showed that at least 170 Australians had died in the decade to 2018 due to unsafe medical devices, though the real number of deaths was certainly higher than this, given some adverse events that actually led to deaths had, instead, been classified as injuries and malfunctions by manufacturers.

Unsafe implants are not only potentially deadly; they can cause devastating harm and ongoing pain to patients. We saw this with the vaginal mesh, and we've also seen it with malfunctioning defibrillators and pumps. We've seen it with breast implants and also with joint implants. There have been many thousands of lives ruined by devices that were meant to make lives better. In late 2018 and early 2019, when various European authorities withdrew an Allergan textured breast implant from their markets, Australia, unbelievably, continued to make it available. I asked the TGA at subsequent estimates how many women have been implanted with that particular device after France and other nations had acted on it, and the TGA responded: 'The TGA does not hold information about the number of devices implanted.' I found that response most incredible.

Why do we have such a glaring hole in our regulatory system? Australia has a couple of individual medical device registries, funded and run either by colleges or by the Commonwealth, such as the voluntary Australian Breast Device Registry. There is no unified and mandatory national system. So I'm glad to see this is being addressed through the planned Australian Unique Device Identification Database. The database will allow more accurate recording and analysis of adverse events, it will allow faster and more accurate identification of problems with devices and more effective management of recalls and, most importantly, it will improve the TGA's ability to trace which medical device a particular patient has been implanted with or supplied. This database is well and truly long overdue.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:48): I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ) (12:49): 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 DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:49): This bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate customs tariff proposals that provided concessional rates of customs duty for goods required to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill will make a series of changes to the operation of the Customs Tariff Act to improve the functionality of the act and bring it back into line with international practice. Labor will be supporting this bill today.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:50): I thank Senator Brown and the opposition for their contribution and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ) (12:50): 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 DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:51): I'd like to ask the minister, before we conclude this debate, whether the government thinks that universities can meet the research thresholds that it has set out in these standards, given that universities were denied JobKeeper and have been impacted by the loss of international students—you've all but abandoned universities during the pandemic. What assessment has the government made and what inquiries has the government made about the impact on research thresholds and the assessment of that research under this legislation?

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:52): I'm advised that universities are still reporting a surplus with regard to their operations, and these reforms will have minimal impact on these settings. On that basis, we're confident that things will not be impacted in any negative way.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:52): Minister, I note 17,000 people who worked within Australia's universities have lost their jobs and departed the sector in the last little while. Universities may have money put aside for other contingencies. They use their surpluses to enrol extra students. That doesn't mean you've actually assessed which universities have been impacted by the loss of staff that they haven't been able to maintain and how that impacts on their research outputs and the quality of those research outputs. To be fair, what you said to me just now—that universities have a surplus, so it's their problem if their research is affected—is absolute nonsense.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:53): I'm advised that these changes will have virtually no impact for current providers at transition.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:53): I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the government here. They've sent in numerous ministers who aren't across the legislation. I appreciate that they've been here so that we can scrutinise these issues.

We've seen thousands of people lose their jobs from the university sector. They've been unable to account for the impact of the loss of those jobs on research and whether the assessment tools contained in this legislation will find what the impact of the loss of those jobs is on the quality of research, which TEQSA is supposed to investigate, as a result of the COVID pandemic. We know that this is an ideological war by the government against Australia's universities in terms of funding cuts and allowing the private sector to take up more of the field by allowing private players to call themselves university colleges. Sadly, given the government has been so unforthcoming, I don't see any reason to keep this debate going.

The CHAIR: The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1130 be agreed to.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (13:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:03): I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. Transport security—the security of our ports and airports—is fundamental to controlling our borders and to our national security. In this time of COVID, this fact has been made even more acutely clear, as we saw when there was a breakdown of our maritime security clearances with the Ruby Princess, which saw passengers allowed to disembark and take COVID-19 with them around the country and around the world.

One might think that a competent, responsible federal government would recognise the mistakes of the Ruby Princess and prioritise any further transport security legislation appropriately to avoid any further bungles. Instead, what we have is this bill today—poorly thought out, ill defined, an inadequate tinkering with the regime covering the aviation security identification card, ASIC, and the maritime security identification card, MSIC. Both of these cards are an important part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors from acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. Labor supports these schemes as an important tool to ensure that workers hold a valid background check and are not a threat to aviation or maritime security. We know that there are people who want to try and use air and sea transport and travel to bring contraband such as drugs and weapons into Australia or take contraband out of Australia. It's the federal government's responsibility to take sensible measures to deter and detect these crimes and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Labor would support sensible measures, but this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill, has a number of serious flaws the government has failed to address. It leaves a big hole in our border security by completely failing to address the issue of foreign crew on ships operating on Australian domestic routes and it adds an extra level of uncertainty for Australian workers, who already struggle with bureaucratic delays and inconsistencies. The government's own bureaucrats have warned that foreign crew on board vessels that use flag-of-convenience registration to operate in Australia are likely targets for organised crime syndicates and terrorists. The then Department of Immigration and Border Protection very clearly said in 2017 that the reduced transparency and secrecy surrounding the complex financial and ownership arrangements of these vessels make them and their crew attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups. The department went on to say that these 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.

There is no 'may' about it. Take the case of the ship Sage Sagittarius and its master, Captain Salas. In 2012 he became a person of interest in the New South Wales coroner's investigation into three highly suspicious deaths aboard the Sage Sagittarius. Captain Salas admitted to the coroner that he was involved in gun trafficking and trading in alcohol. Despite this evidence in front of the New South Wales coroner, the Liberal government still let Captain Salas back into Australian waters, in December 2015, as master of the Kypros Sea. That ship travelled between a number of Australian ports, primarily Gladstone and Weipa, in early 2016. Other examples of rogue elements on flag-of-convenience vessels include illegal fishing and people-smuggling. In August 2017 there was the incredible story of a North Korean crew exploiting the flag-of-convenience arrangements to smuggle 30,000 rocket grenades. In fact, Tonga shut down its use of flag-of-convenience vessels because at one stage al-Qaeda was actually found to own the vessels, which were transporting weapons, ammunition and crew to Europe.

Despite this proof of risks, this government has done nothing to ensure that these foreign workers are subject to robust background checking. Australian workers can be subject to a three-month wait for their MSIC, but foreign crew can currently get a maritime crew visa and come into Australia with as little as 24 hours notice and with no MSIC required. The inconsistency is brought into sharp relief when we look at the eight Rio Tinto ships trading in Queensland waters in 2020. Four of these ships had Australian seafarers and all of them required an MSIC. However, another four ships used the flag-of-convenience arrangements with foreign crew, who do not need an MSIC.

This is why I have introduced a private senator's bill to close this gap. The Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 will require the relevant minister to replace the current maritime crew visa with two new categories of maritime crew visa. The first is the international seafarers transit visa, which can only be used for crew entering Australia on a continuing international voyage. The second is the international seafarers work visa. This second visa will ensure that foreign seafarers who work off our coastline, often for years and years, on flag-of-convenience ships are subject to the same kind of background checking that Australians are subject to when applying for an MSIC. This is a commonsense piece of legislation, one to level the playing field to make sure that foreign workers are subject to the same kinds of background checks that hardworking Australians face when working in our seaports and off our shores.

I'm also introducing an amendment to this bill that delays the introduction of the bill, should it pass the parliament, until my private senator's bill is passed into law. Any risks to our transport security cannot be dealt with in isolation. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs should not be turning a blind eye to the risks posed by foreign crew. This amendment will force him to take these national security risks seriously.

While addressing transport security risks makes sense, what does not make sense is the way this government made a last-minute, dramatic change to its own legislation by introducing criminal intelligence assessments as part of the ASIC and MSIC schemes. I want to be clear that Labor supports well-targeted measures to address serious crime. Serious crime deserves serious responses. This government cannot be taken seriously when its response is to introduce an entirely new function to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission without any real examination of the legislation. The Minister for Home Affairs rammed this last-minute amendment through the House of Representatives after allowing members only minutes to consider its ramifications. There has been no Senate inquiry to consider if the government's criminal intelligence assessment legislation will do the job the government says it will. There's been no consultation with industry or workers, as there is with every other change to the ASIC and MSIC schemes.

In the supplementary explanatory memorandum, the government says that this change is about preventing persons who are known members of organised crime groups or known associates from obtaining an ASIC or MSIC. But the detail of this legislation goes significantly further than the government claims. The bill actually allows the ACIC to prevent any person from obtaining an ASIC or MSIC based on whether the ACIC believes the person 'may commit' a serious or organised crime or 'may assist' another person to commit a serious and organised crime.

I've got a great deal of respect for the ACIC; they do good work. But this bill is asking the ACIC to predict whether someone will commit a serious and organised crime, not if they have already committed a crime, not if they are a member of an organised crime group but whether, at some point in the future, they'll commit a serious and organised crime. For all of the ACIC's fine qualities, I doubt that fortune-telling is one of them. Labor has been advised by experts that merely having a suspicion that someone may commit a crime is a very low standard for denying a person an ASIC or MSIC. Further to that: 'The complexity of the ACC Act definition of "serious and organised crime" will make it very difficult for the ACIC to make and defend an evidence based assessment of whether a person may commit a serious and organised crime.'

There are already significant bureaucratic delays in the ASIC-MSIC system. All too often, Australian workers can't go to work, because the Department of Home Affairs contractors have bungled their paperwork or not finished it on time. A quarter of a million Australian workers currently hold an ASIC or MSIC. These Australians deserve a system that treats them with respect and allows them to do their job while also protecting our national security.

The changes that the government proposes will not produce that system. This is a rushed change. It is poorly legislated. The government must take its drafting of criminal intelligence assessments back to the drawing board. As I said, Labor supports well-targeted measures to address serious crime, but serious crime deserves serious responses, and this bill cannot be considered a serious response. In fact, there is not even a definition of 'serious crime' in the legislation. Instead, the government simply asks us to trust that they'll get it right in the regulation. It's a very big ask for the Morrison government. Get it right like they got right the price of Leppington Triangle land or like they got right the illegal, automated robodebt scheme or like they got right the response to COVID-19 and aged care? I'm sorry, but it is impossible to trust the Morrison government to get anything right.

That is why Labor will seek to amend the legislation to ensure the scope of the crimes covered under this legislation are targeted and not so unfairly broad that a range of workers are unnecessarily disqualified from the maritime and aviation industry when they do present a specific security threat, and to ensure that there is a legislated avenue of appeal for those who've been determined to have an adverse security status. People deserve to know why they cannot get a job and to have mandated processing times for ASIC and MSIC. This is a system that is plagued with bureaucratic bungling and delays, and it needs to be improved.

Other amendments will prevent the bill from being enacted until the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 has passed into parliament; put more rigorous assessments, as I spoke to earlier, on foreign crew; introduce a statutory independent review of the act two years after it's passed the parliament and every five years after that; ensure oversight of the work of the ACIC by expanding the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's jurisdiction to include the ACIC, as recommended in the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review; and remove schedule 2 of the bill, which introduces criminal intelligence assessments.

Our national security, the security of our ports and airports, is too important to get wrong. But this legislation is just another example of a government that isn't even getting the basics right. This is a bill with no maximum time frame to ensure that bureaucrats do their job on time and that hardworking Australians don't miss out on work; no legislated right of appeal; no background checks for foreign workers, but tougher checks for Australian workers; and no definition of 'serious crime' in a bill about, supposedly, serious crime.

Improving the security of our ports and airports is a great announcement—it gets a headline for the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister—but our border security is too important for laws protecting it to be based on what simply makes up a good press release. What we need here is strong protections at our borders, a robust framework: one that ensures that foreign workers are not easily able to come into the country while Australians face tougher security checks, one based on evidence and one based on the definition of 'serious crime'. There is too much that is wrong about this bill for Labor to support it in its current form.

I say to members of this chamber: our border security is not just a photo op; it requires a follow-up. It requires a government attentive to the challenges at our border. We know from COVID there was the Ruby Princess bungle; the bungles with quarantine, which is a federal responsibility; and a failure to actively manage the border, abandoning that responsibility to states and territories. And here there is a bill that purports to address the risks and threats of serious crime amongst the workforce on our borders but doesn't define 'serious crime' and doesn't address that significant threat posed by foreign workers.

For these reasons, Labor will be moving these amendments. I ask members of this chamber to consider them, and I ask members of this chamber to ensure that whatever comes out of this debate improves the security at our borders, at our ports and at our airports.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:18): The bill that we are debating today, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020, is very similar to an earlier bill in a previous parliament. The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 in fact passed the Senate, and it returned to the House of Representatives with amendments for them to assent to. But it languished there for several years until it lapsed at the end of the previous parliament, because I think, at that stage, those opposite were basically too busy undermining each other to actually address some of the serious issues and the substance of those issues.

I spoke several years ago to the earlier bill, and I'd reiterate some of the points that were made then. Firstly, and critically, preventing serious and organised crime at our ports and at our airports is a critical issue that needs to be done well. It needs to be done well and it needs to be done appropriately, with a framework that protects workers and protects our security. But what we need to be asking is whether expanding a framework that was legislated to address terrorism risks is an appropriate way to be addressing the issues of serious and organised crime.

We've got two major concerns with this legislation and, unless these concerns are addressed, we cannot support it. The first issue is what impact this bill will have upon workers both in the maritime industry and in the aviation industry. As the Maritime Union of Australia, the MUA, have noted in their submission, the two cards that are core to this legislation, the maritime and aviation security identification cards, MSICs and ASICs, are right-to-work cards. You can't work in our ports or our airports unless you've got one of these cards. The changes that are proposed in this bill have got the potential to impact up to 260,000 workers, so you've got to get it right. There are a lot of workers whose very livelihood and very ability to work are going to be impacted by this legislation. If the process goes wrong, it can be devastating. Again as the MUA have noted, in some cases the MSIC renewal process is taking months and is rendering some workers ineligible to access their workplace while agencies fumble the checking processes.

Actually having a system that works, is timely and is effective is critical to both protecting our security and protecting the rights of workers to actually work. In some cases, you've got issues where workers may have an offence from decades ago that's been long dealt with, but it can cause delays every time a card is renewed—let alone the processes that are proposed in this bill, where what has to be assessed is whether they may in the future commit offences to do with serious or organised crime. It's not about whether they have a history of that but whether they may do that in the future. You can just imagine the processes, how long it might take and the impact on workers that that assessment may have. We've got to have a framework that is better managed and actually takes seriously the need for security and takes into account the need for some certainty for workers as well.

The second major issue that we've got with this bill is its focus on aiming to improve security by tightening up the conditions under which workers can get an MSIC or an ASIC, while at the same time we have got workers on foreign owned vessels, on flag-of-convenience vessels, that are able to access the country without these checks and balances. So I reckon it's really reasonable that, before you tighten up the controls on our domestic workers and make it more difficult for people here to get work, you actually have to be addressing some of the huge security holes in our framework as they apply to foreign seafarers. This is something that this legislation doesn't do. One of the issues that has been raised with us is the poor storage of ammonium nitrate. There was a tragic blast in Lebanon last year—a massive, huge blast—that involved poor storage of ammonium nitrate. One of the issues that the MUA have raised is that the government continues to issue temporary permits to ships that carry dangerous goods such as ammonium nitrate without checking whether they adhere to the safety standards of Australia and without carrying out crew safety inspections. It's really important that we ensure that we are applying frameworks fairly, systematically and without engaging in what is basically the theatre of saying, 'Yeah, we're improving security,' in one area while neglecting it in another.

The Senate has done quite a lot of work over the last few years looking at the issues associated with foreign flagged ships and flag-of-convenience ships, in particular. The risks that have been highlighted from flag-of-convenience shipping are very real. They have not been addressed by this government and they are not being addressed in this legislation. We had a Senate inquiry into flag-of-convenience shipping, and basically nothing has improved since that Senate inquiry. The International Transport Workers' Federation basically said after our report came out, 'Under the legislative abuses'—of the government at the time—'Australian seafarers, properly trained, security-screened and resident taxpayers, have been sacked and their jobs in a domestic transport sector given away to whoever comes over the horizon without a word of inquiry about their background.' Basically there is so little transparency in flag-of-convenience shipping and there are so few controls on the background of those seafarers that we have this huge gaping hole in our security that's not being addressed that needs to be addressed. Our Senate report said of flag-of-convenience ships:

The committee maintains that these vessels present serious security risks to the Australian coast, which need to be properly addressed.

All the while, this is happening in the context of lack of support for Australian shipping and an increasing proportion of shipping being done by foreign-owned flags-of-convenience ships.

I think it's important to note, if you also think about the working conditions on these ships—and I'm sure many of us here have read the media reports and know about the incredibly poor working conditions—and the incredibly low wages that these foreign exploited seafarers are under, the risk is that they are susceptible to pressure. They are susceptible to perhaps doing things that aren't necessarily aboveboard because of the pressures that they are under. They're not being paid properly and they've got families that are really struggling in their home countries. It means that they are very vulnerable to being under pressure from people to get them to perhaps do things that we don't want them to do, that are in fact a security risk to us here in Australia. These are some of the really substantial issues that need to be seriously addressed by this government that just haven't been.

In the 6½ years I've been in the Senate, and I've been the Greens' transport spokesperson, issues relating to Australian shipping and the issues of foreign-owned and flags-of-convenience shipping are things that we have been hammering away on, yet nothing has been done. Nothing has changed. Those risks are all still there.

In conclusion, we think it's really important that we are addressing issues of serious crime, but this current legislation is not dealing with the underlying issues and we can't support it in its current form, given the problems with how it's been implemented. I said 'in conclusion', but I just want to raise one further point, and that is the lack of consultation with the workers and with the unions in the changes that are now being proposed. Last year the ACTU said:

The ACTU shares the concerns expressed by our affiliated unions that the changes proposed in this bill have been developed without the typical level of consultation with affected workers and their unions—consultation which has typically resulted in more effective and well-targeted security…

So what we call upon the government to do is to actually go and talk to the unions, talk to the workers and listen to what they have to say, and actually propose some changes that are going to really work both for the workers and for increasing the security of our country.

We have a series of Labor Party amendments which are being put forward today. We believe that they do go some way to addressing our concerns, so I really call upon the government and the crossbench to seriously look at the ALP amendments and to support them, because with those amendments, if they are supported, we may end up with a bit of legislation that addresses some of these issues—at least as far as it goes for our domestic workers. We hope that we can arrive, through the scrutiny and debate that's appropriate in this place, at some improved legislation that we can support, because this is an important issue and it really deserves serious, careful consideration so that you end up with legislation that is both looking after the security of Australia and looking after the security and job security of Australian workers.

Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (13:29): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. As an island nation, Australia is incredibly reliant on our ports and airports to keep us connected to the world and to facilitate the arrival of both people and goods into the country. A huge amount of goods and—COVID travel restrictions aside—a huge number of people pass through our ports and our airports every year. These people, services and goods are essential to our economy, our health, our livelihoods and our safety.

We've seen that, more than ever through COVID-19, with workers at our ports and airports playing an incredibly important role in keeping our country going—and that's a role we thank them for—given our reliance on ports and airports for all of our imported goods, it's no secret that they are also the way in which illicit substances and weapons arrive in Australia from overseas. It's an unfortunate reality that there have always been, and sadly, always will be, criminals and criminal enterprises who seek to profit from bringing these items into Australia. That is why it is so important to ensure security at these entries to our country.

Serious crime is a major threat to our way of life. It costs Australia up to $47 billion a year and causes enormous human suffering. We have fantastic police forces and security agencies who work incredibly hard and diligently each and every day to disrupt those criminal enterprises and reduce their cost and harm to the community. But, to allow them to do that, we need to keep our methods up to date and respond to the methods which have been used by criminals to breach security, and that's what this bill that we are debating today is all about.

Schedule 1 to the bill will expand the purpose of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to prevent serious criminal influence and activity from occurring at our airports, seaports and offshore facilities. Schedule 2 to the bill will provide the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or the ACIC, the ability to conduct criminal intelligence assessments for use in background checking for aviation and maritime security identification cards—ASICs and MSICs.

The ASIC and MSIC schemes are a vital part of the Australian government's approach to transport security. While they've been incredibly effective in helping to protect Australia from terrorism, our airports, our seaports and our offshore facilities are vulnerable to exploitation by serious criminals. That's because currently the scope of background checks for ASICs and MSICs is limited to only preventing unlawful interference with aviation and maritime infrastructure. This bill that we're debating today will provide for the strengthening of the ASIC and MSIC schemes by ensuring that those with serious criminal convictions or links to serious and organised crime do not exploit the schemes to access the secure areas of our ports and offshore facilities. This is a real and present threat to the nation's security.

We know, as at December 2019, there were approximately 227 ASIC or MSIC holders who were listed on the ACIC's national criminal intelligence lists. We know that there are real examples of people with serious criminal offences, including offences like trafficking illicit drugs, who have been granted an ASIC or an MSIC because at present the background for ASICs and MSICs only examines whether a person may be a threat to aviation or maritime security. Those checks do not consider whether a person could use their access to airports and seaports in connection with serious and organised crime. These individuals, without the provisions in this bill, can access secure and sensitive areas of airports and seaports without supervision. Clearly, we need to give authorities the ability to prevent this and close down the access which criminal enterprises have to our ports.

It's also important to note that, if there are gaps in our security regime which can be exploited by organised crime, they could also be exploited by terrorists, by foreign agents or by some other group with malicious intent towards Australia and towards our community. So it is vital we crack down on this now, and that's what the Morrison coalition government is doing with this bill.

This bill is appropriately targeted to exclude those who have been convicted of relevant serious offences, including offences arising from antigang or criminal organisation legislation, illegal importation of goods, interfering with goods under customs control and foreign incursion and recruitment. What we are talking about here are very serious offences directly relevant to being involved in serious organised crime and terrorism. The new criteria will ensure that those convicted of these offences will be ineligible to hold an ASIC or a MSIC. They will not be able to access secure areas of our ports and airports. This will enhance the government's ability to disrupt and hinder serious criminal gangs or syndicates in transporting and supplying illicit drugs and goods.

Strengthening the scheme to prevent individuals who are a high criminal risk from holding an ASIC or a MSIC is consistent with the findings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement as well as the National Ice Taskforce. This bill will ensure that Australia's airports and ports are no longer safe havens for serious criminal activity, including the trafficking of illicit drugs, narcotics and weapons into our country. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:35): I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. I say with interest that the government have not looked at how you actually make our ports and our airports more secure. There are some fundamental failings on the part of the government. In actual fact these changes go to some critical elements of security in this country. Of course Labor supports legislation that will keep our ports and airports safe—and, as a person who has worked in airports and around our ports, I know how important the safety of our airports and ports is to both the national economy and the tens of thousands of people working on and off our ports—but striking the right balance with protecting the human rights of essential workers in these industries is critical. This bill, however, does not strike that balance. Instead, it compounds many of the existing inefficiencies with the current regime for approval of the aviation security identification card, ASIC, or the maritime security identification card, MSIC.

We have a number of concerns with this bill, many of which have been outlined in the Labor senators' contributions to the bill's review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—namely, that the bill will see working people denied natural justice, will entrench inappropriate standards for the domestic shipping workforce and will see an unnecessary and unsettling delegation of authority to the minister on a policy area that demands parliamentary scrutiny.

Firstly, the legislation's creation of a greater delegation of authority to the minister responsible for the definition of serious crime is problematic. It's a problem because it creates additional unsupervised means by which an employee would unfairly be stopped from receiving an ASIC or a MSIC—two cards that aviation or maritime workers require in order to work at our airports, ports or offshore facilities.

As outlined in the committee's report and specifically in the Labor senators' dissenting report, this legislation is significantly flawed on a number of grounds. Currently ASIC and MSIC applications are checked by ASIO, the AFP and Immigration. These checks are already time-consuming, sometimes taking 90 days or more to complete. Even in instances in which a worker has been previously approved for an identification card many times over the course of their career without incident, they are repeatedly forced to suffer through this limbo. This waiting period regularly holds them up from taking part in their livelihood, depriving them of the work and the resulting income needed to support their family. Particularly now, during a period in which aviation and maritime workers are facing job losses, reduced hours and wage cuts, the unintended consequences of this legislation would be a cruel blow to these workers.

This legislation could be improved by creating maximum time frames for the approval of ASIC and MSIC cards so that workers and employers are granted some certainty. Labor will move these amendments to this bill. When the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee reviewed the bill they heard stories of seafarers like Brendan McKeen. Brendan had to wait 90 days when renewing his existing identification card. He said that in that time the ship came and went and he missed an opportunity to take on work that he could ill afford to miss. The reason for the hold-up is an incident in a Queensland pub more than 30 years ago. Brendan has no other conviction, no other crime, and yet the system as it stands regularly punishes him for no legitimate reason. An unfair impediment to people working and earning an income to support their family should give senators pause, particularly during, and as we rebuild from, the COVID-19 pandemic.

But the government, instead of taking responsibility for the regular delays in processing clearances for workers and the effect this has on who works in the industry, has put forward legislation which could delay processing times even further. Moreover, the government's last-minute amendment to this bill before it passed the House, to expand the role of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to complete criminal intelligence assessments that would stop workers being granted an ASIC or MSIC, should be of concern to all senators and the general public. We have a last-minute amendment, not circulated in advance, to give the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission dramatically expanded powers that they are currently not resourced to do and to handle. It would see workers lose their clearance entirely on the basis of untested intelligence. This isn't what good governance looks like. This isn't due process. It is a cruel, low blow to workers, wrapped up in trumped-up national security concerns.

If this bill passes unamended, a worker's livelihood will be subject to intelligence, which doesn't have to be intelligent—intelligence that the agency does not need to disclose and that might not even be that credible. Denying or delaying someone's right to work because of some sort of rumour of intelligence denies the natural justice we are all entitled to. Imagine if such a law were brought to your workplace or to parliament, where a simple rumour could deny you your job for 90 days or so, without end. As a unionist I'll not stand workers being regularly denied natural justice in their workplace. As a senator I'm not convinced that this legislation does not contain the power to unfairly take away a person's livelihood.

Moreover, the bill does not provide an avenue for workers to appeal an unfavourable decision—if they have had their ASIC or MSIC denied to them. There is no appeal process. It's all done on the quiet. It's done without transparency and there's no appeal process. Imagine if that was in your workplace or in this parliament. The government's failure to legislate a means to appeal to allow workers to hear the allegations against them speaks to this government's lack of regard for workers at airports, at ports and at sea. It doesn't have the necessary transparency that is inherent in a well thought out piece of legislation.

Another issue in this legislation is that it entrenches the lack of standards for flag-of-convenience shipping. Flag-of-convenience shipping is a contentious business practice in which a ship's owners register the ship abroad to take advantage of less stringent laws or regulations, similar to the practices of some multinationals who operate heavily in Australia or in the United Kingdom but who remain registered in overseas tax havens. During the committee's hearings, multiple witnesses confirmed that the current provision in this legislation would not apply to the crew of foreign flagged ships. These crew only need maritime crew visas, available generally within 24 to 48 hours—in contrast with domestic crews, flag-of-convenience crews are not checked by ASIO, let alone by Interpol—while domestic Australian crews can wait up to 90 days just to renew their cards and may have them arbitrarily delayed or denied.

This legislation deepens the existing double standards while doing nothing to deal with the existing national security concerns inherent in Australia's growing reliance on flag-of-convenience shipping. Previous Senate inquiries into issues surrounding flag-of-convenience shipping have noted that its current registration, regulation and operation arrangements make it particularly susceptible to the influence of organised crime syndicates and terrorist groups. So let's make this very clear. The government are not serious about terrorist groups. They're not serious about organised crime. They're serious about looking like they're doing something whilst impeding the right to appeal and proper transparency. That bill says it all about this government.

In evidence to a Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee hearing in 2016, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said:

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

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

Yet the government does nothing.

It might be of interest to senators that the sorts of things transported on flag-of-convenience shipping are not just cars or clothes; they are chemicals and goods used in our mining industry—chemicals like ammonium nitrate, the explosive chemical that was at the heart of the great tragedy in Beirut on 4 August last year. Australia regularly issues temporary permits to foreign ships that carry chemicals like ammonium nitrate. They'll be going past a capital city of yours, or dropping in to say hello. More than 85,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate was moved through the port of Newcastle this year, most of it moved by flag-of-convenience ships with workers who never get checked by ASIO or the AFP for terrorist activity, criminal activity and the like. They are ships flagged in Singapore, Panama, Liberia, Russia. What does this government do? Nothing! They are ships crewed by foreign workers who are not subject to the same background checks we demand of our domestic workforce. The government likes to talk big on borders and security but not when it's in the interests of multinational corporations who shirk their tax and labour standard obligations by running flag-of-convenience shipping. They're in the pocket of big corporations rather than for Australians. Does that surprise you? It doesn't surprise me.

A practice that undermines our domestic maritime workforce deprives our country of valuable tax revenue and poses significant security and safety risks. In a report by Greg Sheridan, Teresa Lloyd from MIAL, Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, the body that represents the Australian cargo industry, was reported as saying:

There are now just 13 Australian-flagged or controlled cargo vessels. Thirty-odd years ago there were 100. Britain still has 470 such commercial ships.

Admiral Barrett, as a board member, also spoke. He said:

If you don't have the capacity to requisition ships, there's not much you can do in an emergency.

The article went on:

A national government has legal authority in a crisis to requisition civilian ships, which carry its flag or are controlled by its companies, but has no authority over foreign ships.

This goes to broader issues about how this government operates in the shipping industry and how it operates on behalf of big corporations against our national interests, our employment interests and our national security interests. As I've just said, flag-of-convenience shipping has already undermined our domestic seafaring industry. This bill will deepen the double standard. This legislation provides additional support to flag-of-convenience shipping that will further offshore our domestic shipping industry.

I'm also concerned about the unnecessary and unsettling delegation of authority to the minister in this matter. It will prevent parliamentary oversight on possible expansions of the scope of requirements to have ASIC or MSIC cards. This is further compounded by the failure of the government to provide an early draft of the regulations that should be associated with this legislation, despite the idea of this legislation having been in the works since they first promised it in the 2013 federal election. The Senate committee reviewing this bill was denied any preview of the accompanying regulations. That should give any senator who is interested in transparency cause for concern about this bill.

The disturbing trend of governing by regulation denies parliament the same rights of oversight of legislation. of Giving the minister the ability by regulation, where the Senate must choose to allow or disallow the regulation, to expand the scope or definition of 'serious crime', change the definition of 'serious crime' and deny someone their security card grants the Senate very blunt powers of oversight. Instead, such things should be contained in legislation to this parliament. This delegation is unsettling because the serious crime bill doesn't include a definition of 'serious crime', which is farcical. Instead, that definition is ambiguously left to the department and the minister in question.

There are several definitions of 'serious crime' across a number of Commonwealth acts and regulations that the minister might have picked. The minister hasn't done so. You didn't even have to think about it; you only had to look at the options and consider the best ones. This has been in consideration since 2013. We're surely not at the point where ministers should have the right to unilaterally change standards. (Time expired)

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:50): The Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 seeks to strengthen the regulatory framework surrounding the issuance of aviation and maritime security cards. It also provides the legislative basis for undertaking security checks, including background checks, of ASIC and MSIC holders. It seeks to do this by significantly expanding the number of background checks that have to be completed for each applicant. Aviation and maritime security identification cards are required for anyone who seeks regular access to secure areas of Australia's airports and seaports, Australian flagged ships, and our offshore oil and gas facilities. Workers requiring unescorted access to secure areas of airports, seaports, offshore platforms and Australian registered ships are all required to have a valid ASIC or MSIC. These workers include aircraft crew, baggage handlers, couriers, security screening staff, security guards, waterfront workers, seafarers, custom brokers, shipping agents, maintenance workers, truck drivers, train operators and anyone who works on an offshore platform. In other words, tens of thousands of Australian workers are required to have one or other of these security cards in order to do their jobs.

At the moment, applicants for an ASIC or MSIC are required to complete an identification verification, a security assessment conducted by ASIO and a migration status checked by the Department of Home Affairs. The government is now seeking to add a criminal history check, conducted by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and a criminal intelligence assessment, which would also be conducted by the ACIC.

The problem is that this bill doesn't get the basics right when it comes to securing our important aviation and maritime infrastructure industries. That's because this bill fails to contain a maximum time frame to ensure that decent, hardworking Australians don't miss out on work due to delays in processing their applications for an ASIC or MSIC, nor does it contain any legislative right of appeal if an applicant is denied an ASIC or MSIC. It doesn't require any background checks for foreign workers entering our ports or airports and, unbelievably, as Senator Sheldon said in his contribution, it doesn't contain a definition of 'serious crime'.

Labor holds serious concerns with the potential impact this legislation will have on the granting of ASICs or MSICs. During its inquiry into this bill, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard evidence that there are already significant delays in the renewal of MSICs. Some are taking up to four months. This means that maritime workers are left without a valid MSIC for a number of months and they are not allowed to work. This simply isn't good enough, and it is likely only to get worse if this legislation is passed. The International Transport Workers Federation and the Maritime Union of Australia gave evidence to the committee hearing of a worker who put in an application to renew their MSIC 90 days before having to join a ship; however, the card was not renewed in time. They put in their application 90 days before and the card was not renewed in time. In this case, the seafarer had been convicted of a crime more than 31 years ago. That worker concerned has learnt their lesson and has led a blemish-free life ever since. For it to take the authorities over 90 days to renew his MSIC under the current regime is outrageous. Those are 90 days in which this seafarer was not able to work and provide for his family. This seafarer is forced to go through this process each time he needs to renew his MSIC. This is despite the fact that he's only ever had one conviction over 30 years ago and has led a blemish-free life since that time.

Labor has serious concerns. One such concern is that, under the arrangements proposed in this bill, it would take even longer for seafarers, waterside workers and baggage handlers to have their security cards renewed. That's because the committee heard evidence from several witnesses from government agencies that they will now be taking intelligence into account when assessing whether to issue a card. Mr Phelan from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission told the committee that suspicious intelligence and belief will now be all considered by the authorities when determining whether individuals can be issued with an ASIC or MSIC. Surely someone's belief should not determine whether a worker has a right to earn an income. These are people's livelihoods we're talking about.

In stark contrast to this, workers on overseas flagged vessels will not be subject to these new requirements. Let's get this straight: workers on overseas flagged vessels will not be subject to these new requirements. Foreign crews and overseas flagged ships will still have their maritime crew visas which give them access to our ports within 24 to 48 hours of application. They will be able to come and go and associate with whomever they wish to without any of the checks that are imposed on Australian workers.

Australian workers are already subject to ASIO checks, AFP checks and other checks. Most of the ships that pull alongside Australian wharves are foreign flagged with overseas crews. None of these crews are subjected to the checks and balances we place on our own workers. Workers have become accustomed to providing police record checks when applying for or commencing a job. I struggle to think of any other collection of occupations that are subjected to the legislative requirement of a criminal intelligence assessment.

One must wonder why this government is so determined to make life difficult for people that work in our aviation and maritime section. A number of years ago, the Rural and Regional Affairs Committee heard evidence from the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection that certain features of flag-of-convenience registered ships with the consequent regulation and operation makes them open to exploitation from organised crime syndicates and terrorist groups. This was brought to the attention of the government in 2017, but they have not acted. Foreign crews and overseas registered vessels will continue to have a much easier path to gaining access to our ports than our own workers, Australian workers. Like the aviation and maritime workers themselves, Labor believes in a strong, effective and consistent approach to border security. However, this does not mean that Labor will support an identity card regime that seeks to rely on suspicion or belief to determine whether a worker is suitable to have access to our ports, airports and offshore oil and gas facilities.

During its inquiry into this bill, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard evidence from both the workers and government that there is no definition whatsoever of 'serious crime' contained within the legislation. The Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 did manage to include a definition of 'serious crime'. It is a very detailed definition, as you would expect. This definition focuses on offences punishable by more than three years imprisonment, offences causing high value loss and certain money-laundering and terrorism-financing offences. Surely, if a definition could be included in a 2002 act, it should not be beyond the wit of this government and their drafters to provide a definition in this instance. In fact, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was told that a generally understood definition of 'serious crime' does not apply in the case of this legislation. So not only do we not have a definition in this piece of legislation—

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Brown. We are moving to questions without notice.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (16:32): I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 3 of 2021 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to a number of key issues and developments arising from this monitor. In particular, I would like to provide the Senate with an update on the committee's engagement with the Treasurer in relation to five legislative instruments made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. These instruments address a range of subject matters within ASIC's portfolio by providing for exemptions from and modifications to the operation of certain provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 and other acts of parliament.

While they alter the operation of primary legislation made by this parliament, these instruments appear to be intended to remain in force for substantial periods of time, ranging from five to 10 years. As I have previously advised the chamber, this contravenes the committee's longstanding expectation that instruments which modify or exempt persons or entities from the operation of primary legislation should cease to operate no more than three years after they commence. The committee considers that a shorter sunsetting period is essential to ensure that there is a minimum degree of regular parliamentary oversight of such instruments. These instruments raise broader systemic concerns about the application of ASIC's exemption and modification powers. The committee acknowledges that there are circumstances where it may be appropriate for ASIC to use delegated legislation to quickly address anomalous or inconsistent outcomes in the application of primary legislation. However, the committee considers that a three-year time frame for such instruments is inappropriate. This allows ASIC to rapidly address such issues while providing a significant period of time, while the instrument is in force, to consider whether the notification or exemption provided by the instrument will be required for a longer period. If it is determined that a modification or exemption is required for a longer period, the committee considers that certainty for business and the market can be best provided by incorporating the modification or exemption on the face of the primary legislation. At a minimum, the committee considers that parliament should at least be given a regular opportunity to review and scrutinise modifications or exemptions to primary legislation that it has enacted. Indeed, the concerns regarding these ASIC instruments raise a much broader systemic problem across government. For this reason, the committee continues to apply its approach consistently.

I take this opportunity to note that this committee has advised the Senate in relation to scrutiny concerns in executive-made law since 1932. It is one of the oldest Senate committees and has played a marked role in the Senate's history. I remind the chamber that the committee is and has always been a non-partisan committee. The committee has consistently considered the technical scrutiny aspects of delegated legislation in a bipartisan manner, to support the Senate in its role in overseeing the lawmaking actions of the government of the day. It is incumbent on the committee to bring these issues to the attention of the Senate in accordance with standing orders and long-established practice. I also remind the chamber that there have been no votes—I stress no votes—in the history of this committee. The committee, in its entire history since 1932, has never had a formal vote. This reflects the gravity and importance of the committee's work to senators from across the political spectrum.

Since October last year the committee has been corresponding with both the Treasurer and the Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy to resolve its scrutiny concerns regarding these instruments. The committee has also lodged notices of motion to disallow each of the instruments in order to provide it with additional time to resolve its scrutiny concerns. Most recently the committee drew its scrutiny concerns to the attention of the Senate in Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2021 and requested that the Treasurer amend each of the instruments to ensure that, in effect, they cease to operate three years after commencement.

The committee is concerned that the Treasurer has yet to respond to the committee's most recent correspondence. This lack of timely engagement prevents the committee from fulfilling its vital role of advising the Senate about technical scrutiny issues arising in delegated legislation. The committee is simply asking the Treasurer to amend these five instruments so that they will cease to have effect after three years. This will not preclude the instrument being remade at the end of the three-year period and being renewed thereafter if it is determined that the modification is still required. This is a relatively minor change to each instrument, which would represent a major increase in the ability of the parliament to scrutinise these measures which affect the operation of primary legislation. As the Treasurer has not yet responded, the committee is unable to conclude its examination of these instruments and will keep the Senate informed in relation to any future developments, including whether the committee recommends that the Senate disallow these instruments.

By contrast, I also take this opportunity to emphasise that other members of the executive have continued to engage productively and collaboratively with the committee in resolving its technical scrutiny concerns. In particular, I draw the chamber's attention to a significant undertaking outlined in this monitor in relation to the Veterans' Affairs (Treatment Principles—Rehabilitation in the Home and Other Amendments) Determination 2020. The committee has corresponded extensively with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his department in relation to concerns about the lack of independent merits review of decisions made under the instrument. I am pleased to inform the chamber that as a result of this engagement this instrument has been revoked and will be remade to ensure that the committee's scrutiny concerns are addressed. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his department, as well as the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Repatriation Commission for their willingness to engage constructively with the committee to resolve this matter.

The satisfactory resolution of this matter provides a model for how many ministers and agencies can engage with the committee in the future to ensure that delegated legislation is made in a manner that protects personal rights and liberties and ensures effective parliamentary oversight of executive-made laws. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 3 of 2021 to the Senate.

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (16:40): I did wish to take the opportunity to make some comments in relation to Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 3 of 2021. I will be brief; I know others wish to speak on other matters in this place. I did want to commend the wonderful leadership provided to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation by Senator Fierravanti-Wells and by Senator Carr in his capacity as deputy chair. It is absolutely bipartisan leadership, true to the scrutiny principles which the standing committee is commissioned to consider in discharging its processes. I think under the leadership of Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Carr, and I'm sure—Senator Davey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm reasonably sure you'd associate yourself with my remarks—

Senator Davey: Hear, hear!

Senator SCARR: Well, there you are. You associate with my remarks, that a bright light has been shone on an extremely important issue in our parliamentary democracy, this issue of whether or not the laws that are made that impact all Australians go through this place and all of us sitting here in this chamber have an opportunity—a responsibility—to consider them and either vote for them or vote against them. It is an extraordinarily important principle.

I want to add one final comment in relation to these ASIC notices of exemption from the Corporations Act 2001. I say to whoever is in the department who may be listening to this: surely, it cannot be good practice, and you cannot think it is good practice, to pass instruments which exempt or provide modifications to primary legislation that has gone through this place and for those exemptions or modifications to be in place from five to 10 years. For the life of me, I cannot see why that is necessary. I think it is entirely reasonable and, in fact, consistent and, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells has said, a responsibility of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation to make the recommendation it has made to this place with respect to those instruments. It is simply not good practice, and this matter needs to be addressed. So I, once again, commend Senator Fierravanti-Wells on her contribution.

Question agreed to.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (16:43): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Among the documents listed is an important item of debate that has great importance in the parliament and in the Australian community, which, of course, we've been discussing it this afternoon already. That is, the withdrawal of JobKeeper payments that's coming up in the very near future.

The three-month review of the JobKeeper payment back in June 2020 has become a justification for the government to seek to withdraw JobKeeper in the near future. But the issue is that this three-month review and its findings do not match the state of play today. The JobKeeper review—and the government still likes to refer to the findings of this review when it talks about its withdrawal—talks about things like disincentives to work because of the relativities of JobKeeper to the minimum wage. We know that JobKeeper was set at $1,500, and if you're on the minimum wage for a fortnight you actually earn about that same amount of money. As a result, many businesses, including tourism businesses, said at the time, 'We can't recruit staff.' That's all very well for the period of a shutdown when, in large part, in the first quarter, businesses around Australia were indeed shut down and needed to be able to keep those staff on. But now we very much see a situation where JobKeeper has in fact tapered. There are very active tourism and small business sectors and other businesses right around the country that used JobKeeper that are back up and running again. They've withdrawn the use of JobKeeper. Why? It is because they're back at full operation.

But what of the businesses that aren't? As Senator Green highlighted to the Senate this week when she spoke about the plight of businesses in Cairns and other high-tourism spots, there is no replacement for JobKeeper. The replacement for JobKeeper is in fact the very underwhelming JobSeeker payment. The government has made no indication as yet of the extent to which the rate of that payment is going to be maintained. We know that it too has fallen a great deal from where it was before. So, we had $1,500 a fortnight, which was the JobKeeper payment. We now know that JobSeeker has fallen to the same amount and we're going to see jobseekers go back to that $40-a-day rate, which the government has made no commitment to addressing.

The government has made a big song and dance about keeping businesses—small businesses, big businesses—affected by COVID going, but now that they're looking to withdraw support through JobKeeper they haven't got the economic policy settings right. There are small businesses that will fall unnecessarily on their knees because they're not yet able to make it through COVID. Now, I accept the fact that there will be some permanent disruptions because of COVID and that some sectors won't look the same. We're not going to be able to protect every job and we're not going to be able to protect every business, particularly when, for example, we look at their policy of having suspended bankruptcies. There are some businesses that will face these issues. However, there are still very viable parts of our economy that can and should be supported by JobKeeper payments. They have not continued to adequately consider the relationship with things like JobSeeker, the jobactive programs and the whole integration of these policies across the business community.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ): Senator Pratt, your time has expired.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (16:50): I seek to take note of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's annual report for 2019-20. There's been a lot of talk in this chamber in recent times about bonuses. Australia Post has been lambasted. Today we heard in question time that the NBN was worthy of lambasting because of bonuses being paid. Yet, surprisingly, the media and the left wing in this country have great difficulty in being consistent on these matters. If they were, they would be exposing just as loudly the bonuses that are being paid to officials in the ABC, our national broadcaster, who are being paid handsomely by anybody's definition of 'payment'. Indeed, we discover that those earning between $370,000 and $395,000 a year got a bonus, on average, of $18,333. That amounts to over three Cartier watches. We know what happened to Australia Post for one Cartier watch. Why is this not happening within the ABC? Those earning between $395,000 and $420,000—it makes your eyes water; this is taxpayers' money—each received bonuses averaging $8,750. That's clearly over one Cartier watch; it's nearly two of them. Staff earning at the pathetically low rate of $320,000 to $345,000 got an average of $5,333, or a Cartier watch.

This is taxpayers' money. On what basis do those opposite seek to claim that the bonuses to Australia Post and NBN are inappropriate but turn a blind eye to the ABC? I happen to believe, as someone on this side of the chamber, that any bonus has to be exceptionally well justified, and, as far as I can see, there's nothing in the ABC report which justifies these excessive and hefty bonuses.

Whilst I'm on the ABC, I happen to note that the ABC has quietly removed the words 'Invasion Day' from a headline on one of its articles and, with all the normal verbiage, they seek to justify it and somehow overcome it. I simply say to the ABC and those that seek to denigrate Australia Day, allegedly because they want to champion the cause of our Indigenous brothers and sisters: take note of the actual evidence. Yet again it seems that there is a fact deficit when it comes to the left wing and the woke within our nation. Roy Morgan polling through Michele Levine, has told us that when Indigenous people have been asked about Australia Day 73 per cent of them identified with Australia Day and only 27 per cent with Invasion Day. One wonders whom those opposite are seeking to champion? They are seeking to champion a minority of the minority, whom they are seeking to put up in lights. The majority of the minority that they are seeking to champion, in fact, reject their mantra, according to Roy Morgan polling, with 73 per cent of our Indigenous community accepting Australia Day. So one wonders where the ABC and others get their information from and what actually motivates them.

In the few seconds that are left, can I also express my very real disappointment at the ABC giving so much time to Dr Norman Swan, who continually contradicted the Chief Medical Officer at the very height of the pandemic, making claims that would make even Tim Flannery blush. Do you know Tim Flannery? He said the Brisbane River would never flood. It's flooded once; it's flooded twice. Yet he claims to have credibility. Dr Swan has made all sorts of claims, none of which have come true. In fact, if we were to believe him, he was predicting 70,000 to 80,000 cases by early April, and he was—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ): Senator Abetz, your time has expired.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (16:55): I just want to go through a little bit of detail to start with. It was clearly an exceptional year for Australia Post. It was an exceptional year in terms of income, and profit before tax was some $53.6 million—so a very, very substantial increase in remuneration. It's worth noting that the executives and the board are also very respectably remunerated. I think you'll find that the chair gets $189,000. The deputy chair gets $105,000. Non-executive directors get $94,990. The audit and risk committee chair gets $21,000. An audit and risk committee member gets $11,000. The people and sustainability chair gets $18,000. The people and sustainability committee members get $9,000. If you've ever been on a board, you know that the subcommittees are generally occupied by the main board, so those amounts of around $20,000 are added to perhaps the deputy chair's or the chair's income. So these people are very respectably remunerated. If you look at the executive, the salaries are right up there. I don't want to talk about people's names, but, if you look at the CEO, it's a $1.4 million salary. Other executives get $690,000, $720,000, $600,000, $600,000, $700,000 or $800,000. There are about 13 senior executives, and they shared in about $8 million worth of bonuses.

I don't begrudge anybody who's doing a very good job getting a very respectable salary, and if the dividends are paid to the taxpayer, well, it all looks good. But when I go to talk to people about Australia Post, they don't really care what the CEO is getting, but they do care when their letters turn up in someone else's letterbox. We've got delivery speeds for a letter in the same state up to five business days. Clearly, the challenge is to get it there as quick as you can. Metro to metro is up to five business days. Metro to country is up to six business days. Country to country is up to seven business days. Clearly, all of the performance is being driven off parcel freight.

What we relied on Australia Post for—and, increasingly, many more of us don't rely on it. I do the same thing: 'Email me a bill, and I'll direct debit my account.' No-one posts me a bill anymore. But there are still large sections of the community relying on the post. There are probably very few people, apart from my wife, who actually sit down and write a letter, but there are people who are still relying on 'letter in, letter out' for their affairs, and it's taking up to five business days. I had a problem, recently, where someone said, 'You've got a final notice.' I said, 'I didn't even get the first notice.' They said: 'You've got a final notice here. It's going to cost an extra hundred bucks.' I said: 'Well, it would have been handy if you'd given me the first notice. I would have paid it!' Anyway, it's all down to Australia Post, apparently. They can't get a letter in on time. I just want to finish on one point. Senator Abetz was a tad political with the ABC.

I don't begrudge people in Australia Post getting a bonus if it was a Cartier watch that was approved by the board and the CEO was well within her entitlements. I thought the behaviour by the Prime Minister was appalling. And the outcry from all of the Australia Post outlets across the country about her being pushed aside was quite significant.

I thought it was just another example of the Prime Minister shooting from the lip, clearly taking a pub test rather than a commonsense test. I'm sure that the CEO is well ensconced with a competitor of Australia Post now and is probably tearing strips of Australia Post's business. In hindsight, it may not have been a very smart decision. But to punt the CEO in the way that the Prime Minister did, I thought, was quite sad and not becoming of the conduct we would expect from the Honourable Scott Morrison. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (17:00): I move:

That the Senate take note of the Climate Change Authority's Report for 2019-20.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (17:01): I move:

That the Senate take note of NBN Co Limited's Report for 2019-20.

The reason I really want to focus on this particular report is that there's an amazing community of great business people, great community-minded people who live on the Central Coast at a place called Mangrove Mountain. Madam Acting Deputy President, you may not have ever visited, but—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ): I have.

Senator O'NEILL: Indeed you have! As a great New South Welsh woman, I'm glad to see you have been there. It became an orchard area after World War II and many returned veterans were given land there. The community is a tight-knit one. Even though they are only less than 100 kilometres away from the middle of the CBD in Sydney, they have terrible difficulty with getting NBN access.

I held a community meeting there towards the end of last year, and the response that they've received from NBN Co was appalling. It took a phone call to the CEO to get some action and attention on this community that really were promised by this government that they would have access to 21st century technology. There was one consultation with the community just before Christmas. But from the reports that I'm receiving, NBN Co is still not meeting the needs of that community. There are businesses that are connecting together in some sort of weird and wonderful way with mobile phones to try and get enough signal to be able to do the banking that they need.

This is just a disaster for this community. It's costing jobs, it's costing mental health in that community and it's a very, very big problem. That's why today's revelation that Mr Morrison and his government have actually allowed $78 million worth of taxpayers' money to be spent on what they call, in their response to a question on notice, 'short-term incentives'—not bonuses; they don't want to call them 'bonuses'. That is $78 million going to people for doing a good job at NBN Co. It's not a good job if you can't actually access technology and you can't run your business and you can't communicate with your neighbours when there's a fire roaring up a valley. It's not doing a good job when 238,000 premises—that we know of—still can't access the minimum guaranteed NBN speeds that are required by law. We could have a long debate about how inadequate that setting is that this government have accepted. They told us—they told all Australians—that all you'd need are 25 megabits per second and that would be fine.

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Senator O'NEILL: Senator Pratt is giving it the voice it deserves—cackling laughter! It is laughable what this government have set as the standard and they haven't even been about to meet that! I'm very, very concerned that all those people who are on what they call 'service class 0', which means you get nothing, are actually at a point where they are being served now by a board that's giving out bonuses to the tune of $78 million. Why it concerns me, why it is directly relevant to this government and why we should sheet it home to them is that every year—as reported in the annual report that's up for discussion today—the government is provided with a prepared corporate plan which they have to sight and accept. This is a government owned entity. The government has oversight over it. Very sadly, the relevant minister, Minister Fletcher, simply is out of his depth, allowing a company that's failing to that degree in terms of service delivery. That's to say nothing of the myth that was the funding allocation that the government said was going to be their pricing of the NBN. People cannot let the government get away with that. They said they'd deliver the NBN for $29 billion. Well, that went way out the window. They said it was going to cost $29 billion. The next thing we know is that no-one wants to invest in it. They brought in another $20 billion and we ended up with $41 billion. Now, after a lot of tooth-pulling, we've got to the truth of it: at the moment, it stands at $57 billion. The people of Mangrove have got nothing, but those bonuses and short-term incentives are flowing to the people at NBN Co. This is mismanagement by this government.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ): Senator O'Neill, your time has expired.

Senator O'Neill: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:06): I also rise to speak on the NBN Co annual report for 2019-20. I have to say that the myths perpetuated in this report do not match the reality of what NBN Co is delivering on the ground, but I'm pleased to see that they've disclosed their remuneration. I couldn't see if they had disclosed specifically the bonuses, but it does put in context the importance of the information that is provided to us in this place.

We have seen in debates over the course of this week that NBN Co has been at the centre of a failure of accountability by the government. We've discussed the corporate plan, and here we have an opportunity to reflect on the annual report, which again does not demonstrate a delivery of the Australian government's commitments to the Australian community in relation to a fast and affordable broadband service. In the questions that the opposition have been asking of the government, we've been seeking information that was regularly published prior to the backflip on the previous position on copper. But today we find that the same information that NBN Co were happy to publish in documents like this annual report, their strategic plan and answers to questions on notice they are now claiming as commercial-in-confidence.

This is a ridiculous position for NBN Co and the government to take. This information shouldn't be commercial-in-confidence. It's actually about this government and NBN Co refusing to be accountable for their commitments to the Australian community about how many connections they would have over time but also how much money they have spent in delivering those commitments. In this report, can we find information about matters such as peak funding, cash flow profile, debt profile, cost blowouts, costs associated with Fletcher's copper backflip and how much of Prime Minister Morrison's broadband tax is actually going to go to regional Australia?

We should be looking to documentation like this annual report for transparent information about the delivery of this program, but we find day after day that when the government don't like the data, when the data and information requested by this parliament is inconvenient to the government, they are happy to hide it, but when the data does not pose an inconvenience they're happy to let it out. It doesn't tell the truth to the Australian people and the Australian users of telecommunications services and the National Broadband Network. In the annual report there should be transparent information about the nature of cost blow-outs and how they've occurred, but instead we've got a government that wants to see such information reclassified as commercial-in-confidence, so you might see the actual figures but you can't see a good explanation of the reasons.

Why would this government be concealing data that has previously been published? The simple reason is it's a failure of this government, who don't want to be scrutinised, and it's a failure of Minister Fletcher, who refuses to be accountable for his ongoing cost blow-outs. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:12): I want to draw attention to the 2019-20 report of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission because the ACNC is an absolutely critical regulatory and governance organisation within the Australian Commonwealth bureaucracy. I recall that, when Labor in government first mooted that we wanted to pursue such an institution, it was roundly opposed and criticised by the coalition government. They made one foiled attempt to abolish it—I'm sure they made more than one attempt, but I recall one—yet it appears that finally the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is being recognised by the Australian government as a much-needed institution.

It has been reported that the government is looking to the ACNC to use its powers to crack down on unlawful activity taking place within charities. Frankly, this is what the ACNC was established to do. The proposed changes would see the charities commissioner given powers, for example, to take enforcement action against charities, even if they have not been charged with an offence. Sector leaders say that the proposed changes go against 'every principle of justice, fairness and procedural transparency'. The federal government is now looking at changing the governance standards for charities to make clear that a registered organisation must not engage in offences such as trespassing, theft, vandalism and assault or use their resources to promote or support these activities.

On the one hand the government finally see the worthiness of the ACNC and give it something they would like it to do. However, this government needs to be challenged on this approach—on the way that it handles dealing with the not-for-profit sector and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—because they may be asking the ACNC to do the government's dirty work for them. For example, with cracking down on activist organisations masquerading as charities, we all know the government's reputation in that regard. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.