Senator WATT (Queensland) (09:31): Labor supports the passage of the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021, but I'd like to foreshadow that at the end of my remarks I'll be moving a second reading amendment. I think all Australians would recognise that administration of the aged-care system in this country has been one of this government's greatest failures, and that is saying something. This bill will make urgent and needed amendments to the Aged Care Act to implement three measures in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and, in the case of restrictive practices, in response to the Independent review of legislation provisions governing the use of restraint in residential aged care. It needs to be made clear that the government's response to the aged-care royal commission falls far short of where it needs to be in terms of solving a number of key issues in the aged-care system and fails to deliver enduring changes and reform for the long term.

I will start with the first key change in the legislation: the overuse of restraints in aged care. Substandard care can take many forms, and the royal commission concluded that 30 per cent of older people in aged care, almost one in three, have experienced some form of substandard care. The royal commission specifically heard about the excessive use of physical and chemical restraints in residential aged care, which robs older Australians of their dignity and autonomy in their final months. Older people with mental health issues, particularly those suffering from the later stages of dementia, are often heavily medicated or physically restrained. In the final three months of 2019-20, residential aged-care services made 24,681 reports of intent to restrain and 62,800 reports of physical restraint devices. Far too many people experience the aged-care system as uncaring, unkind and even inhumane in its response to them and their needs.

This bill will make a number of important changes in regard to restraints and restrictive practices. It will clarify the definition of 'restrictive practice' in the Aged Care Act so that it is in line with the NDIS definition and ensure that all restrictive practices that limit the freedom of movement of an aged-care resident are included. It will expand the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner's ability to respond to breaches of approved aged-care providers' responsibilities in relation to restrictive practices, with new abilities to issue written notices and make applications for civil penalty orders. It will provide that the quality care principles set out clearly when an aged-care provider is able to consider the use of restrictive practices—importantly, only ever as a last resort. While it is disappointing to see the royal commission's recommendation around the introduction of independent expert approval for the use of restrictive practices, this bill will help prevent the overuse of restraints and restrictive practices in aged care.

The second key change in this legislation is the introduction of assurance reviews. The introduction of assurance reviews, while not specifically recommended by the aged-care royal commission, is welcome, if they do as described and increase the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the home-care system. While this move is welcome, it is disappointing that the government hasn't followed more closely the recommendations from the aged-care royal commission to increase transparency and accountability measures. We know there are many aged-care providers doing amazing work who are dedicated to the health and wellbeing of those in their care. That's not to mention, of course, the incredible work that aged-care workers themselves perform. But we also know that there are far too many aged-care providers who are not doing the right thing. While the government likes to appear to be tough on bad providers, when you dive into the detail of its response to the royal commission, so often it turns out that they're letting those providers—the bad ones—do what they want. These assurance reviews are fine, but why not make the reports and recommendations that come out of these reviews all public? Why leave this up to the Secretary of the Department of Health? This is the same person that is in charge of system governance. Could there ever be an opportunity when it wouldn't be in their interest to release one of these reviews? Labor is committed to doing things very differently here. We want to see a transparent and accountable sector, a sector where bad providers are not allowed to run riot and do what they please, as this government has let them do for so long.

The third key change in the legislation is replacing the Aged Care Financing Authority. The government agreed to establish an advisory group to replace the authority, which will commence operations from July 2021, to ensure the government continues to receive advice on financing issues of the aged-care sector. A new advisory body will be established to provide advice to government on aged-care financing issues.

This bill and its changes are welcome. There is no doubt that the changes to rules around the use of restraints and restrictive practices are needed. There is no doubt that transparency and accountability in the aged-care sector need to be dramatically improved. But why is this the only legislative action the government is taking right now in response to the damning and wide-ranging findings of the aged-care royal commission? Why is this the only bill we're seeing, months after the royal commission handed down its final report? Where is the sense of urgency on aged care from the Morrison government? They have received 21 expert reports into the state of aged care in Australia since 2013, reports that largely foreshadowed the shocking findings of the royal commission's eight-volume report, which told us how bad the crisis in aged care is. Given just how shocking and damning and completely unacceptable those findings were, where is the sense of urgency to fix the problems identified? Where is the sense of urgency to improve the level of care that older Australians are receiving? But maybe we shouldn't be surprised. Maybe it doesn't matter how bad things are in aged care for the Morrison government, because they like to take things slowly and take things easy.

The Morrison government has neglected the aged-care sector for eight years. If you need any further proof of that, just look at the title of the royal commission report: Neglect. That is the way the royal commission summarised the work of this government over eight long years. For eight years this government has neglected older Australians who have received aged-care services. It's neglected hardworking and dedicated aged-care workers for eight years. Don't just take my word for it. The royal commission described the government's approach to aged care in its final report, where it said:

At times in this inquiry, it has felt like the Government's main consideration was what was the minimum commitment it could get away with, rather than what should be done to sustain the aged care system so that it is enabled to deliver high quality and safe care.

In fact, that really does sum up the approach of this government to so many issues—in particular, aged care. What is the bare minimum they can get away with? This is an absolutely damning finding from the royal commission. The crisis in aged care has been brewing for years. The 21 expert reports that are gathering dust on the minister's desk warned the government that this was coming, but they chose to neglect the aged-care system for eight long years. It is a national disgrace, and the ministers responsible should be ashamed for the part they have played in this crisis.

Despite the royal commission's damning words, this government's approach still seems to be to do the minimum it can get away with. At the end of the day, this is the Prime Minister's crisis. It's happened on his watch. When Mr Morrison was the Treasurer, he even cut funding to the sector by $1.7 billion. How can anyone trust Mr Morrison to fix the aged-care crisis? How can older Australians trust Mr Morrison? How can their families trust Mr Morrison? How can aged-care workers trust Mr Morrison?

The aged-care royal commission graphically highlighted the failures of the government, failures that have happened on their watch and while they have failed to watch, failures including maggots in the wounds of residents and failures including the two-thirds of residents who are malnourished or at risk of malnourishment—that is, two-thirds of residents are literally starving in the care of their own government. How can anyone stand by and let that happen for eight long years? How can the government sit there and still refuse to show any real urgency while this is happening? They should be ashamed.

The Morrison government have failed to listen to Australians in aged care, to their families and to the workers in the system when they raised the alarm bells about the absolutely dire conditions in some residential homes. They've failed to listen to families about the impact on their lives of having to wait years to get high-care needs home-care packages. They've failed to listen to workers about being exhausted, about being overworked, about being under-resourced, about being underpaid and about being undervalued.

Who can forget the performance of the aged-care minister at the recent Senate estimates, where, yet again, he refused to back in a pay rise for aged-care workers? What a way to treat the people that we depend upon to provide services and care to the elderly in our community—our grandparents, our parents, our loved ones. Of course, this minister, along with his predecessors, failed to listen to those 21 expert reports that the government have received on the issues.

If you ask anyone to describe the government's record on aged care in one word, they will say the same thing: neglect. But they still aren't listening, not even to the royal commission that they were forced into calling. They haven't learned their lesson, because their response to the aged-care royal commission is, as the royal commission found, the bare minimum they think they can get away with. Not a single issue is actually fixed.

The Morrison government's response to the aged-care royal commission falls far short of where it needed to be. It failed to deliver enduring improvement and reforms for the long run. They've fobbed off, delayed or outright rejected key recommendations. Of the 148 recommendations, over half are not being implemented or aren't being implemented properly. So often in their response, the government claims to have accepted a recommendation. But, when you actually look at the detail, times are pushed back, sometimes by years. Key sections of recommendations are often excluded. Sometimes they say they've accepted a recommendation, but their response doesn't even pretend to match it. That is a very strange definition of the word 'accept', which is what the government claim to have done. It's the same old behaviour we've come to expect from a government that says one thing and does another—that does the bare minimum to deal with the aged-care system. This is a government that makes a big announcement but never follows through on detail—on aged care and so many other things.

The government's response to the royal commission falls flat in five major areas in particular. Firstly, nothing will change without reform to the aged-care workforce. There was nothing to improve wages for overstretched, undervalued aged-care workers. Secondly, the government is gifting $3.2 billion to providers via a basic daily fee increase, with no strings attached to ensure it goes to actual care or better food and not management bonuses or a new office fit-out. Thirdly, the government has failed to clear the home-care package waitlist of 100,000 people. Only 80,000 packages were included in the budget over the next two years, and thousands join the waitlist every year. The maths don't add up. This government is not even going to clear the current backlog before a single new person joins that waiting list. Fourthly, the government has ignored the recommendation to require a nurse to be on duty 24/7 in residential care. This is core to improving clinical care for frail Australians. And, fifthly, the government's promise of mandatory care minutes for each resident is also full of holes. It doesn't meet the royal commission recommendation, and we now know that cleaning and some admin will be included as care. As important as those roles are, it doesn't satisfy what the royal commission was talking about. Why bother calling the royal commission and then ignore so many of its recommendations? Why bother calling the royal commission and not fix the crisis it identifies?

And that's before we get to the impact of COVID on aged care. Recently we have seen the government's neglect of aged-care residents and workers play out yet again, with potentially deadly consequences. Because of this government's failures in quarantine and its failures in the vaccine rollout, we again saw COVID-19 cases in aged care. People are angry about it, and they have every right to be so. Last year we lost 685 residents in aged care to COVID-19. This government left the door open to this tragedy happening again. What residents and staff went through last year was nothing less than absolutely traumatic. Residents lost their friends and their companions.

Just this week we found out that still only 30 per cent of aged-care workers have had their first vaccination. We found out yesterday that about 15 per cent of aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated. These people were supposed to be fully vaccinated by the end of March. They're the government's top priority, and only 15 per cent of people have been fully vaccinated. If you listen to the government talk about it, you'd be unable to tell. The Prime Minister says that the vaccine rollout is not a race. The aged-care minister says he's comfortable with the speed of the rollout. Neither the health minister nor the aged-care minister can seem to get their numbers straight. Unless the government acknowledge their faults and their mistakes in aged care, how is anyone supposed to trust them to fix it? Right now there is no plan from this government, and no plan and no targets mean no urgency.

In conclusion, what is absolutely clear to me is that, wherever you look now, the story of aged care is: don't send the Liberal and National parties on a job you trust only the Labor Party to do. The last eight years of neglect by this government have shown another three years won't make a difference. To summarise, while we welcome the changes in this legislation, the government response to the royal commission falls far short of where it needs to be. My second reading amendment notes, among other things, the government's failures in relation to aged care. I move:

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

(a) notes the:

   (i) systemic, ongoing failures in Australia's aged care system as evidenced by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, including, but not limited to, the use of restrictive practices and the lack of transparency and accountability in aged care,

   (ii) inadequacy of the Government's response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, including delayed and diminished legislative action on key issues and recommendations, including, but not limited to:

(A) the malnutrition crisis, with two thirds of aged care residents either malnourished or at risk of malnourishment,

(B) the Home Care Package waitlist,

(C) improved pay and recognition of hardworking and dedicated workers,

(D) improved transparency and accountability around public funds,

(E) mandatory care minutes, and

(F) ensuring a registered nurse is onsite at residential facilities 24 hours a day, and

   (iii) Government's failures in protecting aged care residents and workers due to their poor management of COVID-19 outbreaks in residential aged care, and

(b) calls on the Government to explain, as a matter of urgency, their plan to fully vaccinate aged care workers and keep aged care residents safe".

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:46): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021. The Greens welcome this bill as the government's first attempt to address the royal commission, but we don't think it goes far enough. The government's response to the royal commission is basically designed to look like they are accepting most of the recommendations of the royal commission, but, if you look at the details, in fact that is not the case. In addition, it is going to take far too long to roll out the recommendations that they do truly accept and it's going to take far too long before we see the changes needed to our aged-care system put in place. I'll come back to that in a bit more detail later on.

I want to address some of the provisions in this current bill. Restrictive practices, which are addressed in this bill, have been a serious issue in aged care for more than 20 years—a very long time. In this place a number of us, including me, have been strongly advocating to end the use of physical and chemical restraints in aged care. Restraints, including the use of dangerous antipsychotics, have for too long been used to control older people's behaviour. They've been used to quieten people because the aged-care facilities are not designed the way they should be. Instead of addressing the issue, they restrain, both physically and chemically, older people who are in need of care and need our compassion. It is not a compassionate approach to drug somebody to manage their behaviour or to physically restrain them.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety found that the prevalence of restrictive practices in aged care is unacceptable and the ongoing use of restrictive practices represents severely substandard care. As expressed by the commission in their final report:

The inappropriate use of unsafe and inhumane restrictive practices in residential aged care has continued, despite multiple reviews and reports highlighting the problem. It must now be stopped.

My comment here is that, in terms of those reviews, governments have not enacted those recommendations. They have been slack when it comes to these issues. It's about time we finally started addressing these issues properly and sending a strong message to those providers—and I'm not using a broad brush here—who are not doing the right thing.

The introduction of the minimising the use of restraints principles in 2019 represented an important step forward in regulating restrictive practices in aged care. However, as I articulated in this place, they fell short in many areas, including the absence of behaviour support plans and the absence of any requirement to gain informed consent before using chemical restraints.

I'm pleased to note that this bill provides a stronger framework and better safeguards for the use of restrictive practices in aged care. Importantly, it aligns the definition of restrictive practices with the definition used in the disability sector. It also provides the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner with additional powers to respond to providers who break the rules around restrictive practices, including through the application of civil penalties. Another positive step forward is the requirement for providers to create behaviour support plans when using restrictive practices from 1 September this year. I believe this will help providers to think through how they are using restrictive practices and ensure that they are only used as a last resort.

I would like to go through some of the areas where the new restrictions do, unfortunately, fall short. For example, the new regulations do not apply if the use of restrictive practices is necessary in an emergency. Stakeholders noted concerns that the use of 'necessary in an emergency' is broad and subjective. COTA in particular raised concerns that there are no time lines in the regulations attached to an emergency. They believe that no more than seven days should be the absolute maximum period that emergency rule should apply. Allowing aged-care providers to determine when an emergency has passed could provide a loophole. From our discussions with the department we understand that using the emergency provisions on the same person more than once will constitute a red flag for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. I seek clarification on this matter to ensure this is the case, and I will continue to follow this up.

The royal commission recommended that restrictive practices should only be used after alternative evidence based strategies have been explored, applied and documented. I am concerned that the regulations qualify the need to use alternative strategies through the phrase 'to the extent possible'. This leaves the door open to aged-care providers to determine alternative strategies only to the extent that they believe is necessary. The royal commission also recommended that restrictive practices should be prohibited unless recommended by an independent expert. The regulations require an approved health practitioner to approve the use of restrictive practices. However, it is unclear whether these health practitioners will need to be independent of the facility and the provider—there is a conflict of interest if they are the health practitioner of the actual facility and the provider. As a result, aged-care providers may be able to use in-house health practitioners to approve the use of restricted practices, which, as I said, is in my opinion a clear conflict of interest.

The draft regulations include chemical, physical, environmental and mechanical restraint, and seclusion, as restrictive practices. Some providers were concerned about the need to obtain consent from substitute decision-makers where a person lacks the capacity to give their consent, particularly in the case of locked or secure facilities, and the impact this could have on public guardians. My understanding is that secure facilities were already in the scope under the existing minimising the use of restraints principles. So providers should have been seeking consent for locked or secure facilities under existing provisions. This is a really important point.

I was pleased to see that the draft regulations were put out for public consultation as an exposure draft, and I understand that the department did not receive much feedback and anticipates that the final version will be similar to the draft. While the regulations will provide more guidance and stronger protections, it's clear that we need to address structural issues in aged care if we are going to end the use of restrictive practices altogether—things like staff training, minimum hours of care, adequate mixtures of staff and enough registered nurses. The royal commission found that the overuse of restrictive practices in aged care often comes from a lack of knowledge about restraints, their impacts and alternatives. The department must ensure that we have adequate training and education in place for providers if they are going to successfully end the use of restrictive practices in aged care.

This bill also introduces home-care assurance reviews of the delivery and administration of home care. Under the changes, the secretary will be able to collect information in relation to assurance reviews. The secretary will also be able to publish information on providers who do not comply with notices to produce or do not provide reasonable assistance. My understanding is that the government, as they said to the committee, plans to undertake 500 home care assurance reviews in the first 12 months with a focus on unjustified administration charges and overheads. Given that there are around 928 home-care providers operating in Australia, not all providers will undergo assurance reviews, which is a concern. The department also clarified that the results of the reviews will be published on its website. While I welcome attempts by the government to improve the transparency of home-care fees, it's critical that the government takes more action to improve transparency and accountability across the whole aged-care sector.

Finally, this bill abolishes the Aged Care Financing Authority. Our understanding is that a new advisory group, reporting to the new National Aged Care Advisory Council, will replace ACFA from July. We don't have further details about the new advisory group, including who will sit on the group and what level of independence it will have. Given that the ACFA will be abolished, we expect that the government will publicly commit to a process for commissioning and publishing independent reports on the financial performance of the sector. Today I'm calling on the government to ensure that there is no gap between the dismantling of the authority and the introduction of the new group that will provide advice on financing issues in aged care, and to continue to fund and publish independent annual reports on the financial performance of the sector. The government has started its reform agenda but there is still much work to be done and many unanswered questions. It's up to the government to lead on these reforms. We will continue to do everything we can to demand significant ongoing funding commitments to achieve the structural reforms required to build a safe, accessible and high-quality aged-care system.

At this stage, we have still got far too many issues going on in aged care. We still have enormous waiting lists in aged care. We still have the ridiculous situation where you have to wait for nine to 12 months for level 3 and 4 packages and, in the meantime, you get put on interim packages. For some interim packages the waiting time is nine to 12 months—and that's while you're waiting for your other package, which also has a waiting time of nine to 12 months! It's an absolute farce! This situation needs a lot more urgency than the government is providing to these reforms. Where is the money in the budget for workforce pay rises? We get the weak excuse from the government that they're waiting for the Fair Work case, when anybody who has any understanding of aged care knows that carers, nurses and other personnel working in aged care need a wage rise. Put it in the budget!

We are not going to improve aged care until we have a workforce that is significantly increased. Everybody knows that we need a significantly increased workforce and that we need to pay them properly for the work they do and the dedication they show. Why wasn't it in the budget? Why wasn't it there? Don't hide behind the Fair Work case. They're taking the case because, for years and years, aged-care workers, personal care workers and nurses have been underpaid. We haven't had the right skill mix. You can't get your workforce to the level you need until you're paying them properly for the hours they put in and the work they put in. We can't deliver the hours of care, for those older Australians in aged care, until we have a workforce that is properly supported with ongoing training and other ongoing supports and until we have proper ratios in aged care. The way the government's going, we are years and years and years away from achieving the sort of aged-care system that Australians can only dream about at the moment.

Not only are we not addressing the issues, and not only has the government not put in the funding to properly pay aged-care workers, but we can't even get the vaccination process working properly. We can't get older Australians vaccinated, and we can't get our workers in aged care vaccinated, despite the deadly and awful lesson that was learned in Victoria last year, when we saw so many deaths. You would have thought that, no matter what, the government would have guaranteed that those living in aged care, and those providing the care and working so diligently in aged care, would have been vaccinated by now—all those who wanted it. You would have thought that would have happened, at the barest minimum. But no. It hasn't happened, nor has it happened in the disability sector.

We have a long way to go before we fix aged care in this country. Where's the government's commitment to all those other recommendations and making sure it happens at the pace that is needed? It isn't there, and it needs to be there. The Greens will be supporting these amendments, and I indicate that we are supporting Senator Watt's second reading amendment, because we need a greater sense of urgency to make sure those home-care packages are rolling out, that we've got the workforce there and that the provisions that we are agreeing to today, such as those on restrictive practices, are put into operation as soon as possible so that we can guarantee to older Australians that they're not going to be restrained, either physically or chemically, when they enter aged care.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (10:01): I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021. This bill will make urgent amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 to implement three measures in response to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. In the case of restrictive practices, this bill responds to the independent review of legislative provisions governing the use of restraints in residential aged care.

The royal commission handed down a damning account of the state of Australia's aged-care sector. It's a national disgrace. Scott Morrison is responsible for the aged-care system, he is responsible for the funding cuts and he is responsible for the terrible neglect identified by the royal commission. The Liberals failed to listen to Australians in aged care, to their families and to the workers. The Prime Minister failed to listen to the 22 expert reports and now even the report of his own royal commission. So we argue that this is not 'a once-in-a generation reform to aged care'. The Liberals had ample opportunity to reform the sector, and now I feel that they have fallen short again.

In question time yesterday, we learnt that only 15.6 per cent of residential aged-care staff have been fully vaccinated. They still don't have a register set up to track the number of staff who have been vaccinated. Just a few months ago, aged-care workers were told they will get vaccinated on site in aged-care homes. That never eventuated. The Morrison government also said that aged-care workers would be first in line. Now they're being told that they have to drive hours out of their way in their own time at their own expense. These are some of the lowest-paid workers in this country, yet they're on the front line during this pandemic. They don't necessarily have ready access to transport, and they have other commitments. So these workers should have been able to be vaccinated in their workplaces as a matter of priority. The federal government, the Morrison government, have failed in the rollout of the vaccine program in this country.

But let's go back to the bill. Schedule 1 of this bill makes amendments to further strengthen the legislation on the use of restrictive practices in aged care. The bill defines the term 'restrictive practices' in the Aged Care Act in alignment with the definition applied under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS. This is something that Labor welcomes, as the new definition is clearer than the one it replaces and ensures that all restrictive practices are included.

The bill also expands the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner's ability to respond to breaches which approved aged-care providers are responsible for in relation to restrictive practices, which is very important. The commissioner can issue written notices to providers who do not comply with their responsibilities and can also apply a civil penalty order if a provider does not comply with a written notice. The schedule will also provide that the Quality of Care Principles must set out matters in relation to restrictive practices, including when an aged-care provider is able to consider the use of restrictive practices.

While, at first glance, this schedule does provide more guidance, from my work as the chair of the scrutiny of bills committee I'd have to question why a number of key matters and definitions regarding when it is appropriate to use restrictive practices will be left to delegated legislation. It is concerning that matters such as these cannot be scrutinised appropriately by the Senate.

Additionally, this schedule seeks to provide that the Quality of Care Principles may provide that the requirements of the principles do not apply if the use of restrictive practices is necessary in an emergency. This provides the minister with extensive power to determine in delegated legislation when the requirements for the use of restrictive practices no longer apply. I would add that there is also nothing in this bill, on the face of it, which defines what constitutes 'an emergency'. The royal commission specifically heard about the excessive use of physical and chemical restraints in residential aged care which rob older Australians of their dignity and autonomy. Older people with mental health issues—particularly those suffering from later stages of dementia—are often heavily medicated or physically restrained. It is so important that we help prevent the use of restrictive practices and restraints so that older Australians can age with dignity. I still question why the minister has so much discretionary power to determine when it is appropriate and why a definition for 'an emergency' is not in this bill. I would argue that 'administrative flexibility' is not a significant or sufficient response.

The second schedule of this bill will amend the Aged Care Act to empower the Department of Health secretary to conduct reviews. These reviews will ensure the arrangements for the delivery and administration of home services are effective and efficient. The assurance reviews will inform the continuous improvement of the home-care policy and the education of approved aged-care providers. The introduction of these reviews, while not specifically recommended by the aged-care royal commission, is welcomed. However, that is only if they do as described and increase the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the home-care system. We know that there are many aged-care providers doing amazing work who are dedicated to the health and wellbeing of those they care for—and it's not just the providers but, more importantly, the workers who are carrying out this care—but we also know that there are far too many providers who are not. It is highly concerning that an additional $17.7 billion will be spent throughout the aged-care sector without what Labor would deem an adequate level of transparency and accountability measures. Every dollar that is spent in the aged-care sector by the government should be going into care and not providers' profits, and we fear that, given the current parameters, this cannot be guaranteed.

The third schedule makes amendments relating to the Aged Care Financing Authority. The government replaced ACFA with a new working group that will report to the National Aged Care Advisory Council. The council was recommended by the royal commission under recommendation 7. Also, it was about time the Liberals overhauled the Aged Care Funding Instrument. We've known for many, many years—for the eight years this Liberal government has been in power—that it was an outdated system and did in fact need replacement. The government has just sat on reports, and this report, in particular, they have had for the last four years. So this government has been dragging its feet, trying to delay putting appropriate levels of funding into the aged-care sector. It then had to call its own royal commission into its own failings and five or six ministers that have had responsibility for aged care in this country in the last eight years. It finally called a royal commission into its own failings.

But it is disappointing to see that the government's response to the royal commission's final report, Neglect, falls short of resolving a number of key issues within the aged-care sector. It will also fail to deliver the improvements and reforms for the long term. Mr Morrison has failed to listen to Australians in the aged-care sector, he's failed to listen to the families and in particular he's failed to listen to the warnings of those people working in this sector.

There have been 22 reports handed down to this government alone, and they've failed to act. Now we see they're still failing to act on all the recommendations of their own royal commission. The Liberals are failing to deliver significant reform. We know that the aged-care workers in this country do a fantastic job. The majority of them are very dedicated, but they're overstretched and they're underpaid. We know that there was an opportunity for this government to put in a recommendation of support to ensure that aged-care workers in this country received a pay rise. But what did the government do? Nothing at all.

We know that the number of aged-care workers will need to almost triple to over a million workers by 2050. How can we attract people into the sector if we are allowing wages to currently stay at $21.09 an hour? How can we improve the care and quality in the aged-care sector if we don't acknowledge that properly remunerated staff are warranted and deserved in this country? Yet they're sending $3.2 billion to providers with basically no strings attached. There is no real guarantee that any of that money will go to provide actual better care, better food and better pay to these workers. That money should not be going into management's fitting-out of their offices. That money needs to go to ensuring that older Australians are treated with dignity and they get the care that they deserve.

This government has also ignored the recommendations of the royal commission to provide a nurse seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Without having appropriately staffed nursing available to them, we see older Australians ending up in accident and emergency, being left in emergency rooms, waiting for hours and hours to be treated. This is not good enough. We need to see the full recommendations, the 250 mandatory care minutes per resident provided in residential aged care. Again, staffing levels are central to many of the areas of quality care problems that we have seen and that have been reported over so many years being rectified.

I am happy to say that the Tasmanian Liberal government yesterday made the announcement that they're putting $3 million into training for aged-care and disability workers. Fantastic. I always acknowledge money that's invested into these areas. But, again, what we aren't seeing is any assurances that we are going to stop what we see as a transient workforce within the aged-care sector. People are using it as a measure to have a job while they're looking for something that pays better wages. What we need to ensure is that we have the best trained, most highly skilled, most motivated and best paid workforce in this sector and in disabilities.

But, if we go to the area of home-care packages, we see the failings of this government under Scott Morrison, who used this sector as his own personal ATM. He left minister after minister who has failed in this sector day in, day out. He reappointed Senator Colbeck as the minister with responsibilities in this area. I must say, most of the real decisions have been made by Minister Hunt. What is left is somebody who we have seen demonstrate failure to be across the issues in this chamber every single time he's asked a question in relation to aged care or vaccination of older Australians and aged-care workers. This government has failed to deliver home-care packages in a timely manner to people who have been assessed as needing the highest care in this country, the level 4 package. They have announced more money to go into aged-care packages but they've done nothing to ensure that there are aged-care workers who can deliver level 4 and level 3 care in a timely manner.

This is a government that uses smoke and mirrors. They like to make these announcements but they are never there for the follow-up. As a former Treasurer, Scott Morrison is responsible for taking out billions of dollars. Time and time again he has used this sector as his own ATM and spent that money in other areas. Now we are in a crisis. We have been in a crisis for the last eight years. We've seen this government fail to turn this around at every opportunity. They failed so much that they had to call a royal commission into their own failings. That's how good this government is! Mr Morrison says to the Australian people, 'Aged care is a priority.' Well, I would hate to see what this Prime Minister would do if this weren't a priority, because it's a bungled system that has been gutted by this government. (Time expired)

Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (10:16): I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021. This bill is in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which handed down its final report in March this year. While Labor supports this bill, it has to be said that the government's broader response to the royal commission has been inadequate. I want to use this opportunity today to speak to that.

The Liberals have failed to provide an adequate and sufficient plan to provide the reform to the aged-care sector that we know we need. They've failed to listen to Australians in aged care and their families and to the workers in our aged-care sector. They are not stepping up to deliver all of the enduring improvements we know are necessary to ensure that all Australians live out their later years with the dignity that they deserve. Let us be clear: aged care is a responsibility of the federal government. This makes aged care Prime Minister Morrison's responsibility. The Prime Minister, as we've seen time and time again, likes to shirk his responsibilities. There's always someone else to blame. It's always someone else's problem. But on aged care he cannot shirk his responsibilities. The job of regulating aged care and the providers within it falls squarely on the shoulders of our federal government.

For eight long years the federal government has presided over a system that the commissioners evidently felt, in handing down their interim report, could be summarised in just one word: neglect. The royal commission heard absolute horror stories of the treatment of older Australians, of black and blue bruises from falls ignored or dismissed, and of the abuse of chemical and physical restraints. We heard that an appalling two-thirds of aged-care residents were malnourished or at risk of being malnourished. That's two-thirds of our elderly fellow citizens in residential care not getting enough to eat. We heard of people being fed on just $6 a day. It's absolutely grotesque. In the last two years alone, of 100,000 people, we've had 28,000 Australians die while waiting for home-care packages which would allow them to enjoy some independence while they remain well enough.

We owe so much more to older Australians. In many ways, they built the society that we share now. Everyone knows someone in aged care, has a loved one in aged care or expects to have a loved one in aged care at some point. All of our elderly—everyone, every Australian—in aged care deserves so much better than what this government has presided over.

While Labor supports this bill, it has to be said that the government's broader response to the royal commission has not been good enough. Through the term of this government they've received 22 reports about the state of aged care. Now they are ignoring or failing to fully accept key recommendations of their royal commission. The government's failure is particularly pronounced when it comes to workforce issues in our aged-care sector. They have ignored, delayed or outright rejected key recommendations designed to address the poor wages, conditions and job security of workers in this sector.

Labor knows the vast majority of aged-care workers are dedicated individuals who go that extra mile to do what they can with already stretched time and resources to care for people's loved ones. I know many of them suffer immense distress when they're not able to provide the level and standard of care they know residents deserve, because they are not being supported to do so. These workers are truly essential to our society and to our economy, and how incredibly important and essential that their work is has been on full display these past couple of years. But you would never know that from the way that they've been treated by this government and the way their needs as a workforce have been ignored. The government has failed to implement the commission's recommendation of minimum standards for the amount of time qualified staff spend each day with residents, and the Prime Minister needs to explain why he has failed to accept this recommendation and also the recommendation that a nurse be on premises at all times in residential facilities.

Labor has been consistent in arguing that nothing will change in aged care without better support for the workforce. The Productivity Commission estimates Australia will need 700,000 additional aged-care workers by 2050 due to our ageing population. It can and should be an opportunity for well-paid, secure and profoundly meaningful work for hundreds of thousands of Australians, yet the government has no plan to increase wages of nurses and carers. Can they name just one meaningful thing they've done to provide genuine and meaningful support to workers in this industry or to make it an attractive industry—one that matches the level of importance to our society that it deserves? It is for these reasons, amongst others, that Labor is moving a second reading amendment to the bill, calling out the government's broader failures in aged care, and I hope it enjoys the support of this chamber. After eight long years of neglect of our aged-care system and our older Australians, it is only Labor who can be trusted to design and implement the real reforms necessary to ensure every Australian gets to age with dignity, comfort and respect, unlike this government, who has taken a bare-minimum approach rather than implemented the deep structural reform required to fix residential aged care.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the incredible aged-care workers in my home state of South Australia, some of whom I was lucky enough to meet when they came on a parliamentary delegation recently. They were in all sorts of roles, not only caring for residents but also working in more behind-the-scenes roles in our aged-care facilities: working as cooks and attendants, supporting our elderly in need. These workers had harrowing stories for me of the things they wanted to be able to do and the support they wanted to be able to provide to the residents in their care, but they felt so under supported and undervalued.

Particularly during this pandemic, where their work has become incredibly dangerous, they've feared what might happen if they contract COVID and pass it on to residents within their care. They've been very distressed about that reality, and they're very distressed about failures in the vaccine rollout, failures that mean that they're not protected at work, that they're not able to provide the protection for the residents they care for and that the residents they care for aren't protected to the extent that they should be. It's very distressing for these workers. I just want to acknowledge them and acknowledge the incredible work they're doing. They're waiting for more support from the federal government. They're waiting to be heard and to be given the reforms in their sector which mean they can go into work each and every day and provide that care and assistance to those that they look after. Labor supports those workers. We're listening to them. We understand how very, very tough it has been. We will continue to raise these issues in this chamber to make sure that aged-care workers' voices are heard and to make sure that residents in aged care are heard and supported. It's just not good enough to let these workers and these residents be ignored.

The royal commission's findings were absolutely harrowing. I know everyone in this chamber found them deeply distressing and disturbing. So now, as legislators, it's our opportunity to act to get it right, to look at the recommendations and to not do the bare minimum to just get by but to do everything we need to do to ensure that we are doing the absolute maximum to support our workforce and those living within aged care.

In conclusion, Labor will be supporting this bill. We are supporting this bill because it goes some of the way towards fixing serious problems within our aged-care system. But we do not stand here pretending it fixes everything. We think it does the bare minimum that it needs to do, and that's simply not good enough. It's simply not good enough for workers in residential aged care; it's simply not good enough for residents, who need genuine and meaningful reform. But, that said, we will support it. We need some action. We will be moving amendments to try and get this right, to get it done better.

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (10:27): I thank senators who have contributed to the debate. The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021 makes three urgent changes to deliver the first stage of aged-care reform in response to the royal commission and to ensure that senior Australians receive the high-quality and safe aged care they deserve.

From 1 July 2021, this bill introduces important limitations on the ability for approved providers to use restraints and strengthens protections for aged-care recipients from any abuse associated with this practice. The term 'restraint' will be replaced with 'restrictive practices', continuing regulatory harmonisation with the disability sector. Further and more specific details of the strengthened obligations on approved providers will be prescribed by the Quality of Care Principles 2014. The bill and the amended principles provide a framework to minimise the use of restrictive practices. The amendments do not authorise the use of restrictive practices where it is otherwise unlawful. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner's powers will be expanded to include the ability to give a written notice if a provider does not comply with its responsibilities relating to the use of restrictive practices and the ability to apply for a civil penalty order if they do not comply with the written notice.

The bill establishes an annual program of risk based assurance reviews of home-care providers. The Secretary of the Department of Health will be able to require approved home-care providers and their employees to provide information for the purposes of program assurance and to prepare and publish reports on the assurance reviews. This builds on our existing work to improve transparency of the aged-care sector and fosters community confidence in the costs of the care they receive. The bill also repeals the requirement for the minister to establish the Aged Care Financing Authority, the ACFA. An advisory group will be established to replace ACFA from July 2021 to ensure the government continues to receive advice on financing issues of the aged-care sector.

Again, I thank senators for their contributions to debate on this bill. The health, safety and wellbeing of senior Australians is of the utmost importance to the government and is driving our plan for generational change of the aged-care system.

The PRESIDENT: The questionis that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Watt be agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ) (10:39): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (10:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (10:39): I rise today to speak in support of the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. Labor will be supporting this bill, because we stand in support of workers across Australia who face lockdowns as a result of this government's gross incompetence in managing the COVID outbreaks, particularly the vaccine rollout and quarantine. Let's be really clear: the only reason this bill is necessary is the Prime Minister's failure on vaccines and quarantine. If the Prime Minister had done his job, we wouldn't be in this situation. This Prime Minister and this government began this year with two simple jobs: get the vaccine rollout happening and build purpose-built quarantine stations to keep Australians safe, to keep Australians in work, to keep our economy ticking over. They have comprehensively failed on both of those jobs, and hour by hour this situation gets worse. We know that Melbourne in recent weeks has been through more lockdowns because of breaches of hotel quarantine and because of the low rates of vaccination in the community—two jobs that the Prime Minister and this government have failed to do.

In the last few days we've seen much of Sydney all but locked down again because of breaches of hotel quarantine and because of the low rates of vaccination overseen and delivered by this government. Only in the last hour we have learned that in my home state of Queensland we now have three cases of COVID, possibly more, and, again, what is the cause? Hotel quarantine breaches and a poor vaccination rollout. The government's failures aren't just talking points, aren't just academic exercises; they have real-life consequences for Australians. We are now in a situation where, across the entire eastern seaboard, in each of the capital cities, we are facing some combination of lockdowns, restrictions, in some cases people losing their jobs and, terribly, some people actually contracting COVID. The government's failures have consequences. The consequences are not only the need to introduce the legislation and put more of the responsibility for payments on the taxpayer; they are costing people their health, they are costing people their jobs and they are costing people their movement.

We look around the world and see comparable nations like the US and the UK having vaccinated tens of millions of people, every week. Every week the US, for example, is vaccinating more people than Australia has managed in months. These are the nations we seek to compare ourselves to and they are so far ahead of us it is not funny. Again, because of the government's failures on quarantine and vaccination, Australians are paying the price. It is a very serious issue that this government is not taking seriously. Three capital cities on our eastern seaboard are facing lockdowns—or have just come out of them—with jobs lost, money lost out of the economy, people getting sick and the potential for things to get worse.

Let's look at what happened in Sydney over the last few days. The numbers started out small from one hotel quarantine breach and have escalated to a point where several council areas—several suburbs—are all but shut down, and now we're seeing it in Brisbane as well. At some point, this Prime Minister has to take responsibility for this matter. He has to take responsibility for the two jobs he had coming into this year—building purpose-built quarantine stations and getting the population vaccinated. I don't remember the exact figures but I think we're talking about, at the moment, four per cent of the Australian population being fully vaccinated—four per cent! If you did an exam and got four per cent, that would be a miserable failure; you would barely even be on the scoreboard. That is the situation the government and this Prime Minister have left our country in. Again, I can't remember the exact numbers but I think we're up to 24 or 25 hotel quarantine breaches. Probably with today's example it's higher still. How many times does this Prime Minister and this government need to see quarantine breaches and poor vaccination rates before they take control?

It is an absolute repeat of what we saw from this Prime Minister in the bushfire crisis. He didn't hold a hose then; he doesn't hold a dose now. This Prime Minister just will not take action. What have his coalition partners, the National Party, spent the week doing? Stabbing each other in the back. How do you think Australians feel when they look at this government at the moment?

Senator McCarthy: Despair.

Senator WATT: I'll take that interjection, Senator McCarthy: total despair—and total distrust. What they see is a government that is completely focused on themselves rather than on getting Australians vaccinated and keeping them safe from COVID through quarantine stations. We know that this Prime Minister is, if nothing else, a poll-driven marketing man. Let's forget about the public health benefits of this for the moment. With every poll you look at, Australians want purpose-built quarantine stations. But we have a Prime Minister who is so belligerent, so stubborn, so focused on constructing fights with state premiers that he won't even sit down and talk about a quarantine station in Queensland.

The Queensland government has been trying for months to get this government to engage on a quarantine station, in Queensland, right next to an airport and right next to a hospital. All you ever hear from the Prime Minister is, 'There's not enough detail.' You ask, 'What detail do you need?' and he says, 'There's not enough detail.' It is absolute rubbish from this Prime Minister. He's being stubborn. He doesn't want to sit down and take control of this situation and take responsibility for what is going on and lead the country. His coalition partners, the National Party, are completely obsessed with who gets to drive in the big car, who gets the big office, who gets the biggest hat and who gets the biggest pay rise.

As our leader, Anthony Albanese, has said, it is time for this government to get focused: more jabbing, less stabbing. That's what we need from this government. They are so obsessed with stabbing each other in the back, which, let's face it, they've been doing for three years in the National Party.

Senator McCarthy: Plus photo ops.

Senator WATT: Yes, let's not forget the photo ops. Remember the photo op with the Prime Minister, with his Australian mask? He didn't wait to get vaccinated. He was quick out of the blocks with the V for victory sign. He had a personal victory. He got a vaccination. What about the other 96 per cent of the Australian population who can't get a vaccination because this government didn't do enough vaccine deals? The Prime Minister can travel overseas. No other Australian can. The Prime Minister can get a vaccination—two vaccinations; he is fully vaccinated—he can travel overseas, he can go and do a bit of sightseeing and he can go and have a pub crawl. You can't even have a pub crawl in Sydney, but this Prime Minister is having a pub crawl in Cornwall, overseas, half a world away. He can go and inspect the graves of his dead relatives, who've been dead for 200 years. I know Australians who can't go to the funerals of their parents and their grandparents who died last week, but this Prime Minister can do that, and of course he gets his own quarantine arrangement where he beams down, Orwellian style, into the parliament. No other Australian can get that.

It is one rule for this government and this Prime Minister and another rule for everyone else. We see it over and over again. We see this complete failure to take responsibility that is, literally, putting Australians' lives at risk and, literally, putting Australians' jobs at risk. That's because this Prime Minister is so belligerent and so stubborn, refusing to take responsibility, and Australians pay the price. It's happening in Brisbane now, it's been happening in Sydney, it's happening in Melbourne and it won't take long, I'm sure, before it starts happening in other states and territories. It is unacceptable. If there is one thing the Australian people want this Prime Minister to do, it is to take responsibility, get us vaccinated and build purpose-built quarantine stations so that we don't have to turn on the news every night to learn about the next breach of hotel quarantine, because there will be more. Jane Halton, the government's own appointee to review the quarantine system, recommended months ago that we have purpose-built quarantine, but that was just another report delivered to this government that is sitting in the bottom drawer. They know what to do. Every expert has told them what to do—get people vaccinated, sign multiple vaccine deals, roll out the vaccine and build purpose-built quarantine stations—but they continue to refuse to do it. As I say, this has consequences. Australians pay the price.

That brings us to this bill, which is about providing financial assistance to some of the victims of this Prime Minister's complete failure to do his job. I'm sure that the Victorians who will receive and have been receiving these payments are grateful for the fact that payments are being made. That is a good thing. It is another example of something that Labor had to drag this government to do. We saw with JobKeeper that they didn't want to have wage subsidies. I think the Prime Minister's quote was that it was a dangerous step. We all remember the queues outside Centrelink of people who were forced onto the dole queues because this Prime Minister was too stubborn to do wage subsidies until he was dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing it. It is the same with these payments. For days we saw Victorians locked down, losing their jobs, and the Prime Minister refusing to step up: 'Oh, it's a state responsibility. It's a local government responsibility. It's somebody else's responsibility. It's anyone else's responsibility.' He's got 10 arms running around pointing at other people rather than having one finger which puts it on him. It's his job. So Victorians, I think, will be happy that they're getting these payments, but do you know what? I reckon they'd be a lot happier if they didn't have to get them in the first place. I reckon they'd be a lot happier if they could just get vaccinated and be kept safe from hotel quarantine breaches.

This bill will provide time limited assistance to eligible workers who are unable to earn their usual income as a result of public health restrictions. It contains two parts. The first creates a special appropriation to draw funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of the COVID-19 disaster payment over the next financial year. The second part of the bill creates a reporting requirement through the new National Recovery and Resilience Agency for payments through the special appropriation. Essentially, this bill guarantees that funding will be available to activate recovery payments for workers affected by lockdowns. That's why the opposition will be supporting this bill. It's something we called for well before the Prime Minister agreed to it.

What this bill doesn't do is lock in eligibility criteria for this payment, which we know from the recent COVID lockdown in Victoria left many struggling workers and families out in the cold. Labor will continue to fight to make sure that all workers hit by COVID are properly supported by this government. Supporting this bill will not change that.

We know that the Prime Minister was dragged, kicking and screaming, by the opposition and the Victorian government to provide any support to workers during this lockdown, just like this Prime Minister and this government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to make JobKeeper payments available when COVID first hit this country. If it were up to the Prime Minister, he would have done what he has always done—blame the Labor states and then do nothing—but Australians are starting to see through this Prime Minister. The truth is that the reason were still having lockdowns and the reason why this legislation is necessary is that the Prime Minister has failed to bring this pandemic under control. He has had two jobs—the vaccine rollout and quarantine—and he has failed at both. Only about four per cent of Australia has received both doses of a COVID vaccine. We are so far back in the queue you can't even imagine seeing the front of it. Last week the government said that only one out of 11 workers were fully vaccinated. Yesterday we found out that about 15 per cent of aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated. They are priority 1a. It doesn't get any higher than priority 1a, and it's only 15 per cent of aged-care workers.

Senator McCarthy: Disgrace.

Senator WATT: It is a disgrace, and it's a high risk situation. Get with the program. Get on with it. Every other country around the world that we like to compare ourselves with is getting on with it. They've vaccinated millions of people—tens of millions of people—and we can't even get to five per cent, and Australians are paying the price. How much money has been lost from local economies because of lockdowns? How many jobs have been lost because of this government's failure? It continues to say it's not a race. It is a race, and we are coming bone miserable last. We support this bill but we really want to see the government do its job. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

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

(a) notes the Government has:

(i) catastrophically failed to address outbreaks in hotel quarantine, which has led to extended lockdowns in states across Australia,

(ii) botched the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, which has left all Australians, but particularly aged care workers, vulnerable, and

(iii) failed to ensure that workers and businesses received the support needed in the recent Victorian lockdown,

(b) further notes this bill may not have been necessary, if not for the Government’s failure on quarantine and vaccines, both national responsibilities; and

(c) calls on the Government to:

(i) build dedicated quarantine facilities and expand existing facilities in every state and territory,

(ii) fix the vaccine rollout and expand mobile and mass vaccination clinics,

(iii) start a mass public information campaign to encourage people to get vaccinated, and

(iv) begin manufacturing mRNA vaccines right here in Australia'.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:55): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. This bill establishes a special appropriation to allow the Commonwealth to fund the COVID-19 disaster payments. The recent two-week lockdown in Melbourne was the first following the end of the JobKeeper wage subsidy. This left many workers, particularly casual workers and those on temporary visas, without a source of income. That takes me, first off, to the fact that we are doing nothing about addressing the increasingly insecure work in this country and the fact that so many people in this country have to put together a series of casual jobs, with insecure hours, resulting in insecure wages, which leads them to being in this position where they are without income, in many instances, from the two or three casual, insecure jobs that they may have.

The government ended JobKeeper much too early, despite warnings that there would be more COVID outbreaks, particularly when you bear in mind the issue around the failure, the shambles, of the rollout program for the vaccines and the failures in hotel quarantining. Hotels are not meant for quarantining. They were absolutely essential as stopgap measures when the pandemic first hit, but we've had a significant period of time now to put in place secure, purpose-built quarantine facilities modelled on the Howard Springs approach. It's not as if Australia doesn't know what works and hasn't got the experts that have been providing expert advice on what does and doesn't work—not to mention the fact that, while the government mouths the words about aerosols and the need to improve ventilation, and says, 'Yes, we're paying attention to aerosols,' we still don't have nationally consistent guidelines on aerosols. They mouth the words but they're not doing much about it. Because of that, it was inevitable that we would have further COVID outbreaks, unfortunately.

The government very cruelly cut the JobSeeker payment, as we know. They did the right thing at the beginning. We all in this chamber said they were doing the right thing in terms of doubling the rate of JobSeeker. But in the midst of this pandemic they took that away, in a cut-by-cut process, and then pretended that they had increased JobSeeker. I say 'pretended', because it was $40 a day and now it's just under $44 a day. I challenge anybody on the government benches to try and live on $44 a day. We all know you can't, and the government know that, because they doubled JobSeeker at the beginning of the pandemic. They did the right thing. They knew people couldn't survive on just $40 a day in a lockdown, and they doubled it.

This morning I was at a breakfast about women's economic futures. Terese Edwards, the CEO of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, very clearly articulated the benefits that that doubling had for families, particularly single-parent families, single mothers. It had a significant positive benefit. And here the government is not taking those same measures but just doing something so that they can say to the public: 'We've increased JobSeeker. Don't you worry about that. We've increased it.' Well, a measly $3 a day does not address the significant poverty that people are living in. In the middle of the pandemic, people are back to trying to survive on a payment on JobSeeker of just $44 a day.

This bill gives minimal support and does not go far enough to ensure that people who can't work or have additional costs due to lockdown are adequately supported. It's simply inadequate. It really is just plain cruelty that people on income support are denied access to this disaster payment. There's the low rates and the way it's being imposed—and I will go into more details about that in a minute—but, to add insult to injury, people on income support can't get it. We know very well that people on the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance, DSP and carer payments also lose work during lockdowns and face additional costs to stay safe at home and healthy during lockdowns.

This bill also says that if people have some savings, what they call liquid assets, above $10,000 they are not entitled to any payment at all. So if you've been saving for your first home and then you found yourself without any income, through no fault of your own, the federal government says, 'Dip into your home savings and do it potentially indefinitely.' If some people drew down from their super and put it into their savings to try and get through the lockdown, they will get punished for doing something that the government encouraged them to do. In other words, they are having to dip into that to get by when, if they hadn't done that, that money would still be in their super. If they have done this, they're not going to be able to get access to this payment.

This bill needs to be fixed. It has a number of flaws. This bill needs to be fixed to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks and to ensure that people aren't left in poverty during these lockdowns. If we had an income support system in this country that gave people enough to live on and didn't condemn them to poverty, we might not have to be in this situation where the government has to make hotspot-by-hotspot refinements. If everybody had, at a minimum, an eligibility for the amount of money that they, in fact, got when JobSeeker was doubled, which the government by its own admissions knows is what Australians need to live above the poverty line, we might not need to be making such special purpose payments.

Let's fix our social security system. If the minimum wage were higher and casual work and contracting didn't leave people living hour by hour on the work that they can find, struggling to make ends meet, we might not need to have these sorts of payments quite so much. If people weren't in insecure work, if people didn't have to stitch together several casual and insecure jobs to make ends meet, we might not be in this situation. The government should look beyond asking, 'What is the very least we can do?' They need to look at what has happened as a sign of a huge problem of growing inequality in this country and growing insecure work and look at how we fix it. Instead, we have a piecemeal approach that leaves people anxious and insecure, which has a significant impact on their wellbeing.

We have already seen the huge impact that the pandemic has had on people's mental health, wellbeing and anxiety. We have seen a huge increase in the need for mental health supports, for example. Of course the pandemic is having an impact on everyone in this country, but if you literally don't know where your next dollar is coming from it has an even more significant impact on your wellbeing and mental health. We have a huge problem where we have a significant number of people who are literally living pay to pay, week to week. If they miss shifts or if they have to pay for extra services because of lockdowns, they are simply unable to make ends meet. It is critical that people who have lost income through lockdowns have access to adequate support to ensure that they can put food on the table and they can keep a roof over their heads. The criterion set by the government in the middle of Victoria's last lockdown just doesn't do it. It doesn't go far enough. Too many people have been left behind and have just been ignored.

The Greens will be moving amendments, which I have already circulated in the chamber, to fix this bill and to make it fairer. The Greens amendments will remove eligibility criteria requiring the Chief Medical Officer to declare a location a hotspot; change the eligibility criteria from more than seven days to seven days or more; remove the criteria requiring recipients to have liquid assets of less than $10,000—that's simply unfair to so many people who are saving to try and buy their own home, for example—and remove the criteria preventing people on income support from accessing the payment.

I ask the Senate to support the Greens amendments so that we can fix this bill and ensure the disaster payment is accessible to more people. This will help ensure that people are not thrown into poverty, or having to dip into their savings for a home, every time there is a lockdown. On Tuesday, we had a debate on the housing crisis in this country. We have people desperately saving for a deposit on their first home, which we know is increasingly hard to do in this country, and the government is saying, 'You use that money when there's a lockdown.' It's not their fault that a lockdown is imposed; it's the fault of the current failures in quarantine and in the vaccine program, but the government says: 'You pay for it out of the deposit you're saving for your first home.' They've struggled to put it together and they're struggling to afford a home, because of the increasingly unaffordable housing market in this country, but the government says, 'You dip into that deposit and you pay for the lockdown.' That is not fair. That is not what I would call a fair Australia. Our amendments will make this bill and the payment fairer, so that fewer people in this country are condemned to poverty and so that the COVID crisis doesn't fuel the poverty crisis in this country. We know that more and more people are falling below the poverty line. Without the Greens amendments to this payment, that will continue to happen.

We will be supporting Labor's second reading amendment. I ask the chamber to support the Greens amendments in Committee of the Whole to make this bill fair so more Australians are supported and so that we do the best we can for people if they have to go into lockdown—not the least, which is what this bill does.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (11:08): I rise to speak to the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. The first part of the bill creates a special appropriation to draw funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the COVID-19 disaster payment. The second part creates a reporting requirement for payments through the special appropriations.

First, I note that this bill would not have been necessary if the government was, in fact, a competent government. The Australian people know too well that this tired, old Morrison government has mishandled the pandemic from the very outset. They have mishandled the rollout of the vaccine and they have mishandled quarantine. To this day, only three per cent of Australians have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The only reason this legislation is before this place is that the Morrison government has failed to bring the pandemic under control. Whether through the vaccine rollout, hotel quarantine or cutting off JobKeeper in an ongoing pandemic, this government has failed Australian workers and it has failed Australian businesses.

We have also seen firsthand the ongoing failure of this government in cutting the supplement that was being paid to aged-care workers to prevent them from having to do what too many of them do on a day-to-day basis, and that is work across multiple aged-care homes. I might add that this government has done nothing to raise the remuneration of these frontline, hardworking, committed workers in the aged-care sector, so they gave them a supplement during the pandemic initially so that they wouldn't be forced to work across multiple aged-care homes, to try and assist with containing the pandemic. But they lifted that far too early, and what did they have to do when Victoria went back into lockdown? They had to re-engage and go back to funding that supplement.

Every Australian has felt for the Victorian community in so far as they have now had a number of lockdowns. But what we've seen from this government is an allocation of less than $3 for each Victorian who was forced into lockdown. Again, for many Victorian workers and, again, for many businesses, particularly small businesses, that was far too little, far too late. As fellow Australians, those Victorians deserve so much better from this government. Mr Frydenberg has only coughed up a fraction of the $100 million a day that the Treasury secretary warned could be lost because of this lockdown. Victorians shouldn't have to be out of pocket because they had to go into a fourth lockdown; it was not their doing. It is clearly the Morrison government's responsibility to roll out the vaccines in this country—it took them while to admit that that was actually their responsibility, particularly their aged-care minister—and they also have the fundamental responsibility for quarantine, and again they have failed in both of those.

We've heard Mr Morrison say on a number of occasions that the rollout of the vaccine isn't a race. Hello, Mr Morrison? There is not another Australian out there in the community—there might be in part of your party room—who believes that it isn't a race to roll out the vaccine. It is in fact a very important race to get ahead of the pandemic, because the pandemic is on two fronts. The first is the health outcome, and we've seen Australians die. The second is the effect on our economy, on Australian workers, on Australian jobs. Only three per cent of Australians have had both jabs and are fully vaccinated—again a failure by this government to meet its own announcement about when this rollout would be completed and they would be able to vaccinate and keep Australians safe.

Australians want to return to normality; that's what they want to do. We want visitors coming to my island state of Tasmania. Hotel workers and other people in the hospitality and the tourism sector want to know that they can go back to running their businesses and employ their workers, knowing that there are not going to be any further lockdowns. But to ensure that that happens the government should have from the outset addressed the reality that hotels are built to accommodate people on either business or holiday, as they are everywhere else in the world, but they're not actually built for quarantine in a pandemic as severe as we have now with COVID-19. And now the mutations of that are proving that hotels are in fact the worst place—in inner cities around this country—to house people who are going into quarantine. So this government again has failed to provide, around the country, purpose-built quarantine facilities. We have one such facility, and there has not been one outbreak from that centre. Surely, even the slow learners on that side of the chamber and the slow-learning Prime Minister can see that it is a failure to continue to have quarantine in our cities in hotels.

What we've seen over the course of this pandemic from those opposite is that they love to come into the chamber and blame the Victorian state government for the quarantine failures. Well, yes, there were learnings. There were learnings in relation to those people who were meant to be providing security. But those lessons around the country have been, overwhelmingly learnt by the state governments. But this government has not learnt the lesson about ensuring that Australians are kept safe while they try to roll out the vaccine—which they have bungled. It's almost like everything these people touch, they stuff. But they haven't learnt the fundamental responsibility that they have, and that is to ensure there's adequate, safe, purpose-built quarantine in this country.

What we have also seen from this government in a very important sector in this country, one where there are a lot of vulnerable Australians—the aged-care sector—is that they haven't been able to roll out the vaccines for workers in the aged-care sector. Nor have they in the disability sector, and they still don't have a reliable methodology for reporting tangible evidence on how many workers in the aged-care and disability sectors have been fully vaccinated.

I'm a proud Tasmanian and I live in the north of the state. I've had things reported back to me from my electorate office this week, and that's happening week by week. This week a gentleman from George Town, a beautiful place on the Tamar River, rang frustrated and concerned because he wants the Pfizer vaccine. He has been, as all Tasmanians have been, urged to get vaccinated, but he's reporting to my office that there is a very slow rollout and people can't access the Pfizer vaccine. That's anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me that, when you have a number of people from the same community making contact with your office, there's got to be something in it.

I also had a lady ring the office this week concerned about the efficacy of AstraZeneca vaccine. She too wants the Pfizer vaccine. Because this government have failed to get more Australians vaccinated in a timely manner, what we see now is people saying, 'No, I don't want AstraZeneca; I want to wait for Pfizer,' which means the whole herd immunity that we have been trying to encourage Australians to be part of is going to be delayed. We already have an issue with younger members of our community in their 20s, 30s and 40s who don't really want to have the vaccine because they're concerned that the information that's coming out to them gets changed. Even people who have had their first jab of AstraZeneca, which I have had myself, are now questioning whether they should have the second jab. That should be a major concern for this government. What we haven't seen from this government is an effective advertising campaign that is encouraging Australians to get their vaccine, to reassure them that these vaccines, whichever one it is, are safe and give you protection. There may have to be boosters—that's probably likely—like we have with the flu vaccine each year. But the reality is that, no matter where you look, this government keeps failing, at a time when we can ill afford for this government to fail.

Unfortunately, we have seen too many Australians pass away from COVID-19 over the course of the last 12 months or so. We have learnt those lessons, and, in terms of those people in residential aged care who have been vaccinated, the figures are far better than they were even a month ago. But we have still failed to ensure, for the beneficiaries of home-care packages, that the workers who are going into the homes of those vulnerable older Australians have been fully vaccinated. Again, there is no evidence that this government has any real-time data to give that reassurance to the Australian community. I have a particularly strong concern for older Australians, particularly because I come from Tasmania, where we have the oldest population. The Tasmanian community and its seniors are more vulnerable—but not that much more, I have to say. It probably equates to that of the Northern Territory community and our First Nations people.

This government has brought in this legislation primarily because they have bungled this. As I said earlier, the supplement that was being paid to aged-care workers around this country to ensure that they were not having to work across various homes—which they do because their salaries are not enough for them to provide for their families—should not have been removed until we were through with and had dealt with this pandemic. That would have been the sensible thing to do. The fact that aged-care workers, who are on the front line, can't provide for their families on their salaries is a real disgrace. They are the people who, on a day-to-day basis, give care and support to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. It's a real disgrace in this country. It's a disgrace, because this government did not support them when they were seeking to have their wages increased to enable them to provide for their families.

We have known for a long time now—since Mr Morrison has been the Prime Minister of this country and the Leader of the Liberal Party—that he is a man who is very loose with the truth. Any commitment that he gives can be taken with a grain of salt. This is a government that is driven by ego. It's a government that is driven by self-interest, and it lacks the compassion and leadership that this country so desperately needs.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (11:23): I too rise to make a contribution to the debate on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. The only reason this bill is necessary is that the Morrison government has failed, on many fronts, to bring this pandemic under control, whether it's the vaccine rollout; hotel quarantine; cutting off JobKeeper, particularly to early childhood educators in an ongoing pandemic; the Australians, including children, stuck overseas; the international students not being able to come back to this country; migrant workers; or the Australians with fiances and fiancees on prospective marriage subclass 300 visas. On every single level, the Morrison government has failed in this pandemic. More than that, it steadfastly refuses to speed up the vaccine rollout, and it is completely denying that we need proper quarantine facilities. It had two jobs: rolling out the vaccine and establishing good, safe quarantine. It has failed miserably on both fronts. I think, at the moment, we're up to almost one breakout a week from hotels, which are not quarantine facilities. They are not designed for that purpose. There's a human element to every single step the government fails to take, whether it's children being stuck in India—that's not the only country they're stuck in, but that is disgraceful. Why the government simply can't act to bring those children home is beyond my comprehension. It is not a hard problem to solve and it should certainly be expedited.

I want to illustrate the damage that can be done when political parties seek to politicise this pandemic, and it's certainly not something that Labor is seeking to do. Earlier in the week the Australian Greens put forward a motion calling for holders of PMV300 visas to be exempt from the inbound travel ban. That was a good motion. Labor supported it. But those of us in this place know that motions have very little effect. They don't have an actionable outcome. What we know on this side is that, in true Greens fashion, the Australian Greens wanted to use this motion as a wedge—particularly, I suspect, against the Labor Party. So there was the usual email campaign, presumably targeted at Labor senators. The Greens had obviously indicated to their supporters that we wouldn't support this motion and that we needed prompting from voters. And, of course, it was an opportunity for Greens to gather email addresses for future propaganda purposes.

What the Greens failed to realise or completely ignored was that with this motion comes the pain being experienced by Australians with loved ones stuck overseas. Yes, sheet the blame home to the Morrison government, but realise what damage your motions do to individuals who think that because I've supported a motion somehow that forces the Morrison government to act. We know in this place it doesn't. I'm really angry about this.

Yesterday I had an email from one of those people, a woman who thanked me for supporting the email. It wasn't part of the Greens campaign; she was just grateful that I had supported that email. She said she'd searched everywhere on the internet and in the parliamentary papers to see when the action was going to take place, when her fiance who is stuck overseas as a result of the Morrison government—but rescued, apparently, by a Greens motion—was going to be allowed into this country.

I went back to her and said that I was extremely upset the Greens would be so short-sighted as to cause her further pain, to raise her hope that somehow the Greens motion in the Senate would result in her fiance being able to come down to this country. I said, 'I'm really sorry you were misled by the Australian Greens.' There's no doubt she was. She came back to me and said, 'I'm really sorry I misunderstood.' I said, 'You did not misunderstand; you were misled by the Australian Greens.'

All the Greens have done for that woman is cause her further disappointment and pain. They gave her false hope running off the back of this COVID pandemic. The Morrison government is at fault, too, because they failed to act. But, clearly, to politicise this situation in the way the Greens did, to give false hope to people with goodness knows what consequences, is a disgrace.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (11:28): I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021 and I want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Senator Siewert on this bill. Of course we should be providing support to people who need this, in these devastating circumstances, but, as Senator Siewert said, we should be providing it to every single person who is living here and who is facing economic and social impacts. This government has locked them out of support payments and they're living on the poverty line, and we will be moving amendments to that effect.

While it is good to see that this bill extends COVID disaster payments, we know that this government has completely failed on the vaccine rollout. And, because of this, New South Wales at this moment is on the brink of another lockdown. It's been 15 months since we first went into lockdown and there is still no plan to open our borders. There are hundreds of thousands of families who are separated; there are gut-wrenching stories everywhere. I haven't seen my mum and daughter since 2019. Seeing Prime Minister Morrison gallivanting around the UK while he dodges responsibility for the vaccine rollout and refuses to safely open borders has made the daily pain of not being able to see my family so much worse. When I shared my story of being separated from my mother and daughter for two years now, there was an outpouring of grief and anger. So many people shared with me their painful stories in response. Here are some of the most heartbreaking stories of what turning this country into so-called 'fortress Australia' has done to its people. I do want to share some of them with the senators in the chamber.

Sonia told me she:

… had to watch her father be buried via Facebook live with her mother sobbing and none of her children there to hold her (they all live in Australia). And now it's sounding like it will be another year and a half before they will be allowed to see her. She's grieving on her own when she would have such comfort being surrounded by her daughters and grandchildren.

Ro shared a painful story, but one also of the extremely cold and cruel rejection of her multiple requests for exemption to be with her family. She said:

Last year, I applied for exemption to leave Australia to help my parents as they were in Lockdown. In my exemption letter I mentioned that they didn't have anybody to help them. My exemption was rejected. My brother and I applied again and wrote to the exemption team that we are desperate to leave Australia as one of us needs to be with our parents. Again rejected. My father contracted COVID and I reapplied and begged the team to allow me to leave Australia and again our exemption was rejected. My father passed away and my mother was in his funeral alone. How can I have my mum in Australia for some time to mourn together and to offer her help and my emotional support? How can I relieve this crippling burden from myself that has taken away my functioning when government doesn't allow family reunification after horrible things that have happened to families during the corona pandemic.

Carissa said:

It's almost 2 years since I've seen my parents in the USA. They are fully vaccinated and would be overjoyed to quarantine for 3 or even 4 weeks at our home with us. This government and its supporters have zero appreciation for the empty aching feeling we experience as immigrants and the skills we contribute to this country.

Sue said:

I haven't seen my mum and dad for 4yrs due to health issues and my dad has Alzheimers and Leukemia and time isn't on my side, so being prevented from seeing them is heartbreaking.

Time isn't on my side, either. My mum is 84, and almost every day I speak to her she says her desperate wish is to see me before she dies.

Steffi said:

I am an only child and haven't seen my parents in almost 2 years. My 3 year old daughter doesn't even remember being hugged by them and thinks they only exist on screen. We are considering giving up our lives and good jobs here soon in order to be with family. This situation is mentally unbearable for so many of us. Parents are immediate family.

Chitra said:

Thank you Senator Mehreen Faruqi for raising this issue.

My mother is living alone in India for the last 18 months after my father died and I am her only child . She is fully vaccinated. I am waiting desperately to hug her and hold her but there is no date I can give her without the government putting out a plan. Let's push for the government to put forth a plan to reunite Aussie families.

Geetesh said:

Our 10 months old daughters never seen her grandparents and we are going through such emotional and difficult phase without our parents. Don't know why this government doesn't understand that parents are first in immediate family.

Laura said:

We have an 18 month old baby boy that none of our family have met they will never get to hold him as a baby! My heart is broken.

Julia said:

I can feel you, I miss my parents. My 3 year old daughter cries at every plane screaming for ger nonna and. Nonno. She said that she wants real cuddles no phone cuddles. This is cruel. I cant breath. Im constantly sad and hopeless.

There are dozens and dozens more stories, and I think it's pretty shameful for Labor senators to stand up here and say that we're politicising this issue in some way, shape or form. There are thousands upon thousands of families who have not been able to see each other, because this government and the Prime Minister have botched up the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. To Scott Morrison, I say: 'Stop dodging responsibility for the vaccine rollout. Your incompetence is preventing families from reuniting. Try to conjure up even the smallest bit of compassion and start taking seriously this country's vaccine rollout so we can safely open up our borders and families can hug and see each other again.'

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (11:36): I thank Senator Faruqi for reading out the accounts of some of the many thousands of Australians who are in that position. There are many people in this building who are in very similar positions. Of course, the debate about this bill occurs as my home state of New South Wales is teetering on the edge of a much broader set of public health responses. Hundreds and hundreds of people are now in isolation, with scores of infections. In the New South Wales parliament itself, a senior minister in the Berejiklian government has a COVID-19 infection. Many ministers and MPs and their staff are now in isolation. I want to send a message of solidarity and support to them, as that parliament works its way through how it should respond.

I particularly want to pay tribute to Chris Minns, the new Labor leader. He saw the responsibility, early and clearly, to act in the public interest, and he has cancelled the budget reply speech, which he was due to deliver today. That was going to be an important moment for Mr Minns to set out his vision for the future of New South Wales, as new Labor leader. It shows that he has his priorities right and the interests of the people of New South Wales in his heart, rather than being concerned with the narrow political interest. I think he is to be commended for taking that approach. In contrast, I don't believe that the Morrison government has ever really grasped its responsibility in this crisis—in public health terms, in economic terms or in social terms. Like Mr Minns, Mr Albanese and federal Labor took a constructive approach to the coronavirus crisis over the course of last year. But all the way through last year you could see that the seeds of the government's failure in 2021 were being sown by the inaction and incapacity of the Morrison government to do the things necessary to put Australia in the right position now.

Why is it, 15 months later, that there is no system of quarantine in each of the states and territories that is credible? Why is it that we are still relying upon hotel quarantine, which is a stop-gap solution? Hotels are not hospitals. There have been 24 outbreaks in hotel quarantine. Why is it that, 12 months ago, when representatives of the government met with Pfizer they lost the opportunity to secure sufficient doses to make sure that Australians had a choice of vaccines? In the United States and the United Kingdom, where variously 35 and 45 per cent are vaccinated—and it's north of that in some of the European countries—they have a series of vaccine options. The Morrison government squandered that and bet the house on one product, essentially—AstraZeneca. Pfizer was an afterthought. Now the vaccine rollout is absolutely mired in failure and unable to get past the starting gate. Still just a little bit over three per cent of Australians are fully vaccinated.

Australians deserve much credit for our progress through the coronavirus pandemic so far. The state governments, businesses and trade unions have been working together to solve problems, looking after each other, but the Morrison government itself has been entirely absent in terms of a position of public leadership. Of course, there is an alternative plan. These kind of stop-gap measures are necessary, but they are necessary because the government hasn't executed its proper responsibility. There is an alternative plan. Anthony Albanese set it out very clearly.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator AYRES: 'Albo' to me, Senator Abetz. Firstly, get the vaccine rollout right. Get it right. Get needles into the arms of Australians across the country, make sure that we have a population that is resilient and safe, and execute the vaccine rollout safely and sensibly, like every other country. Why are we 100th in the queue? Why is Australia a global laggard instead of at the front of the queue? Let's get quarantine right, build quarantine in every state and territory and make sure that Australians can return safely. The problems that were outlined earlier this morning can be resolved by getting those two basic Commonwealth responsibilities right.

Next, let's effectively manufacture safe vaccines in Australia, build the relationship with our research facilities and make Australia a leader. Finally, let's get a public health campaign that's actually convincing. This is a Prime Minister who only understands one thing: self-promotion and advertising. That's all he understands. He has not been able to bring his instinct for advertising to advertising for public health for the safety of Australians. Have a look at the French campaign. The French campaign is about opening France up and encouraging French citizens to get vaccinated. There is no Australian equivalent. Why? It's become clear why there isn't a campaign. Despite the Prime Minister's overwhelming instinct for advertising, the reason there isn't a campaign is that it would lay bare the lack of supply of vaccines. The public officials finally told the truth earlier this week. Senator Abetz would have been listening. There will be no public advertising campaign until the government's vaccine supply failures are finally resolved. They know that, if they advertise, people will line up for vaccines, and, when they line up for vaccines, there will be no vaccines available.

Debate interrupted.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:45): I present the seventh report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2021

24 June 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

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 7.14 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending Jobkeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 August 2021 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 July 2021 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the provisions of the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 August 2021 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(e) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2021 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(f) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 be referred for inquiry and report by 6 August 2021 but was unable to reach agreement on a committee (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3.   The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021

COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021

Farm Household Support Amendment (Debt Waiver) Bill 2021

Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021.

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

Air Services Amendment Bill 2018

Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021

Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021

Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2021

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020

Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018

Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021

Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2021

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021

Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021

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

Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019

Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021

Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Transparency and Cost Recovery) Bill 2021

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021

Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021

Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020

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

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021.

(Dean Smith)

Chair

24 June 2021

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill :

Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending Jobkeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To provide an opportunity for consideration of the specifics of the Bill, and assess the implications of it's passage through the Parliament

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Treasury

ATO

Business recipients

Academia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Monday 19 July - Thursday 29 July

Friday 6 August

Friday 13 August

Possible reporting date:

Friday 20 August

(signed)

Print name:

Rachel Siewert

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Prop osal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complex bill on an important matter of public policy

Possible submissions or evidence from:

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Attorney-General's Department, the Law Council and other legal bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

13 August 2021

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Prop osal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill :

Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission - Better Advice) Bil 12021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Consideration of Hayne royal commission response and impacts on advice indsutry

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Consumer advocates (CHOICE, CALC, FRLC, Super Consumers), peak bodies (FPA, AFA, AIOFP, SFAA, FSC), individual financial advisers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

28 July 2021

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Mitochondrial donation is a complex medical and ethical issue with strong personal views held by the community and parliamentarians. In order to inform parliamentarians of the complex issues involved, a Senate inquiry is considered to be helpful.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Mito Foundation, Australian Medical Association, Catholic Church, other religious and medical groups.

Committee to which bill is to be referred

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

18 August 2021

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Prop osal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration.

Consider the impact of the Bill on families, children and the economy.

Poss ible submissions or evidence fr om:

FECCA ACOSS COSBOA AIG

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

14 September 2021

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021.

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This Bill implements a budget measure that will stop newly arrived migrants and refugees from accessing income support payments for four years.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia

Settlement Council of Australia

Asylum Seeker Resource Centre

Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia

Settlement Services International

Law Council of Australia

Economic Justice Australia

Australian Council of Social Service

Anglicare Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

It is likely to be a complex bill on a very important matter of public policy (it is likely that it will purport to implement the recommendations in the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's Respect@Work report).

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Union and employer groups

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

6 Augugust2021

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

An inquiry will allow the Ctee to consider the extent to which the amendment reflect the recommendations of the Respect @Work Report, and commitments made by the government to implementation of those recommendations.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACTU, CPSU and other unions

Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Women's safety organisations

Workplace Gender Equality Agency

Parliamentary Services Commission

Business Council of Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Employment and Education Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

August 2021

Possible reporting date:

September 2021

(signed)

Senator Rachel Siewert

Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:45): I move an amendment to the motion:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021, contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 August 2021."

The amendment is very straightforward. It has been circulated in the chamber. It is to refer the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, rather than the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, for inquiry and report. We think it fits more appropriately there, because the Fair Work legislation normally goes to that committee.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:50): I move:

That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for other purposes. Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 and A Bill for an Act to amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, and for related purposes. Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021.

Question agreed to.

Senator RUSTON: I present the bills and move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:51): I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

SEX DISCRIMINATION AND FAIR WORK (RESPECT AT WORK) AMENDMENT BILL 2021

Sexual harassment is unacceptable in any context, whether in the workplace or elsewhere. Everyone has the right to feel safe at work.

That is why the Australian Government funded the Australian Human Rights Commission to undertake a landmark National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. The first of its kind in the world.

The Government's response – released on 8 April 2021 – is about creating a new culture of respectful behaviour in Australian workplaces, because the end product of the National Inquiry – the Respect@Work Report – found that too many workplace cultures fall short.

The Respect@Work Report made 55 recommendations directed at the Australian Government, states and territories, employers, and industry groups, highlighting the important roles that all groups have in supporting cultural change and creating safe workplaces.

The Australian Government has already provided more than $20.5 million over four years in the 2021-22 Federal Budget to support implementation of its response to the Respect@Work Report, outlined in the 'Roadmap for Respect: Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces'.

For those recommendations that require action from the state and territory governments, the Australian Government has led discussions through appropriate national forums, including at National Cabinet and the Meeting of Attorneys-General.

The Government looks forward to receiving the State and Territory responses to the Respect@Work Report by 30 June 2021.

Today the Government presents the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021,which implements the Government's legislative commitments under the Roadmap and directly responds to the findings of the Respect@Work Report. These legislative amendments are aimed at rapidly strengthening and streamlining the national legal frameworks that deal with sexual harassment. The Bill makes important changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act1986, and the Fair Work Act 2009 to ensure Australia's legal and regulatory frameworks are effective in preventing and responding to sexual harassment.

Sex Discrimination Act

The Sex Discrimination Act provides an important framework to protect against discrimination on various grounds, including discrimination involving harassment.

The Bill introduces a new object in the Sex Discrimination Act of achieving equality of opportunity between men and women. While achieving substantive equality between men and women requires a cultural change that goes beyond legislative reform, the Government is confident that this Bill, in addition to the other work that the Government and civil society is progressing to implement the Roadmap, will be a step towards achieving equality of opportunity between men and women in Australia.

The Bill also makes a number of changes to expand the scope of existing protections under the Sex Discrimination Act.

These include amendments to remove the exemption of state and territory public servants, and clarify that the Sex Discrimination Act extends to Members of Parliament and Judges at the federal and state and territory levels, to ensure all workers have the same protections from sex discrimination and sexual harassment regardless of their jurisdiction, occupation or workplace.

The Bill also makes clear that discrimination involving harassment on the ground of sex is expressly prohibited and will not be tolerated. Making this clear under the Sex Discrimination Act will ensure there is a clear avenue of redress for sex based harassment, that does not involve sexualised conduct but is also unacceptable.

Importantly, the Bill fills gaps in the Sex Discrimination Act's current coverage of types of workers in an employment context. The Respect@Work Report identified that the sexual harassment protections do not cover all persons in the contemporary world of work. The Bill will fill these gaps by expanding the scope of the sexual harassment and sex-based harassment protections to all types of paid and unpaid workers. The amendments draw on concepts used in the model Work Health and Safety laws to ensure greater consistency between legal frameworks that address sexual harassment, making it easier for workers and employers to navigate these frameworks.

The Bill also makes a number of technical amendments, such as clarifying that the victimisation offence in the Sex Discrimination Act can form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination, and ensuring that the ancillary liability of persons involved in unlawful acts extends to sexual and sex-based harassment prohibitions under the Sex Discrimination Act.

Australian Human Rights Commission Act amendments

To ensure complainants are encouraged to come forward when unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act does occur, the Bill will amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to reduce procedural barriers.

The Bill will amend the President's discretion to terminate a complaint under the Sex Discrimination Act on the grounds of time so that it does not arise until 24 months after the alleged discrimination took place. This discretion previously arose after six months.

Fair Work Act amendments

In addition to reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act and Australian Human Rights Commission Act, the Bill will amend the Fair Work Act to clarify what action can be taken to deal with workplace sexual harassment.

The Bill adds a new legislative note in the unfair dismissal provisions in the Fair Work Act, which makes clear that sexual harassment can constitute a valid reason for dismissal. This is not a change to the law – sexual harassment of course can already constitute a valid reason for dismissal. However, the addition of the legislative note will provide greater certainty to employers that taking disciplinary action in response to workplace sexual harassment is appropriate and reasonable. It also clearly communicates to perpetrators of sexual harassment that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated in the workplace.

The Bill will also clarify and expressly provide for the availability of 'stop orders' in relation to sexual harassment within the existing stop-bullying jurisdiction. This change will ensure a clear pathway for those who have been sexually harassed at work to seek an order from the Fair Work Commission to prevent further workplace sexual harassment. This will enable more sexual harassment victims to pursue workplace claims through the Commission, which offers an independent, expeditious and low cost avenue for handling workplace sexual harassment.

These amendments form an integral part of the Government's long term commitment to building a culture of safe, respectful relationships in Australian workplaces.

This Bill also introduces an important change to the compassionate leave provisions in the Fair Work Act that will enable an employee to take compassionate leave if they, or their spouse or de facto partner, has a miscarriage.

A miscarriage can be an incredibly difficult experience for many families and sadly one that is often surrounded with social stigma and silence.

It is estimated that one in five confirmed pregnancies in Australia ends in miscarriage before 20 weeks, however the Fair Work Act does not currently provide any specific leave entitlements for miscarriage.

Currently, the Fair Work Act provides two days' paid compassionate leave (unpaid for casuals) when a member of the employee's immediate family or household contracts or develops a personal illness, or sustains a personal injury, that poses a serious threat to their life, or dies. Compassionate leave is also available where a child is stillborn, where the child would have been a member of the employee's immediate family, or a member of the employee's household, if the child had been born alive.

This change will ensure that an employee can take time away from work to grieve and come to terms with their loss.

The Government recognises that most employers are supportive of their employees. Employers can of course continue to offer leave that goes beyond the minimum safety net and employees will continue to have the benefit of any additional related leave terms in existing enterprise agreements.

While not everyone who experiences a miscarriage will want to access compassionate leave, it is important that we give employees the choice to access that leave, should they choose to.

On behalf of the government, I would like to thank all of those who have shared their experiences and incredibly painful memories to bring these changes to Parliament, including the Pink Elephants Support Network and Mr Julian Simmonds MP, Member for Ryan who has championed this amendment.

Conclusion

In summary, this Bill will ensure all Australians are protected from workplace sexual harassment, by expanding the scope of existing sexual harassment prohibitions, promoting clarity for employers and workers, and reducing procedural barriers for sexual harassment complainants.

Together with the other commitments outlined in the Government's Roadmap for Respect, these amendments will support the creation of safe workplaces and are essential for advancing both women's safety and economic security.

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL SECURITY LEGISLATION MONITOR AMENDMENT BILL 2021

The Government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. Australia has a robust national security and counter-terrorism framework to ensure that our agencies have the powers they need to prevent terrorist attacks and deal with those who would seek to commit them.

These laws need regular assessment to ensure that powers remain appropriate to the current threat environment, and that the objective of protecting national security is balanced against upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals.

The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (the Monitor) independently reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's national security and counter-terrorism laws, ensuring they contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain proportionate to terrorism or national security threats, and remain necessary.

This Bill would amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 (INSLM Act) to clarify reporting arrangements for the Monitor and provide a framework for the engagement of staff to assist the Monitor in its work.

The amendments will assist the Monitor in the performance of their role, and as a result, will help ensure Australia's counter‑terrorism and national security legislation remains proportionate and consistent with Australia's international obligations.

Amendments to clarify the Monitor ' s reporting arrangements

A key function of the Monitor is to review Commonwealth counter‑terrorism and national security legislation and to report on the outcomes of those reviews.

The Monitor can conduct own motion reviews on specific matters, and must conduct specific statutory reviews and reviews on matters referred by the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) may also refer matters to the Monitor, and the Monitor may decide to take up the referral as an own motion review.

This Bill would amend the INSLM Act to enable the Monitor to report on own motion inquiries in standalone reports, separate to the Monitor's annual reports, and to clarify the review and reporting arrangements for statutory reviews, own motion reviews and reviews conducted under a PJCIS referral.

This responds to recommendations made by the former Monitor, Dr James Renwick CSC SC, and by the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community.

Amendments to address the engagement of staff to assist the Monitor

The Bill would also provide a framework for the engagement of staff to assist the Monitor. The Monitor is a part-time statutory appointment. When the position was established in 2010, it was envisaged that the Monitor would only undertake one review a year. Since then, the role has evolved, including through an increased number of statutory reviews of various legislation.

The Monitor is now supported by three permanent employees of the Attorney-General's Department, whose services have been made available to assist the Monitor, as well as legal representatives who are engaged in relation to specific reviews.

This Bill would formalise arrangements by amending the INSLM Act to include provisions for the engagement of staff (including contractors) to assist the Monitor with the performance of functions and exercise of powers.

The Bill also provides current and former staff of the Monitor with appropriate protections for any acts or omissions done by that person in good faith during the course of assisting the Monitor in the performance of its functions or exercise of its powers.

These protections are similar to arrangements for the staff of other statutory oversight officeholders, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Integrity Commissioner and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Conclusion

The Government acknowledges and appreciates the Monitor's ongoing role in reviewing the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's national security and counter-terrorism legislation. If passed, this Bill will assist the Monitor in the performance of their role, helping to ensure Australia's counter-terrorism and national security legislation remains necessary, appropriate and proportionate.

The PRESIDENT: In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of these bills is now adjourned until 3 August 2021.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:46): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator PATRICK: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The purpose of the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021 is to ban absolutely the importation of goods that are produced in whole or part by forced labour.

The Australian Parliament has expressed strong support for international efforts to suppress modern slavery.

Estimates of the number of slaves across the world range from around 38 million to 46 million and the use of forced labour within global production chains has emerged as a major humanitarian concern.

The issue of modern slavery has also been highlighted by the well documented human rights abuse of hundreds of thousands of Uyghur people in Xinjiang Province in China. The massive and systematic oppression of the Uyghur people by the Chinese Government is undeniable. The exploitation of detained Uyghurs as a captive labour force is clear.

The need to address this pressing problem caused me to introduce the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020 on 8 December 2020.

The purpose of that Bill was to amend the Customs Act 1901 to ban the importation of goods produced or manufactured in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China and goods produced or manufactured in the People's Republic of China through the use of forced labour within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

That Bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee chaired by Senator Abetz with Senator Kitching as Deputy Chair.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Abetz and Senator Kitching and all the other members of the Committee for their work on that inquiry.

I also wish to thank the many people and organisations that made submissions and gave evidence to the inquiry, especially members of the Australian Uyghur community who face harassment from Chinese Government officials here in Australia and grave threats to family members, relatives and friends in Xinjiang.

The Committee reported to the Senate on 17 June 2021.

The Committee endorsed without reservation the objectives of my Bill and went on to observe that:

"The state-sponsored forced labour to which the Uyghur people are being subjected by the Chinese dictatorship is a grave human rights violation. It is incumbent on the government to take steps to ensure that Australian businesses and consumers are not in any way complicit in these egregious abuses."

In considering the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020 in the wider context of modern slavery, the Committee further took the view that it would be preferable to introduce a global ban on the import to Australia of goods produced by forced labour.

The Committee accordingly recommended that "the Customs Act 1901 and/or other relevant legislation be amended to prohibit the import of any goods made wholly or in part with forced labour, regardless of geographic origin" (Recommendation 1).

I have expressed my support for this recommendation, and for the other recommendations relating to government policy, administrative and enforcement matters.

My concern has always been that action be taken quickly to ensure that Australia's condemnation of the Chinese Government's shameful persecution and exploitation of the Uyghur people is made absolutely clear.

The Committee's report is an important step forward, but legislative implementation must not be delayed.

The Chinese Communist Party's oppression of the Uyghur people is an immediate and continuing affront to human decency.

It requires an immediate response from the Australian Parliament, not the usual protracted process of government review that may lead to legislative and administrative action in two or three years.

The need for prompt action is underlined by reports last week that the Victorian state government has turned a blind eye to the use of forced Uyghur labour by the Chinese state-owned company KTK Group, which supplies components for the construction of Victoria's metro railway system.

In these circumstances, the Australian Parliament should move without delay to implement the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's primary recommendation without delay.

Accordingly, rather than amend the original Bill, I am pleased to introduce a new Bill to implement the Committee's proposed global ban on the importation of goods produced through forced labour.

The Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021 will amend to the Customs Act 1901 to impose an absolute ban on the importation of goods produced in whole or part by forced labour. The proposed ban is global in nature and does not specify any geographic origin for its application.

The use of forced labour is defined in the Bill by reference to the Criminal Code Act 1995.

The importation into Australia of any goods found to have been produced by forced labour will be subject to the penalties that apply to the importation of other goods designated as prohibited imports by regulations made under the Customs Act.

The Bill supports Australia's longstanding commitment to internationally recognised human rights to freedom from slavery and forced labour such as in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and related international conventions against slavery and forced labour.

Recognising the need for urgent action to address a grave humanitarian problem, the Bill is introduced with the objective of implementing Recommendation 1 of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's report without delay.

If Australia is to be true to the democratic values we hold, we need to leave the Chinese Government in no doubt that its conduct is unconscionable and unacceptable.

This Bill will achieve that objective through the imposition of an absolute prohibition on the importation of goods produced by forced labour, of which, as the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee noted, cotton sourced from Xinjiang is the first, obvious target for enforcement attention.

It would be a grave failure on the part of the Australian Parliament if we do not call out and take action to limit the massive abuses of human rights by the Chinese Communist regime.

I commend this Bill to the Senate.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:47): Labor will be supporting this bill. As outlined in the EM, the purpose of the bill is to 'waive the repayment of certain classes of debt in relation to the Farm Household Allowance Program, through amendments to the Farm Household Support Act 2014':

The FHA program provides time-limited, means-tested income support to farmers and their partners experiencing financial hardship. Farmers are eligible for the FHA for a maximum of 4 years (recorded as a 1,460 day clock) in every 10 year period (beginning 1 July 2014). The days do not need to be consecutive and can be taken only if, and when needed.

The EM states:

Previously, FHA recipients' income estimate was reconciled annually through a process called business income reconciliation (BIR).

…

The BIR determined whether a recipient received a 'top up' payment, no adjustment or incurred a debt. The BIR was removed from the FHS Act with effect from 1 July 2020 as part of a process to simplify the FHA following a 2018 independent review. While the BIR was removed in 2020, some FHA recipients incurred debts from this process between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2020 or have not yet been assessed.

According to the EM:

The Bill would permanently waive the repayment of certain classes of debts for FHA recipients arising from the BIR process for FHA payments between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2020.

The bill would assist farmers suffering financial hardship and eliminate the negative effects of the business income reconciliation process. The EM states:

To enhance fairness it would ensure that an FHA recipient who already has a BIR debt does not also receive the double benefit of having their clock re-credited if they choose to have their debt waived.

As stated in the EM:

The Bill would also provide an end date of 30 June 2023 for FHA recipients to supply their full financial statements for the BIR process. Any FHA recipients who do not provide this information would have their payment for the full financial year raised as a debt …

BIR debts for the 2014-15 financial year were previously waived through a legislative instrument in 2016 … and would not be affected by these amendments.

I want to take this opportunity to put on record the challenges facing farmers in regional communities. The Morrison government's inaction on many of these issues is very concerning. They are big on announcement, but unfortunately there is not a lot on delivery. Last week we had another big announcement, the agriculture workers visa, but not a lot of detail on the delivery. This latest announcement comes three years after the Nationals first said there would be an agriculture visa, so farmers won't be holding their breath for action soon. With Morrison's faltering vaccine rollout and quarantine failures set to keep borders closed for the foreseeable future, it's difficult to see how any new visa will fix the labour shortages crippling Australia's farmers now. The Morrison government must come clean with more details. Any proposed visa cannot mean more shocking exploitation of workers on farms. The Morrison government has a terrible track record on fixing workforce shortages on Australian farms. Mr Morrison is still yet to respond to the recommendations of the National Agriculture Workforce Strategy that were handed to the government in October. Producers have already faced losses of more than $50 million from rotting crops due to workforce shortages on farms. The Morrison government has failed to take responsibility for labour shortages. Farmers just want this fixed.

The Morrison government is also dragging its feet on the challenges farmers face around biosecurity. Further reducing confidence was the recent publication of the Australian National Audit Office audit report on biosecurity. The findings of the ANAO report are scathing and extremely concerning. The ANAO concludes that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's arrangements to respond to noncompliance with biosecurity requirements are largely inappropriate. Clearly we do not have a fit-for-purpose biosecurity system. What does this say about the Morrison government's interest in biosecurity risk? The ANAO's findings in relation to the inadequacy of Australia's biosecurity system must be taken seriously. A biosecurity system that is deemed to be inappropriately managed has massive implications for the agriculture sector and it puts Australian farmers in a very vulnerable position, which is totally unacceptable. Incursions of pests and disease are of great concern to farmers, who know the significant risks if and when Australia's biosecurity system fails them. The Morrison government must do better for the agriculture sector when it comes to Australia's biosecurity system.

On top of bushfires, drought, the COVID-19 pandemic and the workforce shortage, we know another crisis that farmers in regional communities have had to face, and that's the mouse plague. The mouse plague is now impacting across multiple states. Is there a national response from the Morrison government? No, there is no national response. Labor's call for a national response plan has been ignored. The New South Wales agriculture minister also wrote to the Morrison government asking it to provide assistance with the mouse plague. The New South Wales minister's request for a national response plan has been ignored. Labor is concerned about the impact the plague is having and will continue to have across Australian farms. NSW Farmers have estimated that the plague has already cost $1 billion in lost winter crops. The Morrison government must do better to help farmers.

In closing: we will keep a close eye on how the Morrison government continues to manage its changes in this legislation and the other concerns I've raised today.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:54): Last week the Federal Court backed the people who were affected by robodebts. It handed down its judgement on the robodebt class action that found that the Commonwealth unlawfully raised $1.7 billion in debts against 443,000 people. In his judgement, Justice Murphy criticised the federal government's massive failure and said that the court heard 'heart-wrenching' stories of pain and anguish from victims of the Centrelink debt recovery program. Justice Murphy said it should have been obvious to government ministers and senior public servants that the debt-raising method central to the system was flawed. He said:

The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration.

The bill we are dealing with today will waive the Farm Household Allowance debts of 5,300 farmers and their partners. It will waive $51 million in income support debts. I will say right now that the Greens think that farmers and people in regional areas should be supported by the government and that these debts should be waived. However, the point I'm making is that the stark contrast between the way people on other income support payments were treated through the disgusting robodebt disaster and the appropriate way that people with debts through the Farm Household Allowance are now being treated should be blindingly obvious to anyone. The difference between the ways the two groups have been handled is startlingly obvious.

Of course, we support those people with Farm Household Allowance debts. We support this bill. The government argues that the waiver is appropriate for farmers because they were acting in 'good faith'. If only the government gave other people on income support even some of that benefit of the doubt. It's truly outrageous when you compare the different approaches. When it came to robodebt, income support recipients were assumed guilty, simply for being on income support. There was none of this government's presumption-of-innocence approach. The government pursued people for debts they did not owe when the government should have known—if they didn't know—that it was illegal. Now the government doesn't want to hand over the documents, the evidence, that tell the community when and what they knew, and who knew.

It is almost impossible to account for the social and economic costs of the government's punitive robodebt program. This program has caused so much pain and distress to so many for so long. The government knew this and continued it anyway, treating people appallingly. This program literally cost people's lives, it ruined many others and it caused so much pain and anguish. This is a shameful chapter in our history. People should not be treated this way. I'm glad the government has seen the light, and I encourage them to apply it to everybody who is on income support.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:58): The Greens support the principle of helping struggling farmers. Of course we support the principle of helping any Australian who's in need. We support the principle of government playing a strong and active role in our lives.

I want to briefly highlight a few points from the second reading speech of Minister Michael Sukkar from the other place, because it's very obvious when you read the minister's speech and he goes on to explain why farmers are having their debts waived, why they need the relief. He says that, 'Farming income is volatile.' I know there are senators in this chamber who are from farming families, and, as I said yesterday, my father was a farmer and, indeed, I've been a farmer myself. So I appreciate that farming income is volatile. I also appreciate what the minister said—that, based on uncertain yields and prices and unpredictable weather, farmers have to make difficult predictions about their income for the year ahead.

I want to underline that bit about unpredictable weather. There has been a big debate this week about climate change being one of the key risks that Australian farmers face. This bill is a recognition of that. This bill is designed primarily to help farmers who have dealt with drought and with floods. The minister said that in the second last paragraph of his second reading speech. Summing up, he said:

Though the quantum of the debts to be waived through this Bill are modest, this measure will provide breathing space as our farming families recover …

Underline 'recover from drought, bushfires and floods. He also mentioned the global pandemic that they've experienced over recent years. There you have it in a nutshell: farmers suffering from drought, bushfires and floods. Could you be any more circumspect about the risks that are facing our farming community? Every farmer knows that the weather and climate are one of the most variable factors that they face in trying to make a living, a sustainable livelihood, working the land to feed the nation, to grow a whole range of different products.

We have in this place a National Party that purports to represent farmers, that has as its new leader an individual, Mr Barnaby Joyce, who openly denies climate change, and others in this chamber, like Senator Canavan, who also are openly on record dismissing the need for climate action. It's no secret that the National Party is hijacking this government, preventing it from putting in place even weak 2050 targets, when all of us who understand climate change, based on the best available science—the whole world knows this—know that we need strong 2030 targets.

I will finish on that point. Without climate action there will be significant costs and risks to farmers. Farmers understand that, and they deserve better. They deserve their representatives in regional areas to take up their case in this place and to take the strongest possible action on climate. The Greens will do that. The Greens will always take the strongest possible action on climate because we understand that doing nothing risks everything. We are going to see a lot more of that in this country in the future if we don't take the necessary climate action on behalf of farmers and, indeed, all our communities across this country.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (13:02): 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 Polley ) (13:03): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I call the minister to move the third reading.

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.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:04): Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021. There are six Treasury measures in this bill, a number of schedules implementing budget measures from the last two budgets. The most substantial measure is the one-year extension of the low- and middle-income tax offset for the 2021-22 financial year, in schedule 6, at a cost of $7.8 billion. The offset provides a tax offset of up to $1,080 for individuals with low-to-middle incomes. At a time when the nation is experiencing a global pandemic and the related effect on the economy, this will be a welcome benefit to individuals and families who have been stretched over the past year. This is only a temporary measure though. We know that there are Australians who are struggling. Labor supports this measure because it puts more money into the pockets of Aussies doing it tough. Tax relief for low- and middle-income Australians is not only fairer but also more effective than tax relief for high-income earners, because of their higher propensity to spend. Simply put: recipients use the funds to secure the extras they need—from groceries to household goods, to clothing and to much-needed repairs—which helps stimulate the economy.

At the same time as this temporary measure for an estimated 10.2 million taxpayers who will benefit from the extension of the offset, this government persists with the permanent tax cut for some of Australia's highest income earners. Labor knows that when it comes to tax relief in the budget, priorities should be given to those who need it most.

Schedule 3 implements the 2020-21 budget measure to provide a targeted exemption for granny flats from CGT events that occur on entering into, varying or terminating formal written arrangements under which an older person or a person with a disability acquires, varies or disposes of a granny flat interest. The creation of a formal arrangement that could incur capital gains tax consequences has meant that families have preferred informal agreements regarding granny flat property or dwelling-sharing arrangements. This measure seeks to avoid the capital gains tax events occurring with formal written arrangements when an older person or a person with a disability acquires, varies or disposes of a granny flat interest. This change goes some way to reducing the risk of exploitation for older and vulnerable Australians.

The other schedules in the bill cover a fringe benefits tax exemption to support retraining and reskilling at a cost of $9 million over the forward estimates; the extension of the operation of the junior minerals exploration incentive for a further four years from 2021-22 at a cost of $39 million over the forward estimates; amendments to the way ASIC and the product intervention regime works to address unintended outcomes; and ensuring that the unique circumstances of COVID-19, where New Zealand sports team and staff may have to spend more time than usual in Australia, do not have an adverse tax impact with regard to determining whether income derived in such competitions is taxable in Australia. Although the bill extends the low- and middle-income tax offset, it makes sense to consider the wider context of this bill. As my colleague the member for Rankin said in the other place, the Morrison government is one of the two highest taxing governments of the last three decades, with the Howard government being the other.

COVID is the pandemic that, of course, none of us wanted, but, in it, we have an opportunity to reassess the way we have done things in the past. It is a chance to build back better. The government so far has failed to take this opportunity. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (13:08): I commend the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ) (13:08): 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 STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (13:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:10): by leave—I move:

That the Select Committee on the Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 3.05 pm

Question agreed to.

Senator WALSH (Victoria) (13:11): I rise to speak about the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. The government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support workers with these payments in the latest round of the COVID crisis. Casual workers in Victoria were left waiting in the last outbreak, without income and without support, until the federal government finally delivered this payment.

This government has form when it comes to leaving casual workers behind. During the pandemic, Prime Minister Morrison was pushed into a nationwide wage subsidy for Australian workers and businesses, and who did he choose to exclude? He chose to exclude thousands of casual workers, gig workers, arts and entertainment workers and more—workers in some of the hardest hit and most insecure industries. At the same time, while this government was leaving vulnerable casual workers behind, big and profitable businesses like Harvey Norman were able to pocket the JobKeeper payments, and they still don't have to repay the millions of dollars the government handed out to them. It is an absolute disgrace that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this much-needed disaster payment.

The government also has form on excluding and punishing insecure workers. After excluding so many insecure workers from JobKeeper payments, the Prime Minister told those workers to smash open their piggy banks and raid their own super to get through the pandemic. Instead of sharing the burden equally amongst Australians, instead of helping all Australians, the Prime Minister chose to tell some of our most vulnerable people, our most insecure workers, that they needed to fund their own pandemic support.

It's no surprise, then, that when these latest COVID outbreaks happened the government took its time to support casual workers again. This government has shown absolutely no urgency during this crisis. According to the Prime Minister, on financial support for casual workers after the early end of JobKeeper—what's the hurry? The vaccine rollout—well, apparently the Prime Minister thinks it's not a race. Purpose-built quarantine facilities—well, they can wait, too. But our doors are open, according to the Prime Minister, if the states want to take responsibility for quarantine. If the states want to come up with proposals for purpose-built, open-air quarantine, the government is willing to hear those proposals.

Well, what a slow and heartless response to this COVID crisis from this government. This government should be absolutely embarrassed about the bungled vaccine rollout. They should be ashamed at the pace of the vaccine rollout in this country. Australians entered 2021 expecting a fast and efficient vaccine rollout from their government, only to be given the opposite by this federal government. I was there last winter with Victorians as we faced a winter with the virus spreading throughout our community. Really, back then, one of the only things that gave us hope was that the federal government would get itself together and be able to do a fast, efficient and effective vaccine rollout once we got through the COVID outbreaks of winter—that they would do that in 2021.

And here we are again. This time, this winter, it's not Victoria facing the crisis; it's not Victoria in imminent crisis. This time it's New South Wales, facing another winter with this virus yet again trying to spread its way through the community—a community that, because of the failings of this government, is almost entirely unvaccinated. Today only three per cent of Australians are fully vaccinated. This government should be embarrassed. They should be ashamed. We are currently millions of doses behind the government's own vaccination targets—not their first target, which got passed, and not their second target, which they threw out, but their third target. This government just keeps dropping the bar lower and lower and still missing the mark on their vaccination targets. And still, even this week, they cannot tell us when all aged-care workers will be vaccinated. They can't tell us.

This government's vaccine strategy is a complete and utter shambles. One day they're telling over-50s to go and get the AstraZeneca vaccine. The next day they're saying people can wait for a Pfizer vaccine, until the end of they year, if they're not comfortable getting AstraZeneca. Now we know AstraZeneca is safe only for those aged over 60 years. This is all because the government decided to put all its eggs in the AstraZeneca basket. This government has messed up this vaccine rollout from day one. They should have done what the experts recommended. They should have done what Labor called for, and that was to source multiple vaccine contracts right from the start.

It is Australians who are suffering because of the incompetence and bad decisions of this government. It is Australians who are suffering because of the tragic decisions of this government. Australians had to dig deep to get through the last year. They have sacrificed so much to try to beat this virus, and they should have been able to come into this year with the confidence that the Australian government had their back, that the Australian government was going to roll this vaccine out comprehensively and effectively. They have done the exact opposite. Australians should have been able to come into 2021 and see, in the middle of the year, a real plan that ensured that they would be able to beat this virus and would be safe—that people wouldn't just be going about their daily lives waiting for the next COVID outbreak to hit their community.

People of Australia should have been able to hope that we would all be vaccinated, that quarantine would now be safe. But this Morrison government has failed on both counts. They have failed Australians. They have had months and months to effectively roll out this vaccine. They have had months to get safe, national, open-air quarantine facilities up and running. Have they done either? No, they have not. Throughout this pandemic, the Morrison government has denied its responsibility for quarantine. It has failed to set up appropriate national standards for quarantine. All the while, they sit back and they critique what the state governments are doing. They critique state government responses to breaches in hotel quarantine.

Everybody knows that hotels are not fit for purpose, that hotel quarantine was okay at the start of this pandemic but, 18 months on, is a complete failure. The Prime Minister, though, doesn't see it that way. He said on hotel quarantine back in April: 'This is a system that is achieving 99.99 per cent effectiveness. It's a very strong system and serving Australia very well.' Well, 24 breaches later and it is difficult to take those statements from the Prime Minister seriously. It is difficult to take those statements as anything other than a complete abrogation of this federal government's responsibility for controlling this virus and for establishing safe and effective open-air, purpose-built quarantine facilities. With tens of thousands of infections in Australia and more than 800 tragic deaths last year, that is not a quarantine system that is serving Australians well. It is a system that is struggling to keep up. When, Australians are asking themselves, will the Morrison government get it that hotels are built for tourists, that hotels are built for short stays? Hotels are not built for virus control.

Of course, the government was told this way back in October. They were told by their own hand-picked adviser Jane Halton that they needed to build fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities. This was months ago. The Victorian government handed them a proposal for a new purpose-built quarantine facility back in April. It took the Victorian government to take on the federal responsibility of setting up safe and effective quarantine and come up with a proposal, which they presented to the federal government back in April. When did the Prime Minister finally agree to build a facility in Victoria? It was in June. This was a completely reactive decision. This was in June while Victoria was battling with new COVID outbreaks due to yet another failure in the hotel quarantine system—this time, a leak from the South Australian hotel quarantine system.

This government just doesn't think ahead. They are completely reactive. They don't plan. When they are finally dragged, kicking and screaming, to act, too often it is already too late. It is impossible for a federal government to deal with a pandemic if they have the attitude of this Morrison government. This is a government that does not believe in proactively taking charge of this emergency situation. They don't even believe that they have a responsibility for federal quarantine. If they do believe that they have responsibility for the vaccine rollout, they are showing absolutely no urgency in getting it done whatsoever.

Part of the problem with this Morrison government is that it is impossible to deal with a pandemic if you don't actually believe in taking responsibility, if you don't actually believe that it is the role of government, of your government, to keep people safe. It will be impossible for the Morrison government to deal effectively with this pandemic if they don't even believe in governing in the best interests of Australians at all. It will be impossible to deal with this pandemic effectively if the government's strategy is to wait to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do anything. It just won't work. As a result of this government's failure on vaccines, failure on quarantine and failure to take responsibility, Australians are now exposed. It doesn't have to be this way at all.

If only this government believed in taking responsibility. If only they believed in governing in the best interests of all Australians. If only they would act ahead of time, instead of reacting when it's already too late. Until this government does act, all of the hard work that Australians put in to get our country moving again is just waiting to be thrown away. It is Australians who have sacrificed so much. It is Australians who have done all of the work to defeat this virus. Unless this government starts to be proactive, unless it starts to put in place systems that keep people safe, all of the hard work that Australians have done—all of it—is going to be squandered over the course of 2021.

Labor knows that if we are to beat this virus and keep Australians safe there can be no more delays of the type that this Morrison government engages in. It is Labor that would build dedicated quarantine facilities in every single state and territory. Labor would fix this bungled vaccine rollout. Labor would start a mass public health campaign around vaccines. Where is the public health campaign around vaccines in this country, today, under the Morrison government? Labor would make it a first priority to manufacture new vaccines right here, and it is Labor's plan that is the only pathway to a real recovery that leaves Australians secure in getting on with their lives. That is the kind of leadership that Australians need. That is the kind of responsibility that Australians need. The Morrison government is offering the opposite.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (13:26): I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. The amount of money this government has spent in response to the pandemic is truly breathtaking. It boggles the mind: more than $300 billion. It's very clear that successive Australian governments never anticipated such an event and certainly never had any kind of practical response planned. We wouldn't be in this situation otherwise.

We're talking about generations of more debt, locking in welfare dependency, massive buckets of money thrown at big businesses that didn't need anywhere near as much as they received, and workers receiving subsidised wages beyond what they were actually earning. The government had no problem chasing debts by hounding welfare recipients prior to this pandemic, but there appears to be no comprehensive plan to recover a lot of money wasted in the pandemic.

We're dooming generations of Australians to paying for these mistakes in the future. We may be a trillion dollars in the red in a few short years. We may be able to lessen this burden on our children and their children if the government forensically examine where this avalanche of funds has gone, where much of it wasn't needed, and move to recover it. This response was not thought out. It was rushed, and expensive mistakes have been made. I've heard from businesses that have received thousands of taxpayer dollars despite telling the government the money was no longer required. Some companies claiming JobKeeper have improved their earnings during the pandemic and continued to pay big dividends and executive bonuses, and all they've risked is their reputations. Why? Because JobKeeper is based on a company's revenue and not on whether the company actually needed it.

This economic response has been heavily rorted. It's been a scammer's paradise. In March, the Australian Taxation Office said it was still owed hundreds of millions of dollars from companies that rorted JobKeeper, even from companies that had agreed to hand back money to taxpayers. At the time, the ATO said it had recovered about $135 million, with only some of this money related to deliberate defrauding of JobKeeper. Shockingly, the ATO agreed not to recover about $50 million from about 12,000 businesses who had made honest mistakes. Some businesses claimed wages for employees who did not exist, in order to qualify for a taxpayer boost to their cash flow. The ATO said only one large company had been referred for potential prosecution and only a handful of others were being considered.

As early as August last year, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirmed to a parliamentary committee it had received COVID-19 scam referrals from nine different agencies. It noted property crime, government program fraud, identity theft linked to the stimulus, suspicious international payments and money transfers, fraudulent websites providing misleading information, unlicensed advice about JobKeeper and fraudulent claims for small business support. It also flagged concerns about the early release of superannuation, such as real estate agents encouraging tenants to use it to pay rent, credit providers advising it be used to pay off loans or fund house deposits and people being charged fees to access it. This may be only the tip of the iceberg. When the government is writing blank cheques, everyone wants a piece of the action.

The Prime Minister may say the economy can't run on government handouts forever, but we'll be paying for the response forever. In any case, the economy has been too dependent on massive government spending for too long. Australians long for a government that will get back to what it's supposed to do: govern fairly, justly and efficiently. This pandemic has instead given governments the green light to do what they couldn't do before: exert a level of control over Australian citizens not seen since the Second World War. And it's going to allow successive Australian governments to shift blame for their fiscal failures onto the pandemic for a very long time. It's inevitable. But if we get serious about investigating, auditing and recovering as much of the wasted money as possible, we can reduce the burden on future generations.

There has been talk about the vaccines. We hear from Labor, especially, that the vaccine rollout hasn't happened. The last speaker said, 'Labor would put in new vaccinations that are made here.' New vaccinations? Can I tell people that the TGA usually takes seven years for any vaccination to be trialled. We've got vaccinations with Pfizer and AstraZeneca that are only 10 months old, and we're encouraging people to take the vaccination. But new vaccines? Oh, it's alright. Just line people up and jab them. We don't even know the long-term effects of this. The TGA report on 27 May of this year stated that following immunisation there have been 210 deaths: 109 from Pfizer, a further 94 from AstraZeneca, and seven from unspecified vaccinations. This was in the TGA report—'Following immunisation, these deaths occurred.' We rely on the TGA and their recommendations, and they've backed these vaccinations. I remember when it first came out.

They may complain about Scott Morrison and how he's handled this. They may say that it's a federal issue and he hasn't handled it properly. Well, I'll tell you something. When I look at how the premiers of Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia have handled this, it's absolutely ridiculous: at the drop of a hat, they close their borders and shut people down in their own states. If that's how the Labor premiers have handled it—hotel quarantine in Victoria was a rabble. That's where it all started. That's where the deaths happened in Victoria. It wasn't under the Prime Minister's watch; it was under Labor and the way that Daniel Andrews and his health ministers handled it. The hypocrites in this place blame Morrison. I have no allegiance to the coalition and I have no allegiance to the Labor Party. I have no allegiance to anyone. Let the facts stand for themselves. Criticising just because we've got an election in the air and you're trying to boost your own numbers? Is that credible? That's not what I hear in this place. You're not credible at all.

Another thing that I have a problem with is the wearing of masks. You wear a mask at the airport, but you don't wear a mask to, say, the State of Origin or other huge sporting matches. At shopping centres you don't have to wear one. Wearing a mask in an airport? It's just absolutely ridiculous. I go back to the time when this all happened and people were still flying on aeroplanes. They said: 'It's very safe on an aeroplane. The air is continually circulated. It's probably the safest place you can be.' Now, you're wearing a mask. So information has changed over a period of time and it will continue to change, because I don't think anyone really has an idea what they're talking about. This is completely new to us.

Until we have the true facts, I constantly question the number of deaths with COVID. You know, it's okay for them to say, 'They've died from it,' but it was known around the world that if you died in a car crash and you tested positive for COVID then your death would be classed as a COVID death. I remember there was one person who died in the country—I won't state which state—and it was classed as a COVID death. But it was known that it wasn't a COVID death; it was actually suicide. But we had to keep it as that because it would upset the family if it got out. How much of the truth have we been told? How much of a fear factor has gone on here with this COVID? That's what I question.

Now, you can't tell me an autopsy was done on all these people to find out exactly the cause of death, because if you were over a certain age and you tested positive for COVID, that was a COVID death. The fearmongering is unbelievable, what's gone on. I can see the problems in other countries around the world with COVID deaths. Yes, it has been a pandemic. We don't have a pandemic here in Australia because, overall, we have to say, it has been handled very well, when we look at other countries. I will say, based on what's happened in the Labor states and the shutdowns, especially Victoria under a Labor premier, I may not always agree with or like the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, but—I tell you what—I'm glad he's in control and not a Labor Prime Minister, as in Albanese. How would they have dealt with the whole pandemic?

About the vaccines, I've said to people, 'I'm not an anti-vaxxer; I'm pro-choice.' I say to people: 'Go out and do your research. Understand what you're doing; have an understanding of what you may be putting into your body.' Because I can tell you, I don't believe it's been thoroughly researched. We don't know the complications that are going to happen further down the track. Another thing happening these days is you can have your vaccine, but guess what? It doesn't stop you from being locked up into quarantine. They're still insisting that you be locked up. What about all the people in Victoria who have had the vaccination? Why were they locked up for days on end still? If it's safe to have the vaccination, what's the purpose? You're still going to be locked up. You still have to go and quarantine. You still have to wear your mask. And you're supposed to be safe. So to say in here, 'Vaccinate everyone in the country. You will be safe,' safe from what? The vaccine reduces the symptoms you may get but it doesn't stop you from actually getting COVID. These are the facts that people need to know so they can make a well-informed decision of whether or not they want to have the vaccine.

I've put it on the record that people probably should take medical advice. I'm not a doctor. Take the advice from the doctors, because there are people who have respiratory problems, heart problems, and they probably may need to have the vaccine. We've seen healthy people in their 50s, only just recently, die after having their vaccination shot for COVID. They didn't think once they got that jab in their arm they'd be dead within a few days, possibly the next day. They trusted the government, they trusted our health bureaucrats, and I don't think they've been advised correctly. As I said, I'm not a doctor. I just want people to be well-informed before they actually go and get this vaccination so they know what the impact may be on them. The medical profession is saying that, in relation to the numbers of people who have died, vaccination will help other people. Well, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to them, because it's not their loved one. It's not their wife, their child, their husband, their brother, their sister. That's why it doesn't matter to them. They don't care. I think it's very important that we advise the people correctly on which way to go with having this.

We don't know what's going to happen down the road. I heard Senator Faruqi talking about people not coming back into the country and not having time together and how it's really heartbreaking. That's happening in our own country when the borders are shut down. Daniel Andrews's family couldn't see each other, and they were only a few kilometres away. What about the woman who wanted to go to her father's funeral? She couldn't go. Even in full PPE, she couldn't go to the funeral. She had to see him after the funeral, by herself. There was a woman pregnant with twins. One of the twins died, because the Queensland Premier wouldn't allow her over the border to go to the hospital. Case after case after case, there has been no real compassion whatsoever that is reasonable and common sense. All I see is power and control of the people through this whole COVID rubbish that's been going on. You deal with the issue; you don't destroy people's lives.

As I said earlier, the hand out of money was unbelievable. When this first hit in April last year, 727,000 people on Newstart allowance got double their money. Their circumstances didn't change, not one iota, but then we doubled their money. The whole thing has been handled atrociously in so many areas, and the taxpayers and future generations are going to be paying for it for a long time to come until we can rein this back in. So, instead of criticising each other, as the leaders of this nation, I suggest you start working together for the people. This is not about an election issue; this goes far beyond that. This is about the people of Australia being looked after.

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:41): I also rise to speak on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021 this afternoon. There's been no shortage of debate in this place as well as in the other place on the COVID-19 pandemic that's currently before us, not just here in Australia but right around the world. We have heard contributions in this place, including the one that we just heard, from senators who are trying to put forward, rightly or wrongly, their own thoughts on ways we can overcome the crisis that we are facing, not only economically but also the health crisis that every state government and the Commonwealth government are trying to handle right now. But, I must say, for senators to come into this place and say that it's not about the politics and to claim that they're not a doctor but still provide that medical advice, all I say to people is that, if you're listening to today's debate, always take the advice of your GP. At the end of the day, we're trying to facilitate the best vaccinations that we can give the Australian people through their GPs and the many vaccination programs right around the country. If anyone were listening to the contribution from Senator Hanson, I would urge them to talk to their doctors. At the end of the day, their doctors are the best place to have that discussion. All we can do here, in parliament, is support our experts, whether they be in the Department of Health or whether they be the state governments, who are doing a very good job of trying to manage the situation that is COVID.

We know that the New South Wales government might be entering a period of uncertainty, just like the Victorian government, in my home state. The state governments have to manage the situation. I take exception to some of the contributions that were made earlier, suggesting that somehow it was the Victorian government that started this pandemic here in the country. Quite frankly, if it weren't for the cooperative work, the good work, by all premiers to ensure that we locked down Australia to protect our citizens, we wouldn't be in the position that we are today. Look right around the world, and you will find that Australia is now the envy of the world. Why? Because our state governments have taken the hard decisions, the right decisions, to protect their citizens.

It's good to see the Commonwealth finally come to the table and start to work with the various state governments, whether they're Labor or Liberal, in making sure that Australians do have freedom of movement. And I know there are lockdowns. There are lockdowns, and they may be an annoyance for some. But, quite frankly, I would rather be in lockdown than having thousands of people dying every single day, and that is what is happening right around the world.

Speaking on the bill that is currently before the chamber, the only reason that this legislation has become necessary is this government's many failures to bring the pandemic under control. Whether it's been the rollout of the vaccination program, the lack of a national quarantine program or even cutting off the JobKeeper payments early, there are a number of issues that the Labor opposition has been asking this government to consider for some time. The government has finally agreed to support a number of people who are currently in need of support where there is a lockdown. I understand that $500 a week has been offered to people who are engaged in paid employment who lose more than 20 hours a week and $325 a week offered for people who are engaged in paid employment who lose less than 20 hours a week.

In Victoria, this is very important. Currently we're facing quite substantial issues, and many Victorian workers and small businesses need support from their federal government. They've had support from the state government, and it is now time that support is offered by the federal government. I would say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, that, unfortunately, the support is a little bit too little and a bit too late, but it is good to see that the government has finally come to the table. But, out of the $1 trillion deficit that the government have racked up in the last budget, the Treasurer has only managed to find $100 million to support Victorians—the many small businesses and the many workers who are in need of financial assistance. Looking at this bill, the government will have the discretion to ensure that this payment is on offer only where there is one week of lockdown in a month, and that is what's been assumed as part of its budget costings.

The failure of this government to deliver a successful vaccine rollout and a secure quarantine program is hurting not just businesses and workers but also consumers, and people do want to help ensure that there is a speedy economic recovery. At the end of the day, once the economy's back on track and we are able to reopen and have a successful, growing economy, all workers can go back to their offices and their factories and can carry on with normal life.

But it is imperative that we are actually all getting vaccinated, and that is ultimately the key here. The reason why we encourage people to get vaccinated is that, once we do get to a certain level—whatever that level is, and I've heard figures of around 70 per cent to 80 per cent—we'll then be able to avoid lockdowns. But that situation won't occur until the federal government starts to find other providers of vaccines. It's not good enough that they've come in here and said, 'Yes, we've got some contracts for COVID vaccines.' It's taken them some time to actually land deals with many vaccine providers right around the world. Yes, we've got AstraZeneca and Pfizer, but where are the others? Where are the others? I've had many meetings this week, with multiple groups, and it looks promising. It looks like we'll have a lot more vaccines by the end of the year, but these discussions should have occurred 18 months ago. They should have occurred 18 months ago. It seems like the government has taken the cheap and easy option: 'We'll just go with one or two providers who'll give us a vaccine, and everything will be fine.' But that hasn't actually been the case.

We are not on our way to the government's target of having everyone vaccinated with one dose by the end of the year. It looks very much like it may not be till the middle of next year, which is quite disappointing because the sooner we can get a certain level of people vaccinated the sooner we can start opening our economy and not be in a situation where state governments have to run our national economy. Unfortunately, the federal government—through the national cabinet process—hasn't been able to deliver nationally consistent rules on having a quarantine program in place.

Having said all that, it should be no surprise that we've had to have Channel 9 and others roll out a national campaign in terms of public awareness of the vaccine program, to provide access to straightforward information on who is eligible and who is not. That point is really important because, if you keep shifting the goalposts of who is eligible for which vaccines, you then start to undermine the system. That is something that we are trying very hard to avoid. Unfortunately the government has its press conference one week, and that will change with the information that is provided to the Australian public. We really do need this government to make sure that there is a national campaign that is rolled out as soon as possible, because, the sooner we provide the Australian people with the confidence that the vaccination program is safe, the sooner we can increase the number of people who are eligible to receive a vaccination.

We've even had the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners raise concerns, saying that new targeted advertising campaigns are desperately needed to tackle vaccine hesitancy. We heard earlier from other senators in this place about the unease that a number of people have with finding the appropriate jab for themselves. I cannot stress enough the fact that they should go and speak to their local GP. Make an appointment today. If you're listening to the Senate here, please go and speak to your GP. Make that appointment and have a good chat to them about the risks of having the vaccine jab.

At the end of the day, we want to be talking about other issues as well—how we can better put investment in health and education and grow our economy. But, until we can get the vaccination rates up, it is going to be very difficult for this government to get out of the mess that they've created. But let's also not forget that JobKeeper—and the government finally came to the table with the JobKeeper support payments—

Senator Ruston interjecting—

Senator CICCONE: I'll come on to that, Senator Ruston. Let's also not forget that it did take a while for the government to come to the table and offer many people that support that was desperately needed, especially in my home state of Victoria. The state government, through the Acting Premier, has also been calling on this government for a couple of days this week to come to the table to clarify where the vaccines are for the many disability workers and aged-care workers in terms of getting priority for groups 1a and 1b. We still haven't been able to get any clear answers from the relevant ministers in this place or, I believe, in the other place to date. I would just urge the government to please listen to the contributions that are being made here in this place today. Please get on with finding more vaccines, because, the sooner we can get more people vaccinated, the sooner we can open up the economy and move on to bigger and better things.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:52): First of all, I'd like to thank senators who have made a contribution to this debate on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. I thank them very much for that contribution. The bill appropriates from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of making the COVID-19 disaster payment during the 2021-22 financial year. The bill also provides that the National Recovery and Resilience Agency will report on the COVID-19 disaster payment in their annual report. Australians are a resilient people, but sometimes they need support in difficult times. The appropriation ensures that the COVID-19 disaster payment will be available and fully funded should additional lockdowns occur, and of course we hope they won't. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:36): I present government responses to committee reports as listed on the Dynamic Red. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Economics References Committee report:

Australia's Dairy Industry: Rebuilding trust and a fair market for farmers

JUNE 2021

INTRODUCTION

On 14 September 2016, the Senate referred an inquiry into the Australian dairy industry to the Senate Economics References Committee for inquiry and report, in order to establish a fair, long term solution to Australia's dairy crisis, with particular reference to fresh milk security and:

a. the legality of retrospective elements of milk contracts

b. the behaviour of Murray Goulburn; and

c. any other related matters.

On 17 August 2017, the Committee released its report. The Australian Government thanks the Committee for the time and effort put into the inquiry into the dairy industry and all those dairy forum and representative organisations who contributed to the inquiry. The government has considered the report and provides its response to the Committee's twelve recommendations.

Significant activity has taken place in the dairy industry since the release of the Committee's report. These include the sale of Murray Goulburn to Saputo and the appointment of KPMG to undertake the solvent winding down of the Group. Additionally, the ACCC had instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Murray Goulburn alleging it engaged in unconscionable conduct and made false or misleading representations in contravention of Australian Consumer Law, resulting in significant financial penalties.

From 2016-18, the ACCC held an inquiry into the competitiveness of prices, trading practices and the supply chain in the Australian dairy industry. On 30 April 2018, the ACCC released its Dairy Inquiry Final Report including a key recommendation for government to introduce a mandatory code of conduct for the dairy industry.

The government introduced the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct (the Code) which came into effect on 1 January 2020, following three rounds of industry consultation. The code is a mandatory industry code under section 51AE of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and includes mandatory requirements about the conduct of business relationships between farmers and processors. The code provides clear pathways for lower cost dispute resolution to support farmers and processors address contractual issues in a fair and transparent manner.

In line with feedback received from the dairy industry, the code prohibits:

retrospective pricing step downs

unilateral prospective step-downs except in exceptional circumstances

unilateral changes to agreements except in narrowly defined circumstances

processors withholding loyalty payments from farmers who are changing processor, and

exclusive supply arrangements where the conditions would be to the detriment of dairy farmers.

On 7 October 2020, the government announced its Ag2030 plan to support the Australian agricultural industry to grow to $100 billion by 2030. Through Ag2030, the government is working to ensure Australian agricultural producers receive maximum returns for their hard work and are supported by vibrant rural and regional communities. The Ag2030 plan sets seven themes for action: Trade and Exports; Innovation and Research; Biosecurity; Supply Chains; Stewardship; Human Capital; and Water and Infrastructure.

A crucial initiative under the Supply Chain priority of the Ag2030 plan is the ACCC inquiry into perishable agricultural goods, to consider whether there are market imbalances in domestic fresh food supply chains. This inquiry also examined whether the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct should be extended across the entire domestic supply chain to include retailers and their dealings with processors. The government initiated this inquiry in response to ongoing concerns expressed by farmers across dairy, horticulture and other perishable commodities that unfair treatment by retailers continues to be evident. The ACCC provided its report on this inquiry to the Treasurer on 27 November 2020. The government continues to consider the findings and recommendations of the report.

Government assistance to dairy industry

The Australian Government is driving a more profitable, resilient and sustainable dairy sector. In addition to implementing the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct on 1 January 2020 and announcing the Perishable Agricultural Goods Inquiry, the Government has also committed:

$14. 78 million to 2024-25 towards dairy export projects to identify the regulatory hurdles for domestic dairy manufacturers to become exporters, align food safety regulations and work towards reduced regulatory intervention through improved data collection.

$10 million to assist dairy farmers to upgrade or invest in energy efficient equipment to reduce their energy costs.

$8.1 million in the 2019-20 MYEFO in additional funding to the ACCC Agriculture Unit to boost its examination of competition and unfair trading issues. This included the creation of a specialist role with specific responsibility for dairy.

$4.75 million in the Kids to Farms program to help educate children about agriculture through activities such as farm visits, virtual technology 'in-class' experiences and developing information resources for classrooms.

$3 million in grants to support farmer groups to set up farm cooperatives and other collective business models.

$1.5 million total to Dairy Australia and Australian Dairy Farmers to increase business resilience, risk planning and financial and legal literacy for farmers, as well as investigate ways to provide farmers with more say over how they sell their milk.

Assistance is also available through:

the $5 billion Future Drought Fund to provide ongoing and sustainable funding to help build drought preparedness, resilience, and to help with recovery efforts

the Farm Household Allowance, which supports farmers and their partners in financial hardship, regardless of the cause

the Rural Financial Counselling Service, which provides free financial counselling to farmers and small related businesses in, or at risk of, financial hardship

the Regional Investment Corporation, which administers the delivery of farm business concessional drought and investment loans and national water infrastructure loans.

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC}, as part of its inquiry into the Australian dairy industry, evaluate the extent to which the code of conduct will reduce power imbalances between farmers and processors, and recommend improvements to the code that may better achieve this outcome. Any outcomes from the ACCC inquiry should be incorporated in the proposed review of the code after its first year of operation.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government notes the recommendation refers to the voluntary industry code, launched by the peak industry body for the Australian dairy industry, the Australian Dairy Industry Council (ADIC) in June 2017 to help ensure greater transparency and fairness in milk supply and pricing.

In December 2019 the Government introduced the mandatory Dairy Industry Code of Conduct in response to the ACCC Dairy Inquiry Final Report which concluded that the introduction of a mandatory dairy code of conduct could help address power imbalances in the dairy industry between farmers and processors by improving the quality of information and price signals, enable fairer allocation of risk, and remove restrictions on farmers' ability to switch processors.

Through its inquiry the ACCC considered the effectiveness of the voluntary code and reported that it had a positive impact on some contract terms offered by some processors to some farmers for the 2017-18 dairy season. In particular, processors that signed on to the code made improvements to contract terms for setting and varying prices, exclusivity supply clauses and loyalty and other bonus payments. However, the ACCC found that the non-enforceability of the voluntary code was an inherent weakness which could not be addressed by industry alone.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council commenced a review of the voluntary industry code to address the findings of the ACCC's dairy inquiry, which was released in April 2018. During the process of completing this review - and in light of the ACCC's findings and recommendations - the peak body for dairy farmers, the Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) changed its position on the best approach to implement the code and requested that it transition to a mandatory code of conduct.

The mandatory Dairy Industry Code of Conduct came into effect on 1 January 2020 and includes requirements about the conduct of business relationships between dairy farmers and processors. All farmers and processors are bound by the requirements of the code with some exceptions for small businesses. The code replaces ADIC's voluntary code and seeks to address market failures that were not sufficiently addressed in provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA).

The ACCC's perishable goods inquiry report, released on 10 December 2020, made some initial observations on the mandatory Dairy Industry Code of Conduct. In particular, the ACCC identified a number of positive developments in terms of the operation of the Dairy Code including evidence of competition among processors on raw milk prices after prices were announced on 1 June 2020; and increased transparency as farmers were able to access price information a sufficient period ahead of needing to make a decision about which processor to supply.

Recommendation 2:

The committee recommends that the ACCC consider how collective bargaining in the dairy industry could be strengthened to enable these provisions to be more widely used and to assist in addressing the power imbalance.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government supports the intent of this recommendation and notes that changes to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) from November 2017, made it easier for small businesses to lodge a notification to obtain legal protection from competition laws to collectively bargain with a customer or supplier. More generally, it is a matter for the ACCC to determine whether or not to allow collective bargaining should businesses request to do so.

The CCA generally requires businesses to act independently of their competitors when making decisions about pricing, which firms they do business with, and the terms and conditions of doing business. Competitors who act collectively in these areas are at risk of breaching the competition provisions of the CCA. However, as noted in the Senate report, businesses can seek ACCC approval to provide protection from legal action under the CCA. Approval is not automatic, and the ACCC assesses each application to decide if the public benefit outweighs the public detriment.

In the dairy industry, dairy farmers have been collectively bargaining with milk processors since 2001. The first authorisation was to one group of farmers, followed by ACCC authorisation to Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) in 2002 to apply broadly to dairy farmers collectively negotiating with dairy processors. In 2011, the ACCC granted a 10-year renewal to ADF to collectively bargain with milk processors. This authorisation enables dairy farmers to form and register collective bargaining groups under ADF's existing authorisation without having to separately apply to the ACCC.

As part of the terms of reference of its Dairy Inquiry, the ACCC considered the role of collective bargaining and its effectiveness in the industry. The ACCC Final Report 2018, while not disregarding collective bargaining as an option in the future, did not consider this measure was a broad remedy to address imbalances of bargaining power between processors and farmers in the dairy industry. It instead recommended the implementation of a mandatory code of conduct for the dairy industry, which was progressed by government and took effect on 1 January 2020. The code improves the balance in bargaining power between dairy farmers and processors and replaced the previous voluntary industry code.

Recommendation 3:

The committee recommends that any review of the code of conduct for contractual relationships be undertaken by an independent party that can objectively assess whether the code is working as intended and consider if a mandatory code would be more appropriate.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government notes the voluntary industry dairy code of conduct was launched by the peak industry body for the Australian dairy industry, the ADIC in June 2017. ADIC reviewed the voluntary industry code after twelve months of operation and sought to address the findings of the ACCC's Dairy Inquiry, which was released in April 2018. During the process of completing this review—and in light of the ACCC's findings and recommendations—the peak dairy farmer body, Australian Dairy Farmers—changed its position on the best approach to implement the code and requested that it transition to a mandatory code of conduct.

On 13 December 2019, the government announced the mandatory Dairy Industry Code of Conduct. The Code came into effect on 1 January 2020 and includes mandatory requirements about the conduct of business relationships between dairy farmers and processors.

To support education and compliance of the Code, the ACCC established the Dairy Consultative Committee as a forum for dairy industry representatives to discuss issues related to the implementation of the Code. The establishment of the Committee was part of the Australian Government's injection of $8.1 million in the 2019-20 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in additional funding to the ACCC Agriculture Unit to boost its examination of competition and unfair trading issues. The ACCC has also established a Dairy Specialist role in its Agriculture Unit to provide additional expertise and to raise industry awareness about the Code.

On 22 October 2020, the ACCC announced it would introduce a class exemption in early 2021 that will provide immediate legal protection for small businesses to engage in collective bargaining. The class exemption will apply to a business with an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million in the financial year preceding when it joins a collective bargaining group. This class exemption will remove the need for these businesses to seek authorisation or lodge a notification, meaning that they could access the exemption without delay or additional cost and realise the benefits of collective bargaining. The ACCC will engage directly with agricultural industry associations in 2021 to explain how the class exemption for collective bargaining may be beneficial and how businesses can access the regime.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that representative organisations of the dairy industry, together with retailers, develop an education campaign to promote awareness about the dairy industry so consumers can make informed choices when purchasing dairy products.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government supports the intent of this recommendation, recognising that it is a matter for industry to determine whether or not to implement the recommendation.

The government further notes that Dairy Australia, as part of its research, development and extension work for the benefit of Australian dairy farmers, promotes the advantages of dairy through a number of campaigns and partnerships.

In particular, the Dairy Matters campaign, uses ads across TV, cinema, websites and social media to highlight the dairy industry's values, standards and commitments. This campaign also answers consumer questions on the healthiness of dairy foods, animal welfare, and environmental and social concerns.

In particular, the Dairy Matters campaign was launched in 2019, across TV, cinema, websites and social media to highlight the dairy industry's values, standards and commitments. This campaign also answers consumer questions on the healthiness of dairy foods, animal welfare, and environmental and social concerns.

Dairy Australia reports positive results from the campaign. Of the 30 per cent of the key audience who saw the campaign:

89 per cent agreed it is 'important to support the Australian dairy industry'

78 per cent agreed they 'feel more supportive towards industry'

69 per cent agreed they 'would pay attention to Dairy Australia material' "

Annual consumer research undertaken by Dairy Australia has shown improvements in trust and perception since the development on the new strategy in 2018:

Overall consumer trust in the industry has shifted from 68% in 2018 to 74% in 2020

Changemaker trust in the industry has shifted from 71% in 2018 to 80% in 2020

Additionally, the Australian Government has delivered the new $4.75 million Kids to Farms program to help educate children about agriculture through activities such as farm visits, virtual technology 'in-class' experiences and developing information resources for classrooms. Kids to Farms aims to increase understanding of where and how food and fibre is produced and importance of farming to Australia's way of life. The program will run over three years from 2019-20 to 2021-22, concluding on 30 June 2022.

Recommendation 5:

The committee recommends that dairy processors set opening prices conservatively so that any downward pressure from market forces will not result in retrospective price step-downs that have devastating impacts on dairy farmers.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government supports the intent of the recommendation, noting that it is a matter for individual dairy processors to negotiate their pricing strategy with their dairy farmer suppliers.

The government recognises there is an imbalance in the sharing of risk between farmers and processors, particularly in instances of processors implementing step-downs.

In line with recommendations from the ACCC Dairy Inquiry Final Report and industry consultation feedback, the introduction of the mandatory Dairy Industry Code of Conduct prohibits retrospective step-downs in all circumstances (sections 27 and 39 of the Code).

Prospective step-downs are prohibited except in limited exceptional circumstances (section 28 of the Code) involving an extraordinary event (such as an emergency or change in market· conditions). Exceptional circumstances are limited to circumstances which are temporary and must involve an extraordinary event which is the result of causes located outside of Australia, has a highly significant effect on supply, demand or costs in the dairy industry and is not a result of decisions by processors.

The Code places no restrictions or obligations on either processors or farmers with respect to an increase (or 'step-up') in milk price, either retrospective or prospective.

The Code also improves information and pricing transparency by requiring all processors (other than those that meet the Code's definition of a small business entity) that intend to purchase milk during the next financial year to publish standard forms of milk supply agreements on their website before 2 pm on 1 June (AEST). Section 14 of the Code also provides that a processor must publish a statement justifying the prices offered in each standard form of a milk supply agreement that it publishes on its website.

Requiring processors to publish one or more standard forms of agreement on a set date each year improves farmers' ability to compare prices and conditions across processors.

Recommendation 6:

The committee considers that an independent review of the government's dairy support package be undertaken to determine whether it has been effective in improving outcomes for affected dairy farmers and whether it has delivered value for money.

The government notes the recommendation.

At the time of the Senate inquiry, a dairy support package had been announced by the government on 25 May 2016 to provide support for Australian dairy farmers who had their incomes retrospectively cut by Murray Goulburn and Fonterra.

Key elements of the dairy support package were:

Dairy Recovery Concessional Loans

More Rural Financial Counsellors in dairy regions

Additional support to process claims for Farm Household Allowance (FHA)

Dairy Industry Liaison Officer

Mobile service centres redirected to affected dairy regions

Establishing a commodity milk price index

Additional support through the Tactics for Tight Times program.

Individual assistance programs are reviewed as appropriate. For example, the commodity milk price index was reviewed and then ceased in May 2019. In addition, new measures are announced where these are warranted.

Since 2016, the government has provided additional support to drive a more profitable, resilient and sustainable dairy sector. Following three rounds of consultation with the dairy industry, the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct came into effect on 1 January 2020 which includes mandatory requirements about the conduct of business relationships between farmers and processors. The Code provides clear pathways for lower cost dispute resolution to support farmers and processors to address contractual issues in a fair and transparent manner.

Additionally, on 26 August 2020, the government announced the ACCC would undertake the Perishable Agricultural Goods Inquiry to consider if there are market imbalances in the domestic fresh food supply chains. This inquiry will also examine whether the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct should be extended across the entire domestic supply chain to include retailers and their dealings with processors.

In addition to implementing the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct and announcing the Perishable Agricultural Goods Inquiry, the Government has also committed:

$14.78 million to 2024-25 towards dairy export projects to identify the regulatory hurdles for domestic dairy manufacturers to become exporters, align food safety regulations and work towards reduced regulatory intervention through improved data collection.

$10 million to assist dairy farmers to upgrade or invest in energy efficient equipment to reduce their energy costs.

$8.1 million in the 2019-20 MYEFO in additional funding to the ACCC Agriculture Unit to boost its examination of competition and unfair trading issues. This included the creation of a specialist role with specific responsibility for dairy.

$5.1 million under the Rural Research and Development for profit program towards three projects led by Dairy Australia.

$4.75 million in the Kids to Farms program to help educate children about agriculture through activities such as farm visits, virtual technology 'in-class' experiences and developing information resources for classrooms.

$3 million in grants to support farmer groups to set up farm cooperatives and other collective business models.

$1.5 million total to Dairy Australia and Australian Dairy Farmers to increase business resilience, risk planning and financial and legal literacy for farmers, as well as investigate ways to provide farmers with more say over how they sell their milk.

Assistance is also available through:

the $5 billion Future Drought Fund to provide ongoing and sustainable funding to help build drought preparedness, resilience, and to help with recovery efforts

the Farm Household Allowance, which supports farmers and their partners in financial hardship, regardless of the cause

the Rural Financial Counselling Service, which provides free financial counselling to farmers and small related businesses in, or at risk of, financial hardship

the Regional Investment Corporation, which administers the delivery of farm business concessional drought and investment loans and national water infrastructure loans.

Recommendation 7:

The committee recommends that the ACCC specifically address the issue of unfair contract terms within the dairy industry and provide guidance as to whether milk supply contracts, in- principle, fall under the scope of the unfair contract term laws. Further, the ACCC should provide guidance as to how milk supply agreements and contracts could be developed under a code of conduct for contractual relationships to be compliant with unfair contract laws.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government notes the ACCC Final Report included findings on contracting practices, and that the report identified that in some milk supply contracts, there were potential breaches of the unfair contract term protection provisions under the Australian Consumer Law. For parties covered by the mandatory Dairy Code of Conduct, a number of these concerns have been addressed through provisions relating to good faith requirements, unilateral changes to agreements, and loyalty payments.

On 6 November 2020, Commonwealth and state and territory consumer affairs ministers agreed to strengthen the existing unfair contract term protections in the Australian Consumer Law. Key reforms include:

making unfair contract terms unlawful and giving courts the power to impose a civil penalty

increasing eligibility for the protections by expanding the definition of small business and removing the requirement for a contract to be below a certain threshold

improving clarity on when the protections apply, including on what is a 'standard form contract'.

These reforms will help reduce the prevalence of unfair contract terms in standard form contracts and improve small business confidence when entering into contracts.

Whether or not a milk supply contract falls within the scope of the UCT laws will depend on the details of that contract and the circumstances of the businesses entering into the contract.

General information about the application of the law is available on the ACCC's website (https://www.accc.gov.au/business/business-rights-protections/unfair-contract-terms). Businesses or farmer representative bodies should seek legal advice if they have concerns about a contract or any of the terms of that contract.

Recommendation 8:

The committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017.

The government notes the recommendation.

The measures proposed in the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017 were enacted through the Treasury Laws Amendment {2018 MeasuresNo. 5) Act 2019.

Recommendation 9:

The committee recommends that the government prioritise action to reduce the regulatory burden across the cooperative sector and support programs to facilitate the establishment of new cooperatives.

The government agrees to the recommendation.

The government agrees to this recommendation, noting that $3 million was committed in 2019 for a Starting Farms Cooperative Program to provide grants to assist farmer groups to establish farm cooperatives and other collaborative business models. The initiative builds on the government's $15.2 million Farming Together Pilot Program, which was launched in 2016 as part of the government's Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper.

Under the Starting Farm Co-operatives Program, the Government is providing $2.5 million over two years to the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals to assist farmers, fishers and foresters to learn more about co-operative approaches and their benefits. The measures include provision of an information hotline, workshops, educational material, and financial assistance to fund fees for training courses relevant to establishing co-operative business models.

$500,000 is also being provided to the Southern Cross University to support the legacy of the Farming Together Pilot Program through a series of case studies and updated learning materials.

Co-operatives and other collaborative business arrangements have potential to hand more control back to farmers while reducing costs and improving production efficiencies. A collaborative model allows farmers to function like a larger body while retaining their own independent business structure. This will enable them to take greater ownership along the supply chain and may boost their bargaining position and deliver increased returns at the farm gate. Increased returns are important to the profitability of Australian farmer, fishers and• foresters and to the sustainability of economies in regional communities. In 2018-19 there were over 2,000 co-operative and mutual enterprises in Australia, many of them regionally based.

The government recognises the importance of the co-operative model and its potential contribution to supporting the goal of growing a $100 billion agricultural sector by 2030.

The government also recognises the importance of removing inefficient or ineffective regulation to reduce costs on individuals, businesses and the wider community. In the October 2020 Budget, the Government reinforced its commitment to a renewed deregulation agenda to ensure regulations are fit-for-purpose and support economic recovery as a key pillar of the JobMaker Plan.

In conjunction with the continued funding to support the Deregulation Taskforce, the Government has committed to a stewardship approach to regulatory policy and established a regulator performance role within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Recommendation 10:

The committee recommends that regulatory agencies, particularly the ACCC and ASIC, review their approach to publicly releasing information about investigations; with a view to providing greater general information about current enforcement activities and relevant issues of public concern.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government recognises the frustration of dairy farmers at the long periods of time between commencement of investigations and the provision of public information about the progress of investigations.

The government considers that individual regulatory agencies are best placed to determine what and how much information should be released to the public regarding ongoing or completed· investigations.

The ACCC updates its compliance and enforcement priorities policy annually and releases the document publicly. It has also developed a Media Code of Conduct relating to its enforcement work to "balance fairness to individuals, companies and businesses involved in ACCC investigation and enforcement action with informing the public about the ACCC's enforcement work..."

ASIC has outlined its approach to commenting publicly on its regulatory activities in a publicly available information sheet. Both agencies must weigh the potential public benefits of any statements they make against the potential prejudice that may be caused to individuals or businesses under investigation or subject to enforcement action. The agencies themselves are best placed to make this judgement.

Recommendation 11:

The committee considers that the proposed Dairy Commodity Price Index is of limited value and its development should not be continued

The government notes the recommendation.

The Commodity Milk Price Index (CMPI) was launched in July 2018 to deliver greater price transparency and help dairy farmers understand and interpret market signals. In line with the commitment, the CMPI was reviewed after 12 months of operation to determine its effectiveness.

The findings of the review demonstrated that the CMPI did not successfully deliver greater price transparency nor improved market signals for the Australian dairy industry. As a result, operation of the CMPI ceased in May 2019.

Industry has been working on a Milk Value Portal, which has just been released. The portal has been developed by the Australian Dairy Products Federation with support from Dairy Australia. The portal allows dairy farmers to understand the weighted average raw milk value based on aggregated farmgate milk price data from processors.

(https://milkvalue.com.au/milk-prices/farmgate-milk-value-tool/)

Recommendation 12:

The committee recommends that an independent review of the Dairy Services Levy and Dairy Australia be undertaken by government to provide assurance to dairy farmers that they are receiving value for money from the Dairy Services Levy and the benefits of the levy are being fairly distributed across farmers in all dairy-producing regions.

The government notes the recommendation.

The government has a statutory funding agreement with the dairy industry services body, Dairy Australia, to ensure appropriate accountability and governance arrangements for its research and development activities. A requirement of this funding agreement is that Dairy Australia undertakes an independent performance review every five years. The government works with Dairy Australia to develop the terms of reference for the review, and extensive stakeholder consultation must be included in the process.

Dairy Australia's latest independent review of performance was conducted in March 2017. It found that Dairy Australia met all of the obligations of its statutory funding agreement with government. It also found that corporate governance of the organisation is strong, the board and management are highly competent, and the company's processes are robust. Dairy Australia's next review will be undertaken in 2021 and a report will be provided to government.

All dairy farmers have the opportunity to share in the research, development and extension that Dairy Australia undertakes on their behalf. Decision support tools, research underpinning cattle genetic gains, best practice husbandry, and environmental programs all have national applicability. Additionally, Dairy Australia's Regional Development Programs receive levy funds based on regional milk production. They use these funds for research, development and extension that is best suited to local needs. In doing so, they are able to leverage private and in- kind investment through local buy in. This is a significant benefit of the model.

The government notes that on 17 October 2019, the Senate referred an inquiry into the performance of Australia's dairy industry and the profitability of Australian dairy farmers since deregulation in 2000, to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report. Amongst other terms of reference, the inquiry will look into the ability of Dairy Australia to act independently and support the best interests of both farmers and processors; and the funding of Dairy Australia and the extent of its consultation and engagement on the expenditure of levies revenue. The government looks forward to receiving the Committee's report and will provide a response in due course.

Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report:

Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community

June 2021

Introduction

On 19 June 2014, the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report:

The ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community, with reference to:

(a) the estimated number, distribution and lethality of illegal guns, including both outlawed and stolen guns, in Australia;

(b) the operation and consequences of the illicit firearms trade, including both outlawed and stolen guns within Australia;

(c) the adequacy of current laws and resourcing to enable law enforcement authorities to respond to technological advances in gun technology, including firearms made from parts which have been imported separately or covertly to avoid detection, and firearms made with the use of 3D printers;

(d) the extent to which the number and types of guns stolen each year in Australia increase the risk posed to the safety of police and the community, including the proportion of gun-related crime involving legal firearms which are illegally held;

(e) the effect banning semi-automatic handguns would have on the number of illegally held firearms in Australia;

(f) stricter storage requirements and the use of electronic alarm systems for guns stored in homes;

(g) the extent to which there exist anomalies in federal, state and territory laws regarding the ownership, sale, storage and transit across state boundaries of legal firearms, and how these laws relate to one another; and

(h) any related matters.

The committee tabled its report, 'Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community', which included nine recommendations, on 9 April 2015. The report included a supplementary report titled 'Report by a majority of Senators attending the inquiry', which included a further five recommendations.

The Australian Government's response to the report is set out below. The response addresses all 14 recommendations contained in the report and the supplementary report.

Preamble

The Australian Government is committed to keeping our communities safe through the fair regulation of firearms.

Whilst the regulation of firearms in Australia is primarily the responsibility of State and Territory governments, the National Firearms Agreement sets out a national approach that should be followed by all jurisdictions.

The technical elements of the Agreement were updated in 2017 following a recommendation of the Joint Commonwealth-NSW Martin Place Siege Review.

The objective of the update was to ensure that Australia's firearms regulations, which had not been substantively reviewed for almost two decades, keep pace with advancements in technology and changes to the firearms market.

In addition to incorporating advice from all Commonwealth, State and Territory law enforcement and justice agencies, the review of the Agreement involved consultation with the firearms community (industry and recreational groups), community safety organisations and individuals to produce sensible, practical changes where required.

The updated Agreement amalgamates the 1996 National Firearms Agreement and the 2002 National Handgun Agreement into a single point of reference for firearms regulation in Australia. The Agreement articulates a commitment by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments to a set of minimum standards for the regulation of firearms.

In 2017, the then Law, Crime and Community Safety Council agreed to hold a national firearms amnesty from 1 July to 30 September 2017. The aim of the amnesty was to reduce the number of unregistered firearms in Australia. The amnesty did not target legally registered firearms and did not involve a buyback. The amnesty provided an opportunity for those individuals who possess an unregistered firearm to hand it in without fear of being prosecuted.

The amnesty resulted in over 57,000 unregistered firearms being handed in for registration, sale or destruction. This represents a significant reduction in the number of unregistered firearms in the Australian community and contributes to a safer Australia.

At the November 2019 meeting of the then Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management, Council Members agreed to establish a permanent national firearms amnesty to commence in the second half of 2020 (delayed due to COVID-19 to the second half of 2021), which will be supported by regular information campaigns led by the Commonwealth.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends the Commonwealth government provide funding to allow programs, such as the National Firearms Monitoring Program and the National Firearm Theft Monitoring Program, and reports, such as those in the Firearm Theft in Australia series, to continue on an ongoing basis.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Institute of Criminology is undertaking a one off study on firearm theft employing 2018 data. The study is funded using an existing appropriation.

Recommendation 2:

The committee further recommends the Australian Institute of Criminology conduct within three years a review of current data collection and reporting arrangements, with a particular focus on:

the need for more accurate data on firearm thefts, the recovery of stolen firearms and seizures of illegally imported firearms

the quality and comparability of data provided to Commonwealth agencies by state and territory police; and

greater inter-agency co-operation with regards to data sharing.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

In 2017, the Australian Institute of Criminology consulted with members of the Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group about the feasibility ofre-establishing the National Firearm Theft Monitoring Program. At the time it was determined that State and Territory police resources were not available to provide data to an ongoing Monitoring Program. The Government will continue to work with States and Territories regarding the provision of data.

The Australian Firearms Information Network (AFIN) is designed to provide a consolidated national view of information on each known firearm in Australia, from the point of manufacture or importation through to destruction or exportation.

Recommendation 3:

The committee recommends that the National Firearms Agreement be updated to implement nationally consistent regulation in the following areas:

firearms, firearm parts and firearm accessories;

ammunition; and

the storage of firearms

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Following a recommendation of the Joint Commonwealth-NSW Martin Place Siege Review, the Commonwealth, states and territories undertook an update of the technical elements of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. The then Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism, the Hon Michael Keenan MP, released the updated Agreement on 17 February 2017.

The updated Agreement amalgamates the 1996 National Firearms Agreement and 2002 National Handgun Agreement into a single point of reference for firearms-regulation in Australia. The review of the 1996 Agreement considered the advice of the Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group, which took into account the issues raised in consultations with the firearms industry and community groups.

At the November 2019 meeting of the then Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management, Council Members agreed that the National Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group would identify and develop solutions to areas of inconsistency with the National Firearms Agreement, and areas of inconsistency between jurisdictions that adversely affect public safety or the firearms community. The National Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group is working to improve consistency with the Agreement.

The Government undertakes broader reforms to the regulation of firearms to maintain community safety. In 2020 the Government amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 to restrict the importation of bump stocks. The Government also worked closely with State and Territory governments to regulate bump stocks in their jurisdictions.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government, together with state and territory governments, establish national standards for the security of membership data held by gun clubs.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Recommendation 5:

The committee recommends that an ongoing, Australia-wide gun amnesty is implemented, with consideration given to ways in which this can be done without limiting the ability of police to pursue investigative leads for serious firearm-related crimes.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

At the November 2019 meeting of the then Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management, Ministers agreed to establish a permanent national firearms amnesty to commence in the second half of 2020 (now delayed due to COVID-19), which will be supported by regular information campaigns led by the Commonwealth.

The permanent national amnesty will build on the success of the previous national firearms amnesty, which ran from 1 July to 30 September 2017. The amnesty reduced the number of unregistered firearms in Australia by encouraging Australians to surrender firearms in their possession for either registration or destruction. It successfully resulted in more than 57,000 firearms being handed in for registration, sale or destruction.

As with previous amnesties, a permanent national amnesty would make it easier for those who are in possession of an unregistered firearm to hand it in without fear of prosecution and improve public safety by reducing the number of unregistered firearms in Australia.

Recommendation 6:

The committee recommends that all jurisdictions update their firearm data holdings and ensure the data is transferred to the National Firearms Interface.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

At the November 2019 meeting of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management, Ministers agreed to take a coordinated approach to address firearms registry issues.

In response to a recommendation of the Joint Commonwealth-NSW Martin Place Siege Review, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission undertook a data quality audit of the firearms information available in the National Firearms Licensing and Registration System. The audit identified issues with data quality, such as duplicate records, incorrect recording of serial numbers and missing fields. This information has been provided to the states and territories which administer the data.

In response to another recommendation of the Review, the National Firearms Interface, now known as the Australian Firearms Information Network, has been implemented. The Australian Firearms Information Network is an information sharing system that provides a national view of each known firearm in Australia, assisting police and other law enforcement agencies manage registration, licensing and movement of firearms entering Australia and moving between states and territories. Whilst the Australian Firearms Information Network provides a nationwide ability to track firearms from import or manufacture through to destruction or legal export, it is reliant upon quality data submitted to it by the states and territories. The National Firearms Licensing and Registration System was fully decommissioned in November 2019, making the Australian Firearms Information Network the source of national firearms data.

The benefits of the Australian Firearms Information Network as a national firearm system will be realised once all partners complete integration, which is expected to occur in July 2021.

Recommendation 7:

The committee recommends that Australian governments investigate the requirement for uniform regulations in all jurisdictions covering the manufacture of 3D printed firearms and firearm parts.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

The manufacture of firearms and firearm parts by any means, including 3D printing, is regulated by existing state and territory government measures.

At the October 2018 meeting of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management, Council Members endorsed a nationally consistent approach to offences for the illegal manufacture of firearms.

Recommendation 8:

The committee recommends that Australian governments continue to monitor the risks posed by 3D manufacturing in relation to the manufacture of firearms and consider further regulatory measures if the need arises.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

The regulation of firearms manufacturing is primarily a matter for state and territory governments. The Australian Government will continue to work with state and territory police and justice agencies to identify risks relating to 3D manufacturing of firearms and firearm parts, and to identify any appropriate nationally consistent measures that could be implemented as necessary.

Recommendation 9:

The committee recommends that Australian governments consider committing further funding and resourcing to assist in implementing the preceding recommendations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government will continue to allocate funding and resources to priority areas which address crime in the community. The allocation of funds and resources by States and Territories is a matter for the governments of those jurisdictions.

Recommendations contained in supplementary report titled

Report by a majority of Senators attending the inquiry

Recommendation 1:

The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend that the Commonwealth commission a study into the social, economic and environmental benefits of hunting across Australia, similar to the report that was released by the Victorian Government in 2013.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

In 2018, the Department of Health commissioned a report into the economic and social impacts of recreational hunting and shooting to:

estimate the gross economic contribution (i.e. the economic 'footprint') of recreational hunting and sport shooting in Australia

estimate the net economic contribution of recreational hunting and sport shooting in Australia, and

explore the impact of recreational hunting and sport shooting activity on health and wellbeing of hunters and sport shooters.

The report, subsequently published in 2019, found the Australian economy is $335m (0.02% of Australian GDP) and 3,300 jobs (0.03 per cent of Australia's total full time equivalent employment) larger as a result of the contribution of recreational hunting and sports shooting.

Recommendation 2:

The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend the Commonwealth establish a formal mechanism for industry and firearm user groups to be consulted on issues relating to firearms regulation.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government previously consulted through the Firearms Industry Reference Group, which comprised representatives from the firearms industry. The then Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism, the Hon Michael Keenan MP, chaired the Group's meetings.

The Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, the

Hon Jason Wood MP, conducted consultation meetings with the firearms community and gun control advocates in September 2019, February 2020 and September 2020. The Assistant Minister has committed to regular and ongoing consultation.

The Australian Government is committed to consultation to ensure the importation and regulation of firearms balances the interests of the broader Australian community to live safely and securely with the interests of those with a genuine reason and need to access a firearm.

Recommendation 3:

The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend the Commonwealth continue to pursue improvements in border control for detecting illegal imports of firearms and firearms parts.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government is committed to reducing gun-related violence in the community by continuously improving the capability of authorities to detect illegal imports of firearms and firearms parts. This is a key priority for the Government.

Recommendation 4:

The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend the Commonwealth review its contribution to firearms regulation in the context of the Reform of the Federation White Paper.

Response:

The Government does not agree to this recommendation.

The Government continues to work with State and Territory governments to appropriately and sustainably manage the division of responsibilities for firearms regulation between the Australian Government and state and territory governments.

Recommendation 5:

The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend state and territory governments investigate avenues to decrease regulation of the firearm industry to ease the economic burden on governments, industry and legal firearm users.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The National Firearms Agreement is now the single point of reference for firearms regulation in Australia, as it amalgamates the 1996 National Firearms Agreement and 2002 National Handgun Agreement.

The Commonwealth and the states and territories work closely together to develop a consistent national approach to the regulation of firearms, including minimising unnecessary regulatory burdens. The Government also works with stakeholders to address current issues faced by the firearms community.