2020-04-08 46 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 8 April 2020

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00 made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020, Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020, Australian Education Amendment (Direct Measure of Income) Bill 2020, Guarantee of Lending to Small and Medium Enterprises (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Australian Business Growth Fund (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Assistance for Severely Affected Regions (Special Appropriation) (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Structured Finance Support (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Boosting Cash Flow for Employers (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Supply Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 1

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020

Australian Education Amendment (Direct Measure of Income) Bill 2020

Guarantee of Lending to Small and Medium Enterprises (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Australian Business Growth Fund (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Assistance for Severely Affected Regions (Special Appropriation) (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Structured Finance Support (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Boosting Cash Flow for Employers (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Supply Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Supply Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Returned from Senate 1 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019, Export Control Bill 2019, Export Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2019, Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2019, Export Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2019, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020, Student Identifiers Amendment (Higher Education) Bill 2019, Trade Support Loans Amendment (Improving Administration) Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019, Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020, Boosting Cash Flow for Employers (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Assistance for Severely Affected Regions (Special Appropriation) (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Structured Finance Support (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Australian Business Growth Fund (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Guarantee of Lending to Small and Medium Enterprises (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020, Supply Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020, Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020, Australian Education Amendment (Direct Measure of Income) Bill 2020 2

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019

Export Control Bill 2019

Export Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019

Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2019

Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2019

Export Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2019

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020

Student Identifiers Amendment (Higher Education) Bill 2019

Trade Support Loans Amendment (Improving Administration) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019

Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020

Boosting Cash Flow for Employers (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Assistance for Severely Affected Regions (Special Appropriation) (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Appropriation (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Structured Finance Support (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Australian Business Growth Fund (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Guarantee of Lending to Small and Medium Enterprises (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Bill 2020

Supply Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Supply Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020

Australian Education Amendment (Direct Measure of Income) Bill 2020

Assent 2 BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 2 10:02 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Mr Speaker, just as was the case last time when we had an unusual sitting, I'll move the motion in full so that everyone's apprised of all the terms. I will move a motion to suspend standing orders and advise the House that, pursuant to standing order 47(c)(ii), the Manager of Opposition Business and I have agreed that an absolute majority is not required. I thereby move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to business for today: (1) the Federation Chamber not to meet today; (2) immediately following the resolution of this motion the Prime Minister to make a ministerial statement, with the Leader of the Opposition to respond; (3) subsequent business for this sitting to be restricted to bills relating to the further economic response to the coronavirus crisis, Question Time, and any other business agreed between a Minister and the Manager of Opposition Business; (4) presentation and consideration of bills relating to the further economic response to the coronavirus crisis to be given priority over all other business until 2pm; (5) the Speaker to report any Messages from the Governor-General required by standing order 180(b), a Minister to present the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020 together and the first reading of each bill to be given; (6) the minister to move one motion that the bills be read a second time, and make a second reading speech; (7) at the conclusion of the second reading speech a cognate debate to ensue until 2pm; (8) immediately after Question Time and the presentation of any documents by the Speaker, the immediate question, or questions, necessary to complete the second reading of the bills to be put; (9) if the second reading of the bills is agreed to and any Messages from the Governor-General announced, the bills then to be taken as a whole during consideration in detail, if required, for one hour, with any Government amendments to the bills that have been circulated to be treated as if they have been moved together, any Opposition amendments which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, and any amendments circulated by non-aligned Members to be treated as if they had been moved together by the Member proposing them, with: (a) one question to be put on all the Government amendments; (b) one question then to be put on any amendments which have been circulated by Opposition Members; (c) single questions then to be put on amendments circulated by each non-aligned Member; and (d) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bills to be put without delay; (10) if consideration in detail is not required, the question on the third reading of the bills to be put immediately after the second readings of the bills and the announcement of any Messages from the Governor-General; (11) following the third readings of the bills, any other business agreed by a Minister and the Manager of Opposition Business to ensue, the Speaker then to suspend the House until the ringing of the bells; (12) when the sitting resumes any further business relating to the bills and any other business agreed by a Minister and the Manager of Opposition Business to ensue, and the Speaker then to adjourn the House until a date and hour to be fixed by the Speaker; and (13) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister with leave granted by the Manager of Opposition Business. I personally thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his cooperation in devising that motion. 10:05 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the Leader of the House. The opposition will be supporting the suspension in its form without amendment. There are a number of issues that we have been pursuing publicly on which we don't have the agreement of the government. It remains our position that the parliament should be meeting with a different calendar to where we now are, where we are pretending that we won't be required until August. Obviously, we're not going to go through the process of moving an amendment to that or anything like that now, but our position is known—it is stated—and that remains the case. I should also point out that while the parliament should be meeting, it is also the case that, in the absence of the parliament, and even if the parliament were meeting, oversight during this period is really important. There will be a Senate inquiry with a committee established to be able to perform a whole lot of that oversight. This parliament has seen for a long time that, while there are joint committees and Reps committees, the truth is the committee system that has been the most thorough in supervising the work of government has been Senate select committees; that is simply a given. A reason for that, in part, is that the chairs are not from the government and that does make a difference in the role that they play. That's the reason why we have sought for there to be a Senate select committee, rather than there being a House of Representatives committee or a joint committee. I put that down because I appreciate that some members of the crossbench have raised both with me personally and with the Leader of the House—that they wanted a House of Representatives inquiry or a joint committee to be the way forward. Our view has been that history has shown that a Senate select committee is the strongest way to provide oversight, in the absence of the House and Senate sitting themselves. That's the reason why we've pursued that particular approach. For the reasons I stated at the beginning, we won't be supporting amendments to the motion that's been moved and negotiated cooperatively with the Leader of the House. 10:07 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Just because this was raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, we won't be moving amendments to this nation. But the question of the proper oversight of this parliament and of the government, given that parliamentary sittings have been cancelled, is a very, very important one. A number of members of the crossbench raised with the government and the opposition that they need to have a joint committee with a non-government chair. A big part of the reason for that is that, given the House is not sitting, there will not be a forum between now and August when House based government ministers will be accountable or responsive to other members of parliament. In other words, there is going to be no question time and there is going to be no capacity to debate motions. Of course, ministers based in the House can and often do refuse to appear before Senate committees. Usually when Senate committees are sitting, that is happening whilst the House is also sitting. So there are forums for that accountability to happen. I will certainly be making further contributions during the course of the day about the importance of transparency and oversight. It is disappointing that there hasn't been agreement from others to a joint committee, or to two joint committees, that could have been chaired by non-government members—which could have, in effect, stood in while parliament is not sitting. It is disappointing that that's not the case. It's something that we will, and may, pursue further in the Senate, and I will pursue it further in the later contributions, but I don't intend to stand in the way of this motion being put now. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 4 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS COVID-19 4 10:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We gather again today in unusual circumstances, during extreme times, to consider extraordinary responses to the twin crises our nation faces—to our nation's health and to our economy. What we do today is what governments have always done in such circumstances, where our nation is under threat, and it is what previous generations have done before us. Today we act to protect Australia's sovereignty. When Australian lives and livelihoods are threatened, when they are under attack, our nation's sovereignty is put at risk and we must respond—as a government, as a parliament and as a nation together: nurses, teachers, drivers, cleaners, doctors, police and paramedics; factory workers, engineers and bankers; grocers, miners, farmers, pastors, priests and imams; politicians, union officials and even lawyers; and mums, dads, grandparents, kids and families—all of us. Our sovereignty is measured in our capacity and freedom to live our lives as we choose in a free, open and democratic society. We are not a coerced society. We act through our agreement and our wilful support of the national interest and through our many institutions, including this parliament and the many other parliaments around this country. We will not surrender this. Our sovereignty is enabled by having a vibrant market economy that underpins our standard of living, that gives all Australians the opportunity to fulfil their potential—to have a go and to get ago. We will not surrender this. Our sovereignty is demonstrated by the quality of life we afford Australians, with world-class health, education and disability and aged care and a social safety net that guarantees the essentials that Australians rely on. We will not surrender this. Above all, our sovereignty is sustained by what we believe as Australians, what we value and hold most dear: our principles, our way of life and our way of doing things. We will never surrender this. So make no mistake: today is not about ideologies. We checked those in at the door. Today is about defending and protecting Australia's national sovereignty. It will be a fight; it will be a fight we will win. But it won't be a fight without cost or without loss. Protecting our sovereignty has always come at great cost, regardless of what form that threat takes, and today will be no different. So today we will agree to pay that price through the important measures we will legislate. But today, as a government, I want to commit to all Australians, as Prime Minister, that once we have overcome these threats—and we will—we will rebuild and we will restore whatever the battle ahead takes from us. As a nation we are working together nationally, especially through the national cabinet. I wish to again place on record my thanks to all our premiers and chief ministers. We have come together to lead together in a new way through these crises. I thank all of my ministers, who I lead together with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer. We are, all together as ministers, ably advised by our experts and officials in the Australian Public Service. I particularly want to acknowledge Professor Brendan Murphy and his team. I thank all of my colleagues on the government benches for their input and leadership in their communities, as I do all members of this House and the other place. I thank the opposition leader and his parliamentary team and all of our staffs. I extend my thanks to the many businesses, large and small; to the unions; to the banks; to the media; to the not-for-profit organisations and welfare and charitable groups; to Indigenous leaders; to the churches and other faith groups for their prayers, for their support and the many efforts that they are making. Together we have now established the key baseline supports and protections that have bought us much-needed time in these crises, to get us through—and I will speak of those actions today—but there is a long way to go in this fight. This has been our road in. We will now lead the country on the road through and then the road out and beyond. It has been 16 days since this House last met. As of this morning, 5,956 Australians have contracted the coronavirus. Thankfully, 2,547 have recovered, while 294 are hospitalised, 92 are in intensive care and 36 are on respirators. Sadly, there have been almost 50 deaths in Australia. Tens of thousands more have died across the world. One of those was the member for Cooper's father-in-law. On behalf of the government and the parliament, I extend our deepest sympathies to the member for Cooper and her family. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr MORRISON E3L They are with all who have lost loved ones in recent times, here and overseas, and are fearful of that event occurring in the future. And, as a nation, we especially send our best wishes to our good friend the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson. Get well soon, Boris. We need you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr MORRISON E3L When the House last met, new cases were growing at more than 20 per cent a day. In recent days, it has averaged two per cent a day. This is very encouraging. We are flattening the curve. We are buying ourselves precious time in this fight. I want to thank the overwhelming majority of Australians for doing the right thing. You are saving lives; you are saving livelihoods. But we have to keep up our efforts. Progress can be easily undone, as we have seen in other places around the world. We are only a few days away from Easter, a time that should give us great hope. The message is clear, though: stay home, don't travel, don't go away. We can't let up now. I've said many times we are facing twin crises: the health crisis and an economic one. We must deal with them simultaneously and in real time, and so often they work against each other. But that is the balance we must achieve. Since the parliament last met, we have taken many actions on many fronts. People coming back from overseas now have to self-isolate for 14 days in a designated facility. The national cabinet has further tightened restrictions on public gatherings, and these are taking some time to get used to. We've expanded the coronavirus testing criteria to include people with fever or acute respiratory infection and under key categories. Australians should be very proud that we have one of the most comprehensive testing regimes in the world. We have one of the highest rates of testing in the world. Today some 313,000 tests for the virus have been conducted across Australia. This is more than double the number since we last met. I commend the Minister for Health on his efforts in this respect. Since the parliament last met, we have strengthened the preparedness of our hospitals and are working with the states to triple our ICU capacity. We've changed medical indemnity rules to encourage retired health workers to return to practice. We're supporting up to 20,000 registered nurses to get online training to better prepare them to deliver care in high-dependency and intensive care units. We have finalised a historic partnership with private hospitals, ensuring that over 30,000 hospital beds and 105,000 skilled workers are mobilised to work in conjunction with the public hospital sector. The government will guarantee the viability of all 657 private and not-for-profit hospitals across Australia through these challenging times, because we need them. To preserve critical resources, we've acted to suspend all non-urgent elective surgery. Of course, we know many Australians still need to see their doctor during this time—and they should—and need to get the medicines they depend on for their health. So we've expanded Medicare subsidised telehealth services and we've given extra incentives for GPs and other health practitioners so that their practices can stay open for face-to-face services where needed. We know Indigenous Australians are at great risk from COVID-19, and we are making $123 million available for targeted measures to assist Indigenous communities and businesses. We're supporting those Australians with a disability through the efforts of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We've taken action against those who would seek to profiteer from the health crisis by buying goods like face masks, hand sanitisers and medicines and reselling them at big mark-ups or exporting them in bulk overseas. It's not on. These products should be for Australians first and foremost. We've invested an initial $74 million for mental health support. And, to counter the great risk from domestic violence, we have committed an additional $150 million to support Australians experiencing domestic, family and sexual violence. While we have continued to build our national medical stockpile all this time, over 30 million masks have arrived in just recent days, with great help from groups like the Minderoo Foundation, with more than 500 million masks on order and domestic production also underway. Our government has moved decisively to address the economic storm that also confronts us. This is the greatest economic crisis to afflict the world in many generations. We have responded with the biggest economic lifeline in Australia's history, which we will consider today. I want to thank the Treasurer for his leadership as these measures have been brought together—working together, I should say also, with the treasurers of the states and territories around the country on so many other measures. So far, more than 200,000 additional jobseeker claims have been finalised over the past few weeks, with the COVID-19 supplement doubling our safety net support. Thousands of extra workers have been recruited into the public cause to ensure we can move through the claims still outstanding as quickly as possible. Today, we will put before the parliament our JobKeeper package. JobKeeper will keep Australians in jobs and it will keep the businesses that employ those Australians in business, both now and into the future. The $130 billion economic lifeline will provide payments of $1,500 per fortnight to an estimated six million eligible workers through their employer. As of yesterday afternoon, over 700,000 businesses have registered for this support, and this number continues to grow. This payment is the equivalent of around 70 per cent of the national median wage. For workers in accommodation, hospitality and retail services—some of the most affected by this economic crisis—it equates to a full median replacement wage. We also have extended the partner pay income test for those on jobseeker; the partner test has been changed from around $48,000 to just over $79,000. As well, we want those working with children, and particularly our essential workers, to have confidence in their childcare arrangements. The government is providing business continuity payments to support childcare services to stay open. This means around one million Australian families will be able to receive free child care. The investment complements the more than $1 billion the government expects the sector to receive through the JobKeeper payment. Managing our workforce is a critical part of keeping the economy going. We have announced changes to temporary visa holders, including for international students, temporary skilled visa holders and working holiday-makers. We are also relaxing the visa conditions for our Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme so that participants can stay for up to one more year. This is essential for our agriculture sector, which, for the first time in a long time, is seeing rain. These extensions are subject, of course, to labour market testing, allowing local jobseekers, Australians, the opportunity for work. The government knows many Australian businesses are under pressure, and we won't allow a fire sale of Australian businesses to foreign interests. The Treasurer has announced temporary changes to the foreign investment review framework to protect Australia's national interest. This means all proposed foreign investments will now require approval, regardless of the value or nature of the foreign investor. With businesses and families under stress, the national cabinet has agreed to a moratorium on evictions over the next six months for commercial and residential tenancies in financial distress. Yesterday, the national cabinet agreed that states and territories would implement, legislate and regulate a mandatory code of conduct for commercial tenancies, which includes retail, office and industrial properties. The code sets out the good faith leasing principles for these tenancies. It means that businesses will be able to emerge on the other side and start trading again, not weighed down by disabling debts that would otherwise keep their doors closed forever. We are all in this together. I know that some families, coming into this health and economic crisis, were already doing it incredibly tough. That's why we are providing an additional $200 million to help vulnerable Australians pay bills and pay for food, clothing and petrol. Additionally, we are providing almost $60 million to assist older Australians with food and other essential items. To mobilise the full resources and talent of the private sector behind our national mission, we have established the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission under the leadership of Nev Power. I thank all of those commissioners for their service. This is about government and the private sector working together to solve problems for our nation. All the measures I have detailed today are measures that we have announced in recent weeks, since we last met. We have a long way to go. Through the actions we have taken to date, we have bought Australia valuable time to chart a way out over the next six months. But there are no guarantees, and it could well take far longer. Our country will look different on the other side, but Australians will always be Australians. We have navigated the road in, and we can now see some encouraging signs. We do stand in a place today far better than most nations around the world because of the efforts of all Australians. We've been flattening the curve, buying more time—time other countries haven't had; and we have seen the devastating effects on those nations and their people—preparing our health system for the challenges to come, putting in place the big economic lifeline and the buffers for Australians in what, for so many, will be their toughest ever year, 2020. We are charting the road through. We are all in. Our institutions are strong. Our people are strong. Australia is strong and will continue to be strong. We will respond to this challenge. We are up for the fight. We will pay the price needed to protect our sovereignty, and we will chart our way out. We will get through this together, Australia. 10:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Something we should reflect on when we gather here in the House of Representatives is that last word, 'Representatives'. We are here to represent people. We are here to deliver policies which protect people's health. We are here to deliver programs that protect people's living standards. In the current crisis, statistics and numbers abound, but they are not abstract; they represent people—someone's mother; someone's brother; someone's grandparent; our colleague the member for Cooper Ged Kearney's father-in-law, Mike, aged 82 years. Our sincere condolences go to Ged, Leigh and all of Mike's family. At times like this we must rise to the occasion, whilst recognising the simple principle that looking after people is our core responsibility; that we have a responsibility to look after the sick, the vulnerable and the needy; that we as representatives in this parliament must be as good and compassionate and courageous as the workers who continue to make a difference for their fellow Australians; and that we adhere to the principle of caring and looking after one another—the principle of the fair go, the heart of what it means to be an Australian not just in easy times of peace and prosperity but in the very depths of despair. While Australians are being forced to be 1.5 metres apart, in so many ways we have never been closer together. We don't discard our values in hard times; we look to them. We trust in them. We trust one another. We remember what it means to be an Australian: not just the privilege of life in this country, in some abstract sense, but the duty that we all have to look after each other. This is how we will come through this, together. We owe a debt to all our medical workers. Like our firefighters, so recently, they've put themselves on the front line, day in, day out, week in, week out. We owe a debt to our cleaners, unsung heroes, who are putting themselves on the front line; to our public transport workers and other transport workers; to our teachers and our childcare workers; to our supermarket workers; to our police officers and emergency service workers; to everyone who is keeping us going through this. It is an unprecedented situation that is making unprecedented changes to the way that we live our lives, and it is being met with unprecedented government spending, which we are considering today. Labor has a responsibility to be constructive and to make sure the government gets this right. I've continued to say from day one that I want to be known as the Labor leader, not the opposition leader. We come to the parliament with open hearts and open minds. But we owe it to all Australians to keep our eyes open too. The scale of this expenditure that we'll consider today is without equal in our nation's history. We are headed for a trillion-dollar debt. It is a bill that will saddle a generation. With this comes a compelling need for scrutiny and forensic oversight. We have called for a wage subsidy for many weeks. We regard the keeping of a relationship between employers and their employees as essential, to minimise unemployment and ensure that we can transition from this economic downturn as quickly and as strongly as possible. I congratulate the government on changing its view on wage subsidies since we last met. I recognise that many of the measures being advanced by the government to intervene in the economy stand in direct contravention to their rhetorical position over many years, including, of course, their opposition to much of the economic stimulus program of the Rudd Labor government that protected Australians through the global financial crisis. Australians can feel comfort that the government has been prepared to act in a way which, I'm sure, makes it feel uncomfortable. They deserve credit for listening to the views of Labor, unions and the business community on the wage subsidy issue. Even though we have concerns about some elements of the package and would like to see it improved, and we will make suggestions to improve it, we will support the legislation even if our suggestions are not adopted. Today, we will move a series of second reading amendments. They go to the issues that we believe would improve the bill. We will then move, in detail, amendments in the House of Representatives. We hope that the government is prepared to consider those and to respond positively, just as we did in the first package of legislation. But we will ensure the speedy package not just through the House of Representatives but also through the Senate. Our caucus today adopted a position that we will not support any amendments that are not moved by Labor in the Senate later this evening. We do that because of the practical issue that we do not want a stand-off between the two chambers. We want a speedy package of the wage subsidies that will make a difference to people's lives. We say that well in advance and, indeed, it is consistent with what we did on the first package of legislation and is consistent with my approach to politics: never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And this is good legislation. It will make a difference to people as a result of what we do in this parliament here. The needs of our nation, I believe, demand unity and a common sense of purpose. I reiterate our concern that the structure of the JobKeeper payments will mean that many needy Australians will miss out. This arises from the principle that the payments will be directed on the basis of the structure of the employer, not the need of the individual worker. This means that employees in exactly the same circumstances may be treated differently, depending on the size and the structure of the company or business that they work for. Payments will be defined not by what has happened to the worker but by who they work for, the structure of the company and the way they deal with their business activity statements. There are over one million Australians who are casual workers and will not be eligible for the JobKeeper program. This fails to recognise that in the modern workforce many workers defined as casual but who have been stood down have expectations and financial commitments based upon that regular work and income. For every worker who misses out, it means that the relationship between that worker and their employer risks being broken. And when you break this relationship you not only weaken the existing economic position of both the worker and their employer but also the pace of economic recovery coming out of this crisis. We know from bitter experience that, once this relationship is severed, some workers remain unemployed for a very long time. We are also concerned about permanent workers being forced to take their annual leave at this time. This will not be in their interest or in the long-term interest of the economy, as we seek to revive the tourism sector as we come out of this crisis. The exclusion of temporary visa holders from the JobKeeper arrangements is also of concern. I agree with the Prime Minister that, if a temporary visa worker can go home in the midst of this crisis, they should. But the reality is that most cannot, as borders close and international flights are cancelled. That means there are some one million people who remain in Australia without work, without access to health care and without a means of support. The nature of this pandemic means that that is a health issue not just for the individuals but for the nation, and that's why it requires a response from the government beyond that which is currently being offered. We put these further suggestions to the government in the spirit of bipartisanship. Bipartisanship does not imply unilateralism; it also does not imply silence. What it implies is goodwill, constructive relationships on both sides and a capacity to work through issues. I acknowledge that many issues have been worked through in a cooperative way, and I say that we on this side are prepared to continue to do so. For example, we acknowledge that under the existing legislation the Treasurer has a capacity to make changes to who is eligible for JobKeeper payments on an ongoing basis, and we say to him that we will continue, if we are not successful today, to argue the case, because I think it is a good one. It is one that is argued not in partisan interests; it is one that is argued in the national interest, because we all have an interest in coming out of this as strong as we possibly can. We believe that there should be a capacity to consider the practical way in which this legislation is making a difference in this parliament between now and August. We should continue to sit on a regular basis. I don't see that it's consistent that we are saying to our health workers, to our teachers, to our police officers, to our supermarket workers, to our cleaners and to others, 'Thank you for continuing to work and do your job,' but we're not going to sit in this parliament until August. I believe today will be a day in which we can all be collectively proud of our efforts in this parliament—both those members and senators who are here and those who have done the right thing because of social distancing and being part of caring arrangements. But I say that the government should, as it has the power to do, continue to meet at regular intervals. It is in their interest, it is in the nation's interests, and I think the public expect it. It is a good thing—and I congratulate the government on agreeing to it—that we will have the Senate select committee that will be chaired by Senator Gallagher, the shadow finance minister. We on this side, will be ably represented as well by Senator Keneally and Senator Watt, and there will be a representative of the Greens political party, as well as Senator Lambie and two government members. This will have an important role in scrutinising, in detail, the implementation of the package that will be passed through the parliament. We're very proud that Labor advanced the need for wage subsidies as an essential component of coming through this crisis, and we recognise that millions of Australians will benefit directly from this package. We recognise that businesses that would have collapsed and disappeared, never to be seen again, will be able to continue as a result of this package and that that capital—both physical capital and social capital—will continue as a result of this package. On top of support for JobKeeper, we are heartened by the government's adoption of other constructive suggestions that we have advanced in recent weeks. They include: an increase in testing and stronger action for those who arrive on international flights; increased use of telehealth, including for mental health; a moratorium on evictions from residential properties, so a young family with a baby won't get forced out onto the street; interest rate relief for landlords on properties where their tenants have no income, meaning a landlord who has lost their job doesn't have to pass the pain on to a young family; and support for child care to ensure the system can survive the downturn. When parliament last met, changes were agreed that extended the jobseeker payment to 230,000 recipients of Austudy, Abstudy and the youth allowance. We agreed to adjusting the income threshold for couples when one partner loses their job and, since then, that has been implemented by the minister, and I thank Minister Ruston for that. We also agreed to increase the discretionary power of the finance minister to $40 billion. While I speak about the government being out of its comfort zone, it certainly wouldn't have been in my reckoning when I became Labor leader that we would increase that discretionary payment capacity of the finance minister from $1.2 billion to $40 billion, but it is conjunction with the shadow finance minister. All of these measures are making a difference. So too are the social-distancing measures. As we have learnt from overseas experience and we are confirming here, these measures, while difficult, are both effective and necessary. The precautionary principle must apply. With all of them, we need to bring politics back to being all about people, and it is people that are making a difference by agreeing to stay at home, including over the Easter period. It is encouraging that one possible casualty of this pandemic is the politics where partisan interests trump the national interest, where vilifying your opponents and impugning their motives replaces a contest of ideas. That sort of politics undermines faith in our democracy. One day we will conquer this disease. The pandemic will be a Wikipedia entry with a start date and a finish date, but its effects will be with us for a very long time. Each day has us reflecting on what really counts. Each day in this changing world is changing us. What sort of society will we be after this? There will be changes to the way we live, work and travel. As we rebuild, we must be guided by the principle of an economy that works for people, not the other way around—that we need greater work security; that we need essential government services, such as that provided by Centrelink, to be done by people, not robots; and that contracting out of core functions needs to end. It is a good sign that this is recognised across the parliament by the abandonment of the visa privatisation proposal. We must ensure greater self-reliance and self-protection. That means support for manufacturing and producing products that we need in times of crisis. This extends beyond medical products to food and other essential supplies. It means recognising our fortune in that being an island continent provides us with some advantages. We should ensure that our maritime sector, whether carrying people on cruise ships or freight on cargo ships, is revitalised by the Australian flag being present around our coastline, which would give us more control over our national interests. We should reflect on the fact that so many of those frontline workers—think about it: cleaners, childcare workers, teachers, health workers, nurses—are, in so many cases, defined not just by being in primarily though certainly not exclusively female occupations, but also by being our poorest paid. They are the people we are relying upon. That's market failure, because price does not represent value, because their value has been shown to be absolutely essential to literally keeping us alive during this period. We should also reflect on being reminded that there is a common interest between trade unions and the business community. They have worked together so effectively. The common interest between business and unions doesn't just exist in a crisis; it was there before and it will be there after, and this parliament must recognise that. This crisis has been a potent reminder that there is indeed such a thing as society—that we are not just individuals; that we rely on each other. We will come through this together. This crisis will change Australia forever. That's the nature of human history. We evolve. We have been reminded that it is our human relationships that are central to our quality of life. We need to emerge from this crisis with confidence that we are stronger when we work together and with confidence in the principles that no-one held back and no-one was left behind. If we do that, if we continue to work together across this parliament and as unions, business, community leaders and workers, we will emerge from this stronger and more united and with a greater sense of confidence in who we are. I'm certain we can do that together. I thank the House and I thank my colleagues for the work that they've done in going through a difficult process, in caucus and with the whole Labor Party being prepared to work in such a constructive way. I pledge to continue to play a constructive role with the government during this crisis to ensure that we overcome both the health and the economic challenges ahead. BILLS 9 BILLS Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020, Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020 9

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020

Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 10:51 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That these bills be now read a second time. Today is one of the most important days in this history of the Australian parliament. Today is the day that this bill saves millions of Australian jobs. Today is the day that the people's house delivers for the Australian people. This is the ultimate Team Australia moment. At a time when the country needs it most, the Prime Minister has provided the strong, the stable and the decisive leadership that this nation needs. I would like to thank him for his friendship and support, together with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industrial Relations for their support in the preparation of the legislation that is before the House today. Our actions today will keep families together, businesses in business and preserve the productive capacity of the economy. This is vital as we prepare to meet the challenges of today and position ourselves for the recovery tomorrow. The coronavirus sees Australia fighting a war on two fronts. We face a health crisis and economic crisis simultaneously. But no matter how great the task ahead, all Australians need to know that their government has their back. Our priority all along has been to prepare and resource our health system for the challenges that lie ahead. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the Minister for Health. At the same time, we have taken unprecedented steps to cushion the severe economic impact for Australians from the coronavirus and build a bridge to the recovery phase. Our actions have always been guided by our principles. The measures we have implemented have been temporary, targeted, proportionate and scalable to the challenges we face. Our measures have also been designed to leverage our existing tax and transfer systems to ensure that we can get the support to the millions of Australians that need it in the most efficient and effective way possible. Our actions to date have seen a doubling of the safety net with a new $550 per fortnight coronavirus supplement. We have also allowed Australians in financial stress as a result of the coronavirus to access more of their own money in superannuation on a tax free basis—permitting them to access $10,000 this financial year and a further $10,000 next financial year. For hundreds of thousands of small businesses who are employing millions of Australians that are doing it tough, we will provide cash payments of up to $100,000. These payments will also support thousands of not-for-profit organisations. We have also guaranteed new small business loans of up to $250,000 to help them bounce back stronger on the other side. At the same time we have provided a regulatory shield for what are otherwise profitable and viable businesses that find themselves under severe financial pressure as a result of the coronavirus. By providing more flexibility in our insolvency and bankruptcy laws, we can keep these businesses alive and help them to trade through this period. And today, we go further. Much further. This bill introduces a $130 billion JobKeeper package to keep businesses in business and Australians in a job. This is the single biggest rescue package that our nation has ever seen. It is anticipated that over the next six months the JobKeeper payment will support the jobs and livelihoods of around six million Australians, many of whom will need this critical economic lifeline. I'm pleased to note to the House that, despite these major spending pressures, Standard & Poor's has reaffirmed today Australia's AAA credit rating. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures and this new $1,500 a fortnight payment will provide job security at a time when it is needed most. This is a level of support like this country has never, ever seen before. The $1,500 flat payment is the equivalent of about 70 per cent of the median wage and represents about 100 per cent of the median wage in some of the most heavily affected sectors, such as retail, hospitality and tourism. It will be available to full-time and part-time workers, sole traders and, in the case of casuals, to those who have been with their employer for 12 months or more and importantly will apply to the many Australians working in the not-for-profit sector. Combined with the government's previous actions, this totals $320 billion or 16.4 per cent of GDP in economic support to Australian businesses, households and individuals affected by the coronavirus to get them through to the other side and to put Australia in the best position possible to bounce back stronger than ever. Fair Work Act amendments This schedule will allow for the effective operation of the JobKeeper scheme within the national industrial relations system. It will quickly provide the certainty that employers using the JobKeeper payment need by temporarily varying working arrangements where necessary to keep people employed. At the same time it will offer employees strong protections from employers misusing the provisions and certainty as to their entitlements under the JobKeeper scheme. These measures are time limited to the COVID-19 crisis and are only accessible to businesses participating in the JobKeeper scheme that need this flexibility right now. In order to manage a downturn in business caused by the coronavirus, this schedule allows an employer to stand down an employee by directing them to work fewer days or reduced hours if the employee cannot be usefully employed because of the impact of the coronavirus crisis on the business. It also allows an employer, where the employer reasonably believes it is necessary to maintain the employment of their employee, to direct an employee to work from a different location, such as the employee's home, or undertake different duties than usual, but only where the direction is safe to do so and reasonably within the scope of the business's operations. It further allows an employer to request that an employee agree to change their days or time of work or use some of their annual leave, provided it does not result in the employee having a balance of less than two weeks annual leave. This schedule includes strong protections for employees to ensure that they are treated fairly in any direction by an employer. The schedule applies only to employers and employees who are eligible for the JobKeeper payment. Any direction issued by an employer under this schedule must be reasonable; the employer must consult with the employee about it, and it must be put it in writing. An employee can dispute a direction made by an employer, and the Fair Work Commission will be able to settle any such disputes, including by arbitration. Serious penalties will apply to employers who misuse the provisions. The J ob K eeper p ayment The government will provide financial support to businesses, not-for-profits and sole traders affected by the coronavirus outbreak. Under this framework, the government will deliver a wage subsidy to those employers significantly impacted by the coronavirus outbreak to continue paying their employees. The JobKeeper payment will support employers to maintain their connection to their employees, helping them to reactivate their operations quickly—without having to rehire staff—when the crisis is over. Eligibility for the JobKeeper payment will be set out in the rules made by the Treasurer. The JobKeeper payment will be payable to an eligible employer who chooses to participate in the scheme, for a maximum of 26 weeks in respect of each employee that is on their books on 1 March 2020 and is retained or continues to be engaged by that employer. The program commences on 30 March 2020, the day of its announcement. Eligible businesses can begin distributing the JobKeeper payment immediately and will be reimbursed from the first week of May. This schedule will also help new parents who have been stood down during the coronavirus pandemic to retain their eligibility for the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme by allowing the JobKeeper payment to qualify as work for the purposes of the Paid Parental Leave work test. This change will provide increased certainty and security for expectant families through this difficult time. To assist Services Australia to assess claims for social security payments, the bill allows temporary modifications to part 5 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999to enable the ATO to share information with Services Australia in relation to payments, such as the JobKeeper payment, made as part of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package. Technical amendments to the g uarantee of l ending a ct We are making a minor amendment to the Guarantee of Lending to Small and Medium Enterprises (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Act 2020. The amendment will ensure that smaller lenders that are non-authorised deposit-taking institutions are eligible for the government's Coronavirus Small and Medium Enterprises Guarantee Scheme. This reflects the government's original policy intent to enable a wide range of lenders to be eligible for this scheme. Amendments to support the childcare sector The government will assist families who are already struggling with the financial impact of the coronavirus by updating the calculation method used at childcare subsidy balancing for individuals who have changed their relationship status during the financial year. We will ensure that this cohort of families' childcare subsidy entitlements more closely reflect their income capacity as it changes throughout the year. This change will take effect at reconciliation from July 2020 onwards. This measure will ensure funding of the Community Child Care Fund Special Circumstances Grant Opportunity program and the additional childcare subsidy through special appropriations. It gives the government flexibility to respond quickly to community need in the event of unforeseen events such as the recent bushfires, drought and coronavirus. Modification of information and other requirements The government is responding to challenges posed by social-distancing measures and restrictions on movement and gathering, which were introduced to respond to the coronavirus pandemic. We will provide a temporary mechanism to alter arrangements for meeting information and documentary requirements under Commonwealth legislation, including requirements to give information in writing and produce, witness and sign documents. In recognition of the importance of continued business transactions and government service delivery during the coronavirus pandemic, this schedule provides that a responsible minister may determine that provisions are varied or do not apply or that another provision specified in the determination applies, for a specified time period. The mechanism is temporary and will be repealed at 31 December 2020. Any determination made under the mechanism will also cease to operate at this time. Additional support for v eterans We will ensure that payments and assistance for veterans and their dependants can be amended in line with future changes to payments and assistance for equivalent social security recipients. The coronavirus supplement will be extended to veterans or their dependants who receive payments on the same basis as those Department of Social Services payment recipients who receive the coronavirus supplement. The schedule will include a provision for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to make a legislative instrument under which payments of the coronavirus supplement could be paid to a person receiving a payment or a benefit under the veterans' law for the same period as payments of the coronavirus supplement are payable under the Social Security Act 1991 (the SSA). For both of the provisions under which the Minister for Veterans' Affairs may make a legislative instrument, the minister must be satisfied that the determination was made in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus pandemic, and the social services minister is to be consulted before the determination is made. Information s haring This legislation will ensure that the government is equipped to respond to this unprecedented challenge with the best available information. Under this schedule, the ATO will be temporarily allowed to disclose relevant de-identified data to the Treasury for the purpose of policy development or analysis in relation to the coronavirus, including any programs introduced in response to the economic impacts of the coronavirus. Treasury is currently able to access de-identified information from the ATO for the purpose of designing or amending a tax law, estimating or analysing taxation revenue, and estimating the cost of policy proposals. In conclusion, I would like to thank my fellow Treasury ministers: the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Deakin; Senator Hume; and Senator Seselja. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and, in particular, acknowledge the secretary of Treasury, Dr Steven Kennedy, and one of his deputies, Jenny Wilkinson, who've worked extraordinarily hard on this package of measures. I would also like to acknowledge the constructive role played to date by the opposition, which will hopefully smooth the passage of this legislation through the parliament. Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. This package of legislation also includes Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020. The details of these bills are set out in their accompanying explanatory memoranda. This package of bills provides a $130 billion wage subsidy unlike those that have been announced by other countries. Our scheme is different to that of the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Canada. It's an Australian scheme for Australian conditions. It goes without saying that this unprecedented level of support reflects the unprecedented moment that we find ourselves in. This legislation is the means by which we will get Australians to the other side of the crisis. I end where I started. Today is one of the most important days in the history of the Australian parliament. Today is the day that these bills will deliver $130 billion of support to Australian workers, saving millions of jobs. And today is the day the people's house delivers for the Australian people. I commend these bills to the House. 11:10 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I begin by acknowledging the work of the Treasurer, including his time away from Amy and the kids, the work of his team and his office and, of course, the work of the Commonwealth Treasury under the leadership of Steven Kennedy and Jenny Wilkinson. We acknowledge the human part of the work that we are all going through, but, in many ways, especially those associated with putting together this very important package. Our nation calls on this parliament to do whatever is necessary to help secure the health of our people, secure their jobs and living standards and secure the future. These are not discrete tasks; they are inseparable. There is no use playing this one or that one against one another. In times this serious, we reach deep into our history, seeking solace and lessons from the past, including from wartime. This is different, of course, to war. We're talking about saving lives and saving jobs, not sinking ships, but there are useful parallels. Eighty years ago, when John Curtin was leader of the Labor opposition, he told men and women assembled in Perth: Whatever has been done; whatever must be done; and all that we can hope to do in the future, are predicated by the stern realities of the war in which we are engaged. Not since those dark days has our country lived under a shadow like it does now. Not since those times have all that we do, all that we hope for and all of the nations whose friendship we value and count on been so imperilled as it is today by the stern realities of a consuming global menace. Not since those days when the old chamber down the hill met with blackout blinds drawn over the windows has our parliament and the nation it serves faced a graver threat. Now, like then, every facet of Australian life is being tested. The quality of our health system, the foundations of our economy, the strength of our democracy and the ties that bind us together are being challenged in ways that we couldn't have imagined when this parliament met for the first time this year in February. The most pressing health imperatives are obvious: slow the spread, bolster our health system and save lives. I welcome, as the member for McMahon and others have welcomed, the recent encouraging signs, but we don't have to look far afield to see the grim warnings against complacency. None of us imagine that we're through the very worst of it yet. If it took the suspension of our footy codes and the emptying-out of our workplaces to bring home the severity of the coronavirus as a health emergency, it was the sight of Centrelink queues that seemed to stretch all the way back to the Great Depression that alerted our nation to the diabolical economic consequences of this pandemic. Tens of thousands of Australians who'd been instructed to stay home and to keep their distance were driven by desperation into lines that wound down the street and around the block. The immediate economic priority is triage. The wage subsidies in these bills, which are all about maintaining the link between employers and workers, are important in that regard, along with additional support deployed fast enough and in sufficient quantities to prevent business closures, to protect jobs, to support the vulnerable and to prevent a bad quarter or two becoming a lost year or two, or worse. My colleagues and I do understand that livelihoods are on the line. That's why we've supported all three packages proposed by those opposite, the measures announced in between, the decisive action taken by the Reserve Bank and the leeway agreed by the other banks, all of it adding up to hundreds of billions of dollars in direct support or loans, to triage the economy and to try and save as many jobs as possible. Our overwhelming priority has been to get more support to more people more urgently. An economic crisis of this scale, moving at this speed, does not allow for half measures or for stuffing around. That's why we do support the wage subsidies and the other spending contained in the bills we've debated here today. There was never any chance that we would stand in the way of a wage subsidy that we campaigned for in the first place. If our amendments don't pass this House, we won't be holding the bill up in the Senate. This reflects the responsible, supportive, bipartisan approach that we have taken at every single step of this crisis and its response. But bipartisanship doesn't mean parliamentary groupthink or empty acquiescence. Being constructive doesn't mean keeping quiet. And acting responsibly doesn't mean meekly following instructions. That might be the Labor Party the government wants, but it's not the opposition that the nation needs. We owe the Australian people not just our industry but our judgement. We have a responsibility as the party of working people to stand up for all of the wage earners of Australia, permanent and casual. We have a duty, as the architects of the Fair Work Act, to protect the rights and conditions of every worker. And, as the party who ensured that the Australian economy, alone in the developed world, actually grew during the last global recession, we have the ability to genuinely make the proposals before the parliament better for all Australians. Already we've demonstrated the value that a thoughtful and constructive opposition can deliver: by calling for these wage subsidies in the first place but also by being ahead of the game and calling for increased unemployment benefits; fixing the income test for partners; extending mutual obligation; supporting students; relief from evictions, assistance for childcare costs and services; more reliance on telehealth; support for charities; expanding access to broadband; expanding the Community Visitor Scheme; supporting the aviation sector and more. The core of the legislation we are considering here was first proposed in Australia by the Labor Party and by the labour movement, drawing on experience overseas. For more than a week the government said it was impractical and unworkable, and that they wouldn't be going down this path—a week wasted on politics as usual, shooting down an idea because of where it came from and who proposed it. That kind of thinking is frustrating and corrosive at the best of times, but at times of crisis it is downright destructive. So, naturally, we welcome the government's change of heart on wage subsidies. It is not just a victory for the labour movement; it is a victory for all of those who send us here to represent their interests. We will vote for these bills to establish the JobKeeper payment and to legislate the other necessary spending, but in doing so I urge government not to waste another week, or even another day, on reflex negativity, on Pavlovian politics as usual, rejecting our improvements before we even propose them here. Take this break in the ritual hostilities of this place to consider the substance of what we are offering. Find a way to factor in, respond to and listen to the genuine concerns that we raise on behalf of the people we champion: the casual employees who haven't been employed by one entity on a regular and systemic basis during the last 12 months—the casual teachers, the casual builders and others; charities that see a decline in donations but not GST turnover or tied government funding; disability businesses and the NDIS that won't be able to access the JobKeeper payment; childcare employers, who are facing a sharp decline in funding, and their workers; local government employees; temporary migrants; and partnerships with two genuinely active participants. Take on board our concerns in relation to employers being subsidised to run down existing leave entitlements. We also need to recognise that this legislation gives the Treasurer extraordinary and broad powers to include those who aren't currently included in the scheme. That means that any worker who is excluded, in our view unfairly, from a JobKeeper payment—the council worker, or the casual teacher or the construction worker—and any otherwise-viable business or organisation that is struggling but not able to access the payment is in that position for one reason: because the Treasurer has not yet signed off on it. The only thing standing between a jobseeker payment for more than a million Australians is the Treasurer's signature. The intentions of these bills and many of the aspects of these bills are very welcome and very important steps worthy of our support, but they can be much better. Our efforts today will help many Australians—but perhaps not enough of them—deal with the devastating economic impacts of this diabolical health crisis, a crisis which has overthrown so many old certainties; a crisis which has redefined in weeks our understanding of the way we work, from where we work and our reliance on digital infrastructure and digital literacy. It has put up there in lights the human cost of casualisation, our reliance on sick leave and the fragility of insecure and precarious work. It has shown how important Australian manufacturing always has been, and how reckless and foolish it is to undermine our capacity to be a country which makes things. Above all, it's forced us to give real thought to what is truly essential, and, in that, I hope sincerely there are some things that this crisis changes forever. From now on I believe every Australian will recognise how deeply fortunate we are to have such brilliant, brave and caring people running our healthcare system, just as every Australian family grappling with homeschooling now understands what an extraordinary job our teachers and educators do. I know I do. In the same way, let this crisis mark the moment where the perception of child care in this country changes forever—not a luxury, not childminding, but an essential part of the education system and an essential service for working parents as well. Let this crisis change forever the way our country respects, values and pays our cleaners, the people who stack shelves in the supermarket, and the truck drivers and delivery drivers bringing food and supplies—all the Australians who, whilst so many of us are sheltering at home or working from home, are keeping the wheels of the nation turning. Never again let it be said that our country can't afford to pay these Australians a decent wage or their penalty rates, and let this crisis be the moment we end the cruel fiction that anyone who needs government support is a bludger looking for a handout. This legislation is really important. It commits, as the Treasurer rightly says, an extraordinary amount of money, and it is right and proper and appropriate that the spending of that money is scrutinised carefully by the parliamentary committee that we're setting up this week. It is also important to note that Standard & Poors today have put the Australian budget and Australian government on negative watch, which reflects some of the massive spending which is being authorised by this parliament. We always need to be sure that, in the spending we authorise here, we're getting bang for our buck, that it's going to the right places and that it's implemented properly and responsibly—and the committees will help us do that. Equally important is how these necessary interventions are phased out. The PM speaks of a snapback. Once again, I think he's looking for a way to differentiate what he's doing now from what Labor did just over a decade ago in the GFC. We can't risk the Prime Minister's snapback stopping the recovery in its tracks. We cannot assume, as he seems to, that these problems in our economy will miraculously disappear in six months time. Yes, this support should be temporary, but it needs to be withdrawn carefully and intelligently, not driven by an arbitrary political or ideological deadline. What we learned during the GFC is that the business of stabilisation and recovery of an economy is a very delicate undertaking. It's not only a technical policy issue but also one of confidence. The technical issue is that stimulus only supports growth as it climbs to a peak. The second you are past the peak stimulus or peak dollars out the door, every dollar after that, even if it's much more than you'd normally spend, is actually detracting from growth. So the stimulus must come off more slowly than the growth in new private spending, because it offsets it dollar for dollar in terms of economic growth. If you withdraw stimulus as fast as the new money flows in, growth will be zero. If you withdraw it faster, growth will be negative, and more negative growth in the so-called recovery after a major recession would be a major mistake and a major human tragedy. This isn't the time for scorched-earth ideology and certainly not the ideology that burnt the global economy to the ground in the lead-up to the GFC yet somehow was the only thing to survive it. In the GFC, Australia had two major waves of stimulus for precisely this reason. The first was the immediate sugar hit of the cash payments in October 2008, essential to sustain activity but not in itself sustainable. It's why we had the second wave in February 2009, and that was the protein, the main nation-building investment in schools, housing and infrastructure, to underpin current and also future economic growth. It was still temporary spending, but it spread stimulus over a slightly longer period so we got through the danger period of weak private growth and were only withdrawing our stimulus once we were largely out of the woods. Those opposite criticised the second stimulus. They voted against it. They have been criticising it for 12 years, until a couple of weeks ago. I say this in all sincerity: I genuinely hope that this was cynicism rather than stupidity. I'm hoping that they understood then and especially that they understand now what that second wave was for, even though they chose the low road of negativity and simplistic slogans to score political points, because, if they genuinely still believe that second stimulus wasn't necessary then, this economy is in more trouble now. To date, the government have shown—and we welcome it—that they've learned the first lesson: to respond with fiscal policy including payments to households. But those opposite need to learn the second lesson as well. This economy will need protein too—the nourishment of long-term investment and demand, greater productivity and new jobs, and cheaper and cleaner energy—as we try and emerge from this crisis. It's not too early to start thinking about what that future looks like. In our contributions today and in the speeches by the Prime Minister, the Labor leader and the Treasurer this morning, we've all acknowledged in one way or another that we're all in this together. But acknowledging that is more than a matter of saying we're all at risk from coronavirus or that we all have a responsibility to follow the rules. We are and we do, but 'we're all in this together' is also about what happens next. It's about the Australia we want to live in when life is normal again. So many Australians are working around the clock to deal with the immediate threats, and we applaud them for their selfless courage and commitment. The rest of us should be thinking about what this crisis is teaching us, what the world will look like after the virus is gone and what it all means for Australia in the years ahead. The challenges eating away at our economy before the virus will be there after the hospitals empty. Before anyone had heard of COVID-19, we saw slowing quarterly growth, well-below-average annual growth, stagnant wages and declining living standards. We can't let that be a feature of the post-pandemic economy as it was pre pandemic. We've known three decades of continuous economic growth, engineered by Hawke and Keating and preserved by what Australians achieved together under Rudd and Swan, but that record in itself guarantees us nothing. As we confront over a million unemployed Australians, walk past the doors of hundreds of thousands of shuttered businesses and tally towards a trillion dollars in public debt, we can't fall back on the comfort of the familiar. We can't imagine that a retreat into what has worked in the past will necessarily be near enough or good enough for the future. We need to be brave enough to recognise things can't be exactly as they were before. We need new thinking and cooperation and new solutions. We draw inspiration for that from our history. I began today by quoting John Curtin on the stern realities of the Second World War. Of course, the country we live in and the crisis we are facing are fundamentally different today, as I said, but Curtin and Chifley had the foresight while the war was still raging to imagine Australia after the war, and they had the vision to focus on employment. Curtin spoke of victory in war, victory in peace and a country which becomes 'a mighty fellowship in which the happiness of each will be assured by the effort of all'. When he established the Department of Post-War Reconstruction, it was just before Christmas in 1942. Chifley was made the minister at the start of 1943. Most of Europe was still occupied by the Nazis, and Japanese bombs were still falling. The war may have been turning in Australia's favour, but two more years of courage and the sacrifice of many more young people would be required before victory. Last week I gave Kim Beazley a call to talk about this period of our history. He talked about Curtin and Chifley and described them as 'men of total picture', because they knew that, if Australia were to prosper after the war, it needed to rewrite the social contract during the war, and, to be meaningful, full employment needed to be at the core of it. They understood the duty government owed to citizens whose sacrifice had kept their nation free—the responsibility Australia had to prove worthy of its people's courage. We now need to muster again and modernise that spirit. We need to focus on jobs and wages and living standards. We need to deal with the most pressing aspects of this crisis and at the same time contemplate Australia after the virus. We need to recognise that this will be a generational challenge and that progress may take many years. We need to focus on prosperity, opportunity, sustainability, security, democracy and diplomacy, and national identity and we need to measure ourselves against those pillars of progress. We can deal with this crisis decisively, urgently and intelligently. We can reimagine the Australian economy, not just revive it. We can renew our society, not just resuscitate it. We can do more than rebuild and recover; we can create the best version of a new Australia and work towards it with the same sort of quality of planning and generosity of spirit that Chifley deployed, to such long-lasting and nation-changing effect. Again, like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Labor leader, I have no doubt that our country and our people will come through this crisis, and that, with planning and courage and forethought, we will emerge stronger for the trial—stronger, fairer and with a richer understanding of what is truly essential, with a larger sense of the true measure of our country's greatness and with a deeper faith in one another and what we can achieve together. If we want to live up to that challenge of building a better Australia, then we can begin by making these bills before the House better as well. That's why I move the amendment circulated in my name. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give these bills a second reading, the House: (1) notes that this legislation gives the Treasurer extraordinary powers to include those not currently eligible for the JobKeeper Payment; and (2) calls on the Treasurer to use his power under this legislation to ensure more jobs are protected and that struggling, otherwise viable businesses and organisations are able to access the JobKeeper Payment". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the amendment seconded? 11:29 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Labor Party of course supports this very necessary legislation, as the member for Rankin has very well pointed out. This is necessary legislation to keep as many Australians as possible in their jobs. Whether they are actually fulfilling that job on a day-to-day basis or fulfilling it in a very different way or not able to fulfil it, we need as many Australians as possible to maintain their connection with their employer. We need to provide every support to those who have lost their job and every support to those whom we can keep in a job. The Prime Minister outlined the objectives of any government action. This is an objective which we agree with: to keep people in work and to keep businesses open. That needs to be the test. Does this legislation keep people in work? Does it keep businesses open? We believe it does, and we believe it fulfils the objectives we set out when we called on the government to introduce a job subsidy. This is a radical policy for radical times. We do not make the call lightly. Job subsidies are necessary to keep as many businesses open and as people employed as possible. So the message to the community from this House, as one, must be clear: 'We are with you, we have your back. We will support you through this time. We will do whatever it takes to keep you in work.' That is a message from this House, as one, today. As the member for Rankin, the shadow Treasurer, rightly said, we thank the government for taking on board our feedback. We don't think this legislation is perfect. We've made it very clear—this amendment I am seconding makes it clear—that it could be much better. But we will not let that stand in the way of our support. Just as our message to the people of Australia is that we are with you, my message to the people of McMahon is that we will do and I will do whatever it takes. Whether you live in Fairfield, Minchinbury, St Clair, Greystanes, Smithfield, Kemps Creek or Horsley Park, people are doing it tough, people are losing their jobs. This parliament should be here for you and I am here for you. We are doing business differently; we are doing more over the phone and by email and by Skype. But, if you need help, your member of parliament is there for you. I'm there for the people of McMahon. That message must be clear. As I said in the last sitting, the best economic response is actually the best health response. I'm seeing this talked about around the country more and more, and I see some people are arguing that we should be lifting the restrictions—that it's all okay now. Now, of course everybody wants to see the restrictions lifted as soon as they sensibly can be; that is a given. But let us not make the mistake of lifting the restrictions too soon. I don't accept—we have never accepted—that somehow this is a trade-off between a good health outcome and a good economic outcome, because the best way to get through this crisis as quickly as possible is to have the best health policy as quickly as possible. That's why we called for more to be done. That's why we called for clearer action. That's why we made suggestions to improve the health policy response. I've seen some other commentary on this. Some people are suggesting the Labor Party should be silent—that the Labor Party shouldn't have a role to play. I fundamentally disagree with that. We have backed every piece of government legislation we have been asked to back, including these bills today. We've backed every government health initiative. We've agreed to every request the government has made of us. But at this time, more than ever, scrutiny is important. At this time, more than ever, we need every Australian working together, and that includes the Labor Party—the opposition—making suggestions about what could be done better. We've seen that take place with telehealth, with mental health. We've seen the government adjust its health response. So the role of the Labor Party is to avoid politics for politics' sake. It's to avoid opposition for opposition's sake. But it is not to be struck dumb. It is to provide constructive suggestions and feedback, and to provide a constructive policy addition—not an alternative. We normally provide an alternative. In this environment, we don't provide an alternative; we provide complementary action. We suggest how what has already been done can be built upon. That is the role of a constructive opposition. And it is also the role of the opposition to provide support to the government in keeping the current restrictions in place. We called for them earlier. We called for stronger action. But we also provide our support to the government to keep them in place. I've mentioned that I have seen some commentary that the restrictions should be lifted. I saw a businessperson in the Financial Review yesterday argue that the restrictions should be lifted, and I must say I was shocked to read his comments. I'm not going to name him, but I was shocked to read his comments. He was named in the newspaper; I'm not going to give him the benefit of giving his name. He was reported as saying: "I wonder how many of the global deaths that will be attributed to COVID-19 would have occurred within the next year or two anyway? It’s time for our political leaders to take a reality pill before it’s too late," … He was saying that these deaths would've occurred anyway, and therefore it's time to reduce the restrictions. I have not heard a more tone deaf, or insensitive or, frankly, wrong contribution in this entire debate. It is just utterly wrong. So my main message today is: we support this legislation. We think it could be better. The Prime Minister said in his remarks—and they were fine remarks—'We're all in this together, and we'll get through this if we all work together.' Well, there are a million Australians who, frankly, are not in this as much as they should be with our support: a million casuals—a million people who have been left out by the government's legislation. We think they should be in. The amendment that I'm seconding reflects the fact that they should be in. All our contributions, I hazard a guess, will say that they should be in. That is our view. That is our constructive advice. And we call on the government to listen to that today. But if they don't listen today, we also note—and it's a good thing that the Treasurer is at the table—that the Treasurer has the power and the Treasurer has the authority, a rather remarkable authority, but one he should have, to expand the available support, the jobseeker support. And we say to him: 'If you don't want to do it today, if you don't want to do it in parliament, if you don't want to change the legislation, please take it away with you. Please do it in the future. Please do it tomorrow, or next week if that's what you want to do. Expand the jobseeker support to reflect casuals, for Australia.' That would be the best economic policy. It would be the best social policy. It would be the best health policy. It would be the best policy for our country, to expand the support to those casuals who've got unavoidable expenses. They deserve to have that support. The government says this is a health crisis and it's an economic crisis. But really they're the same crisis. Really it's the same phenomenon that we're dealing with. We need to avoid avoidable deaths, and today we pay tribute and our condolences to the 50 Australians who have so far lost their lives. We note, and we extend our support to, those 6,000 Australians who have, or have had, COVID-19 during this crisis. And there will be more to come. While we welcome any encouraging signs—and there are some—we have a long, long way to go. We need to ensure that we're testing for community transmission. We're doing that more and more. We need to ensure that we're providing every support to our intensive care units, who will still come under great pressure and who will still have much to do. We need to be—and I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister for Health—doing everything we can to ensure personal protective equipment is provided to healthcare workers. This is the No. 1 issue that gets raised with me. I reflect the challenges that the minister has and I acknowledge the international supply chain issues and the challenges that they're facing. We simply say this: we've had our first healthcare worker diagnosed with COVID-19. Too many healthcare workers overseas have died in treating people with COVID-19. It must be our national objective that no Australian healthcare worker dies. Therefore, we must have every effort in place to have personal protective equipment for all healthcare workers as appropriate. Again, I'm not critical of the minister's efforts. The government, I know, has steps in place. But, simply, it's important for every healthcare worker to know that our objective is that no healthcare worker dies in Australia treating COVID-19. They are doing their best. They are doing their bit. I was shocked to learn from the nurses and midwives association and the Health Services Union that healthcare workers are being abused on public transport, in some instances for apparently bringing the virus onto public transport. These are our heroes. They deserve our applause, yes, but they deserve more than that. They deserve our support. They deserve the personal protective equipment that they need to do their job. They are the front line, and they need to know that we, in this House, support their efforts every step of the way. Again, we've made constructive suggestions, some of which have been taken up: about free car parking, so that they don't have to take public transport, and about accommodation, so that they don't have to worry about taking the virus home to their families—I think three states have now taken up that suggestion, which we welcome very much. Labor and Liberal states, equally, have taken up that suggestion. We say we're all in this together. We are all in this together. We need to make sure that that is a reality, not just rhetoric. Our amendments bring all Australians into this together. We support the legislation. We think it should be better. But we will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We will pass this legislation, just as we've given our support to every health initiative the government has proposed, because that is the right thing to do, and, under the member for Grayndler's leadership, we will continue to do the right thing at every turn during this crisis. 11:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move, as an amendment to the amendment moved by the member or Rankin: That the following words be added after paragraph (2): "(3) notes that casual workers deserve to be treated with the same respect as every other worker who faces losing their job because of this pandemic; and (4) calls on the Government to provide the JobKeeper payment to the 1.1 million casual workers who have worked for their employer for less than a year". Labor is taking a constructive approach. When the government has made the right decisions, we have supported them. But bipartisanship isn't the same as unilateralism. Just as we have to keep our minds and our hearts open, we owe it to our fellow Australians to keep our eyes open as well. Where we have seen gaps, we've offered constructive suggestions. We're looking for outcomes, not arguments. It is what the Australian people expect of us. They were tired of conflict long before this pandemic. This is a time of great anxiety for Australians. We owe it to them to rise to the occasion, to provide reassurance and to light the path ahead. The last thing we want to do is look back and say we could have done more and should have done more. It is good that the government has taken up our suggestions on issues like evictions, telehealth, financial help for students and a range of other issues. We are also pleased that the government accepted our suggestion to help thousands of working people by increasing from $48,000 to $79,000 the wage their partner could earn before their COVID-19 assistance payments cut out. We welcome the government's $750 a week wage subsidy, which it rejected when Labor first raised the idea. This is definitely a case of 'better late than never'. This is a national crisis and, above all, we want the government to get the policy settings right. Our nation simply cannot afford the alternative. In a crisis of this scale, it is 'all hands on deck'. This is not the time for 'politics as usual'. It is pleasing that the government recognise that and have been taking actions that are counter to their longstanding rhetoric. But we have to get this right. Labor remains concerned that about 1.1 million casual workers will miss out on wage subsidies simply because they have worked for their current employer for less than a year. They are among our most vulnerable workers. In the modern workforce, many workers defined as casual who have been stood down have expectations and financial commitments based upon that regular work and income. This morning, at a press conference in the upstairs area where we are now gathering and practising social distancing, I asked whether the cameraman filming that press conference was a casual. Most people working in those sorts of jobs are; they call them 'stringers'. In this case, he was operating a camera for all of the networks and broadcasting out live. It's the case wherever you go. That doesn't mean that they don't have a job; it's that the nature of the job means that they are defined as casual. But they are in precisely the same circumstances as someone who is a permanent worker for a single company. They have mortgages and rent to pay. They have families to look after. They have bills to pay. They deserve respect. It is the labour market change that has caused so many people to be defined as casual. There may well be a debate arising out of this crisis—and certainly we will be advocating one—about security of work. This crisis has been a real reminder about people doing essentially the same tasks but having different conditions imposed upon them. It's not that long ago that the government minister was saying that people who are casuals 'have savings because they get extra wages'. To make a statement like that shows how out of touch the government was just weeks ago. It's pleasing that the government has been hit by reality on a range of issues, but this remains one where they need to actually get it; they need to go and talk to people who are in those circumstances. And they don't have to go outside this building to do it; they can do it in this building. They can talk to people who we work with every day whose job is defined as casual and who are deserving of support. They face the same financial struggle as everyone else. They should be supported to keep their jobs and connections to employers when this crisis is over. We want to talk to the government in good faith about how we can broaden this assistance, because the casualisation of the workforce means that many Australians who want full-time work can't get it. They are forced into casual work, and they shouldn't be penalised for it. This bill extends the JobKeeper payment to casuals who have been employed with their employer, as at 1 March 2020, on a regular or systemic basis for a period of over 12 months. This means that more than one million casual workers will not be eligible for the JobKeeper payment because they have been with their current employer for less than a year. Missing out are casuals in important professions—sectors such as teaching, health, disability and the allied industries. There are casuals from our regions who are ineligible for the JobKeeper program, including those regions most affected by COVID-19 due to its impact on the tourism, fishing and agricultural sectors. I'm very familiar with the tourism sector, having been the shadow minister for a number of years. It is dominated by people who are defined as casuals. These are people who have been hit by the bushfire crisis and COVID-19, and now the government is cutting loose and treating them as somehow less worthy of support than others who are working in similar professions or similar hours but are just defined differently. It's not fair, and that is not the Australian way. Those who miss out predominantly will be women. There are more women, as a percentage of the workforce, defined as casual. It's the nature of those professions as well. There are also older workers needing to supplement their pension incomes and younger workers just commencing their working careers. My son is a casual worker. That's what you do at that period of time. You do that in your life, working your way through school or university or TAFE. But there are other concerns with the measure. By restricting the JobKeeper payment to casuals who have been with the employer for over 12 months, we may be guilty of reducing the dynamism of the labour market. We want to be building an economy where workers are mobile and able to better seek out the most dynamic firms and opportunities; we want firms that, despite COVID-19, are encountering labour supply shortages to be able to confidently attract workers; and we want firms to continue to seek out the best available labour to ensure they are at their productive frontier. Dynamic firms and dynamic labour are something that both Treasury and the RBA have pointed out as missing. Prior to COVID-19 we knew that Australia was at a low productivity ebb. We had already seen two quarters of productivity going backwards. Essentially, we were in a productivity recession prior to the bushfires and prior to COVID-19. We can't afford to go back even further. So, as important as providing wage subsidies is to getting through COVID-19, we need to ensure that measures taken today do not throw sand in the cogs of the recovery by placing artificial restrictions on labour mobility. The limits on the JobKeeper payment going to casuals who have been with an employer for under 12 months is not good for business. It means that firms would be disadvantaged by employing labour that has only just become available, such as recent graduates, school leavers or, indeed, recently retired older workers. It means that good firms that have recruited wisely and undertaken the necessary training and probationary period for the worker are penalised if this has all been completed in a period of less than 12 months. For these firms, their connection to the employee is not time based. It is developed through the careful process of searching for the employee, taking them on, training them and having a probation period. Labor's opposition to the 12-month limit is not only about equity; it is about efficiency. We want to ensure that firms that have invested in their workers get to nominate them for JobKeeper. We want workers who have moved between employers for better opportunities and to have their skills uplifted are not penalised for doing so. Labor also urges the government to provide better support for casual staff in schools, TAFE and universities, all of which have been affected. Hundreds of thousands of school and university staff will not be eligible for this JobKeeper payment. Teachers have been here for us during this crisis, and the government should be there for them. This is all consistent with the approach being taken in other areas, an approach designed to maintain connections between employers and their employees. That's the fundamental thing that we're trying to do here, which is the consensus across this parliament. If we get it right, it means that our recovery will be faster when this is over, and I urge the government to adopt the approach that we are advocating. We don't do so in any partisan way. We do so in the spirit of bipartisanship, trying to advocate improvements to the scheme that has just been moved by the Treasurer. If they do so, their legislation will be stronger for it and our economy will be stronger for it, as well as individuals being stronger for it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Catherine King 00AMR I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Thank you. The original question was that these bills now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The Leader of the Opposition has now moved an amendment to the amendment, adding words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Grayndler to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Rankin be agreed to. 11:57 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra These are unprecedented times. Those of us who serve in this place have a vague knowledge that one day we may be called on to make decisions such as these, but that doesn't make the moment feel any the less grave. I thought that the days of total mobilisation of our population on the scale that we saw during the Second World War were something for the history books, but coronavirus is the greatest threat the world has faced since the war, and it requires a total war response. Over 1.4 million people have contracted coronavirus worldwide, and over 82,000 people, including almost 50 Australians, have died. Of 5,956 Australians who have contracted coronavirus, 2,547 have recovered and 294 are in hospital, including 92 in intensive care and 36 on respirators. Over 310,000 Australians have been tested for coronavirus, one of the highest rates of testing in the world. The coronavirus is not just a health issue, though its potential to test the health system is unprecedented, and I want to thank the frontline health workers in our hospitals, clinics and pharmacies for all they do. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Health and the Chief Medical Officer in meeting this challenge. The coronavirus will change our country in ways we haven't yet fully understood or imagined. Coronavirus is already challenging the way we live, the way we work, the way we commute or don't commute, the way we consume, the way we educate our children, the way we gather in community and the way we relate to each other. I particularly want to acknowledge the churches and the not-for-profit service providers that are helping our communities get through with a great sense of cheerfulness. I particularly want to acknowledge the schools and make a special note of the year 12s, many of whom will feel that they are missing out on a year they were so looking forward to: the culmination of their education, the chance to lead and the bittersweet experience of doing things for the last time. I want to say to those students: hard as it is to believe right now, there are opportunities in this that you have never thought of. You have the chance to be creative and lead in ways no-one else before you will have done. In the years ahead, you will tell stories of this time, and you'll see how it strengthened and shaped you. In fact, I hope we all will. The way we live now, despite all its challenges, is a return to home and hearth and to place, suburb and community. The privations of the present make us grateful for the things that we have: our family, the beauty of our neighbourhood, and the acts of kindness of our neighbours and people doing essential work in our local shops and government services, making our lives easier. But we cannot ignore the darker side of what coronavirus is doing to our society. The challenge of COVID-19 is putting a great strain on the mental health of many Australians, and they understandably but wrongly question their sense of self-worth. Can I say to Australians who are struggling: you matter, your lives matter, we will all get through this together and prevail just as earlier generations of Australians have prevailed. One of the religious leaders in my community at Galston Uniting Church is taking the time to ask all of his parishioners, 'Is there anything you need?' and doing it quietly, because many people who really need help at this time are people who are proud and people who are perhaps too proud to ask for help at other times. That's why the government's mental health package, with more support for the Beyond Blue's coronavirus hotline as well as funding for Lifeline and Kids Helpline are vital, as is the important extra funding we're giving to keep people safe from domestic violence. I think I will never forget seeing the Centrelink queue at Hornsby in recent weeks, stretching more than a block and a half, with many Australians who had good jobs, who would never in their lives have imagined themselves standing in a Centrelink queue, Australians for whom their very identity is tied up in the work they do when that work is no longer available. That is why I applaud the government's jobseeker package and the coronavirus supplement for those who have lost their job. The coronavirus is an unprecedented economic challenge, and that challenge calls for an unprecedented response. I didn't come to this place to increase the size of government nor did I come here to see more Australians come to depend on Centrelink. We've been making decisions over recent weeks to spend $320 billion, of which today's bills represent $130 billion, because we have pressed the pause button on business and industry. If we ever needed a reminder that the true engine room of our economy and society isn't government but small and medium business community groups and not-for-profits, these past few weeks have been that reminder. Normally our job is to get out of their way and let them do their work, but at the moment we are having to get in their way and it isn't easy to get used to. Nonetheless, we're right to do this. I want to congratulate the Treasurer and Prime Minister for the ingenious concept at the heart of this bill, the JobKeeper payment. Anyone who has ever employed people knows how hard it is to find and retain good people. And anyone who has ever done a job they love knows the great privilege they feel in working for an organisation that values them. In times of crisis, people are just pleased to have jobs and workers to keep their businesses going. This bill maintains the relationship between employer and employee by having the government make payments to business and not-for-profits affected by a downturn as a result of coronavirus, to support those organisations in keeping those employees and making it easier for those businesses to snap back on the other side. This payment of $1,500 per fortnight per eligible employee has been warmly welcomed as a lifesaver across my electorate and around the country. Finally, I want to say a thank you to the people of Berowra. It is easy to forget how good people can be. I want to acknowledge the people in my electorate and across Australia who are inspiring us every day with their acts of selflessness and resolve. For this, I say thank you. 12:03 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I also rise to support the bills that will bring into effect a national wage subsidy to support millions of Australians and their families through this crisis. It comes after sustained calls from the trade union movement, from the Labor Party as well as from economists and businesses across the country. Whilst it's not quite the wage subsidy Labor would have introduced, we do welcome this action. This is a victory for the broad labour movement. Although it did come too late to prevent the massive queues we saw at Centrelink right around the country, in the main it will help millions of Australians through this incredibly difficult period. Labor's priority is to protect workers, families and businesses through this crisis. We have sought to work with the government constructively and play that role where we can. But while this wage subsidy package will support many millions of Australians, it does leave some of our most vulnerable in our community without support. It is disappointing that where clear flaws in these bills have been identified, the government appears unwilling to move. Given the scale and the pace of this crisis, it is not possible to get everything right the first time. It's why the parliament needs to sit and scrutinise legislation. But a wage subsidy has to capture as many workers as possible to support families through the months ahead and ensure that our economy can quickly scale up when the crisis is over. I urge the government to include the million casual workers and the million migrant workers currently excluded as well as the thousands of university staff, our council workers and employees of many charities that are already excluded under this bill. When you look at the issue of council workers, it seems completely egregious that a worker who works, for example, in the Ballarat aquatic centre that is run by our local council, a swimming instructor who would be eligible otherwise under this scheme does not get this JobKeeper payment, whereas someone at the private swimming academy just down the road does. It seems egregious to me that, despite doing the same job, the same work, one working for a local council swimming pool is not eligible and yet one working for a private business is eligible. There are also businesses that will also miss out because they don't quite meet the turnover requirements. They may have seasonal businesses, particularly those in the tourism sector. In Daylesford, for example, in my electorate, the winter months that we're heading into now are when they expect to get their highest income. Many of those will miss out. The government says that these Australian workers will be eligible for support through the unemployment system but the very point of a wage subsidy is that it is both financial support and it's that connection with work between the employer and the employee that is continued. Putting casual workers, and many of them are women, into the unemployment system reduces their independence and is subject to a household income test. In too many circumstances, families that were reliant on two incomes will have to live off one income for the current months. With increased pressure in our homes at this time, the government is actively deciding to disempower some workers and reduce their financial independence. The government also says that over a million migrant workers should return home, that they are not eligible for jobseeker or JobKeeper payments. How are they to return home when international aviation has all but ground to a halt? Migrant workers perform invaluable work, particularly in agriculture across my community and right across the community, and they deserve some assistance. The government's support for the many is welcome, but it must not let millions of families miss out. The Prime Minister says our response is uniquely Australian. I say that what is uniquely Australian is that we leave no-one behind in a crisis. Speaking of the fair go, wage subsidies should be targeted at supporting workers through this crisis, not at propping up the balance sheets of businesses that force workers to take leave entitlements. This is a direct balance sheet subsidy from the Australian taxpayer to these companies. Worse still, some employers are utilising this loophole while forcing their workers to take accrued leave. Quite simply, if a worker wants to cash out their leave whilst stood down that is their choice, and they should be able to do so, but the wage subsidy should not be used by the employer to pay out those leave entitlements. The wage subsidy will help our aviation sector keep people crucially connected with that sector, but it is not going to be the saviour of this sector. We know that, even after standing workers down, grounding aircraft and cutting back on other areas, our airlines face significant fixed costs to ensure that they can safely scale up once the crisis is gone. Further, our entire aviation sector is likely to feel the effects of this crisis much longer than other sectors of the economy. No-one can predict when domestic aviation will return to what it was. No-one can predict when international borders and international aviation will be back to what they were previously—we just can't. These circumstances necessitate an urgent plan from the federal government to save the current structure of our aviation industry. The current structure of two major full-service airlines supported by partner budget carriers and a strong network of smaller regional airlines has served the travelling public and our economy well for many years. It was supported by the aviation white paper that Labor undertook when we were last in office. This structure is critical for hundreds of thousands of jobs, promotes competition and ensures services regularly reach all Australians. It is critical to our national freight task. Such a plan for aviation should be situated alongside similar strategies for other essential and strategic industries impacted by this crisis. It should draw, as I said, on the work of the aviation white paper. We've seen in aviation and across the broader economy that the pace of this crisis is such that it is impossible for government to get everything right the first time. Within days of the first aviation package, the airlines highlighted that allocating funding to refunding fees and charges incurred when flying was of limited benefit if they were not in the air due to travel restrictions. The government needs to make clear whether it is possible to recalibrate this funding in more useful and different ways. The $100 million cash injection into around a dozen regional airlines is, of course, welcome and indicates the government is prepared to cushion the businesses through this crisis, regardless of how individual companies entered the period or whether they have foreign ownership or not. Labor believes that the government must be flexible and be open to financially supporting our large aviation companies, including by extending or guaranteeing lines of credit or by taking an equity stake in the industry. Such interventions will ensure that when the industry bounces back—and it will—government can recoup on its investment. Despite claiming that it's continuing to work with the major airlines, the government's commentary through the media in the past few days has been less than helpful and only serves to undermine bipartisan efforts to protect the aviation sector as much as possible. Comments such as those, particularly, ruling out support for Virgin, claiming a major airline can fail; that the government is prepared to let that happen; and that it can be replaced quickly by a new entrant do not serve Australians well. I cannot put it any more bluntly: the government must extend a lifeline to Virgin if we are going to continue to see the current aviation structure survive this crisis. It must do that. If it does not then it is taking an active decision to see one of the major airlines in this country fail, and that will have significant consequences for hundreds of workers in the aviation sector and across our economy to come. In supporting this bill, I want particularly to thank the workers throughout the transport and logistics sector, who are getting people home and who are transporting our food, our medical supplies and other essentials across the country. They are our truck drivers; our crews on ships; our pilots, airline crews and those people who see that airports continue to function; and our freight companies. We are relying on you like never, ever before and we thank you. In closing, I also want to say a very big thank you to everyone in my community of Ballarat for pulling together in this testing time. If you need assistance please don't hesitate to reach out either to my office or to people in the community. It's important that we all look after each other through this crisis. We can get through it, but we need to do so with respect, with kindness and with care. 12:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name to the question in relation to the coronavirus economic response package legislation that is before the House: That the following words be added after paragraph (4): "(5) calls on the Government to recognise that the Australian arts and entertainment sector needs a specific, tailored, fiscal response package to ensure its ongoing viability, given the structure of the JobKeeper payment has been designed in a way that leaves many workers in the sector ineligible". First of all: today is a really important and good day for Australians. When this parliament last sat, we argued—I argued from here and Brendan O'Connor asked a question from here—that there should be a wage subsidy, and at that point the government was saying no. The fact that they have now said yes is a good thing, and it will change the lives of millions of Australians. The reason we argued for a wage subsidy is really simple, and it's this: if the only option for people to get support is through the payment system, through Centrelink, then a whole lot of businesses that otherwise might have been able to keep their relationship with their employees during this period will simply have to let their workers go. The outcome of that means that it's harder for everybody during this time, that people lose their relationship with their workplace during this time and that the recovery is much tougher to get off the ground when we're on the other side of this crisis. The fact that the government has come forward with a wage subsidy is a good thing. That's why we called for it, and we welcome it, and that's why we will be making sure that this legislation goes through today. When it works at its best, it will work like this: there will be businesses that are legally allowed to remain open but have had a hit to their revenue. Because of this, there will be people who can keep turning up, maybe from home, maybe working in a different way. However they work, they will be able to keep working because their wages have been subsidised during this time. For other people it will be a payment during stand-downs. There will be a range of different outcomes. At its best, that's what it will be doing, and that means businesses will survive that otherwise wouldn't have and that workers keep their relationships with their employer when they otherwise would have been lost. It's because of those best-case scenarios that the other day the Minister for Industrial Relations, rather melodramatically, described this as the 'Dunkirk moment'. The challenge in that analogy is that they are still leaving more than a million casuals on the beach. That's why we welcome everybody who gets rescued by this package. But it can be fixed; it can be improved, and the government should improve it. There are a few challenges with the design. First of all, for everyone who is able to apply for this—it's the employer that applies, but then the employer, under the current mechanism, is not obliged to put forward all their eligible workers. This can't be fixed through amendment. It can be fixed through a decision of the Treasurer. I just say to the government: we will end up with stories of this being abused if we don't fix it. With all the negotiations that we want to happen at a workplace, the dynamic is very different if the employer can say, 'Unless you agree to X I'm not even going to put your name forward for the wage subsidy.' At the moment, even though this payment is being made by the taxpayer for the benefit of the employee, the gatekeeper on whether or not they get it, even if it's an eligible business, is from the employer. They can pick and choose which of their eligible employees they will put forward for it. It's a simple change in design that can be done by the Treasurer through the rules. The government has budgeted, as we understand it, that all eligible employees working for eligible businesses will have their names put forward—so it's been budgeted for—but there will be, in a limited number of cases, abuses that occur if this is not fixed. The other issue that needs to be fixed—and there are a few—is the major one that has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in the second reading amendment he has moved. It's that we should not be leaving behind more than a million casuals. The Attorney-General, the Minister for Industrial Relations, is right when he says, 'You've got to draw the line somewhere,' but have a think about where the line is currently drawn. The line is currently drawn where, at the same workplace—presume it's a fast-food place—the person who's been there 10 months and is working, say, a Tuesday-through-to-Sunday shift, and they're supporting their livelihood with that job, is ineligible. But the 16-year-old who's doing a one-day-a-week shift for pocket money is not only eligible but they're about to get 10 times what they earn. The government's made a decision, for simplicity of rollout, that some people will get much more than what they earn. We're not amending to try to change that. That's a decision the government's made. But, having made that, to then exclude people whose job is their entire livelihood and the business is more dependent on them than it is on people who make it into the scheme is something that needs to be fixed. I cannot find a national interest argument that says if you work for an eligible employer and your job is your livelihood you should fall through the cracks because you haven't been there for 12 months. Let's not forget, there are a whole lot of people who have been regarded as casuals for years but, because the nature of their casual engagement is across a number of employers, they won't be eligible. There's the relief teacher working in the nongovernment sector who goes from school to school as a relief teacher. Because it's a different employer each time, even if that person's been a relief teacher for five years they're ineligible because they haven't had 12 months at one school. Similarly, if you're someone who works as a casual in the construction industry and goes from site to site, and you're rarely at the one site for 12 months, you're ineligible. We want people to keep their relationship with their employer. This needs to be fixed. Anyone who works for local government, at the moment, is ineligible. There are people who work in local government institutions that have been shut down because of decisions from what's known as the national cabinet. They are finding themselves stood down and yet are completely ineligible. Similarly, I do have to put the case that has been put of people who work for the government. We have casuals who work for Border Force. This government has stood up and referred to them time after time, and to the uniform they wear. If their jobs have been as casuals at the airport, they are now being told that Centrelink is their only option. Surely, the government has an interest in maintaining its relationship with them after the extent to which it has lent on them and their reputation with arguments that the government has wanted to advance? With respect to the sections of this legislation that deal with the Fair Work Act, let me just say quickly that the amendment is not perfect. There are still conversations going on with the minister. The latest version that we received this morning is better than where we were at last night, but there are still issues that can be dealt with, and there will be constructive conversations going forward on that. I should say some people have been surprised and have said how extraordinary it is that the government's been dealing with the ACTU this time. The extraordinary thing is that usually they don't. That's the extraordinary thing. How we've got to this point—and it has taken a global pandemic before the government has said that, in the development of legislation, they should engage with both employer organisations and employee organisations—is breathtaking. The negotiations the government has conducted with the ACTU this time should always be conducted in the normal course of events. I would encourage the government to see the unions for what they are, which is representatives of the employees. If they want to talk about percentage of membership, find a peak employer body that has a better percentage representation of the people they speak for than the unions have of working Australians. In terms of representation, the unions are the best voice there will ever be, which is why so many people right now, at a time of crisis, are joining their unions. I want to finally refer to the arts and entertainment sector, which is the subject of the second reading amendment that I've moved. While some people want to think of this sector as celebrities, they are workers. They are workers who are almost entirely ineligible for the scheme that is before us right now because their work, by and large, goes to forward contracts, and they have forward contracts set up for the rest of the year, all of which have been cancelled because of decisions of government. The scheme that's being put forward now leaves every single one of them ineligible for this assistance. We have been saying from day one, ever since the rule came in restricting gatherings of more than 500 people, that this sector was the first to be shut down and will be one of the last to get back on its feet. This can be fixed with the stroke of a pen by the Treasurer under the powers that he has been given today. When we had tough times in the bushfires, we turned to this sector and asked them to work for free. Now they're facing tough times and we're leaving them out of the scheme. It's not just the artists; it's the workers, the ushers, the people who work behind a bar, the road crew who set up gigs, the tradies who make the place work. This entire sector falls short in what is before the parliament today, and the government cannot waste a day longer before these workers are shown the respect that they deserve. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Madeleine King 102376 I second the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business and I reserve my right to speak. 12:26 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise in this place on a day that will be remembered for generations to come. Today, if passed, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill will provide support for six million Australian workers affected by the pandemic that is currently sweeping the world. It will provide an economic bridge to the other side of this health crisis for thousands of businesses and it will enable us to recover more quickly when this crisis passes, which it will. It will pass, and we will recover. We in this place have the enormous privilege of making critical decisions on behalf of all Australians. The decisions that we make in this House together and in the other place affect the lives of millions of Australians each and every day, and today is one of those very critical days, for saving lives and for saving livelihoods. Tackling coronavirus has meant tackling a war on two fronts. We must ensure that every Australian is kept safe from the potentially devastating effects of the coronavirus. We have put in place public health measures to protect our vulnerable, our elderly, our immunocompromised. We've put in place public health measures to protect all Australians. Prior to being a parliamentarian, I was a population health researcher involved in preventing health epidemics over years. By contrast, the Prime Minister, and, with him, the premiers and state and territory leaders, through the national cabinet, are leading this country through the most profound public health changes ever enacted—not over years, nor months, but over days. The Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, ably supported by the Chief Health Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, has enacted public health changes that might have taken 10 years at another time but have been rolled out in just two weeks. The speed and efficiency of our public health response is breathtaking. More than that, we've prepared the healthcare system for the worst, should that happen. PPE—personal protective equipment: we have 30 million sets here and 500 million are on their way. ICU capacity has been doubled and will be swiftly increased from 2,200 to 7,500. Telehealth: more than 2½ million visits have already been undertaken, helping keep both doctors and patients safe from coronavirus. At this point in time, it seems we are beating the virus, and the curve is flattening, but we can't be complacent. We must continue to carve our own curve while facing this threat head on. We are not Italy, we are not the UK and we are not the US. But, if we had not taken the steps we have as Australians, we may well have been on those same trajectories. That is why, coming into Easter, it is so important that people stay home. We've had to make sacrifices—all of us—some more than others. People have already lost their lives. People have lost their jobs. People have lost their businesses. People have had to defer weddings and funerals. But staying safe, healthy and well means working together and remaining at home over Easter. Whilst the health of Australians is the government's first priority, following close on its heels is the economic prosperity of our nation. That is why we are here today: to ensure no Australians are left behind; to make sure that small businesses that fuel Australia's economy and that Australia's economy is built on are still here when the crisis is over; to ensure that no worker is left behind as a result of this extraordinarily difficult choice made by the national cabinet to close businesses where we gather—cafes, cinemas, restaurants, pubs. So much of our daily life is changed. So much of our interactions as a society have changed. That is why the JobKeeper wage subsidy is so important. We are helping Aussies keep Aussies in jobs so we can weather the storm together. Through the JobKeeper payment, Australian small and medium businesses will be able to keep their employees in their job while earning an income. By maintaining connection with their employees, businesses will be able to get back to work sooner once this crisis has passed. In conclusion, the decision we make on this day is one of the most important decisions that we will ever make collectively. That is because the decision to support the JobSeeker payment will amount to $130 billion. It's the largest economic support plan this country has ever seen. I thank those opposite for their support of the government and the bipartisan way they have worked with the Prime Minister and cabinet through this time. I commend this bill to the House. 12:31 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I rise to speak in support of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and related bills. I also move the amendment that has been circulated in my name: That the following words be added after paragraph (5): "(6) calls on the Government to extend the JobKeeper payment to any working visa holder that is currently in Australia and unable to return to their country of origin". We were in this place just 16 days ago, and it is as if time has compressed, because that feels like a lifetime ago in terms of the spread of this virus around the world, in terms of the way in which we are now living our lives, in terms of the decisions that have been made by governments around this country and around the world. As we meet here today, there are 1,200,000 confirmed cases of the virus around the world. The death toll is approaching 73,000. In the United States alone, 333,000 people are infected with this disease, and the death toll approaches 10,000. By the end of March we had seen the death toll exceed the number of lives lost on September 11. Of those near 10,000 who've lost their lives in the United States, 1,207 of them died yesterday. The speed of this virus and what it is doing around the world is truly stunning. Here in Australia, we have 5,956 cases confirmed. Our death toll is currently at 45. We are not immune from what is being experienced around the world, but the social-distancing measures that have been put in place are making an enormous difference. They represent a huge sacrifice that is being made by Australians across our nation. There are sacrifices in respect of being unable to visit their loved ones in nursing homes, which, by and large, have shut their doors. I think about all of those who are working in nursing homes around Australia, looking after the people who we care about the most. Babies are being born without their grandparents and their extended families turning up to hospital to welcome them into this extraordinary world. People, heartbreakingly, are being restricted from attending funerals and saying farewell to those who they love. At a moment in time when the rhythm of life in Australia would be punctuated by the opening chapters of various football codes around the country and netball seasons, they all stand in abeyance. Our kids are at home, working out how they're going to continue their learning through Skype over the computer, through the internet. That is a challenge for all of us. All of these sacrifices represent a magnificent effort on the part of all Australians. Because of what they are doing, the number of new cases in Australia is declining. There is a long way to go, but there is promising news in the official reports, and that is a testament to the sacrifice of every Australian around this country, and I want to thank them today. I particularly want to thank those who work in the health sector: health workers, nurses, doctors, cleaners, support staff and everyone who keeps the lights on in hospitals around our country. Sadly, in the last 24 hours we've seen the first of those health workers confirmed to have caught this disease—a doctor in Liverpool and a nurse in Brisbane—and it highlights the fact that every health worker is putting their own health on the line by going to work every day to maintain our health. That is an act of enormous bravery. The thanks we saw given to health workers in Britain last Thursday, and the expressions of support that we've seen for health workers around the world, we echo here today for our own health workers who are acting in a completely selfless way to keep every Australian safe. We should remember that nine per cent of the cases of this disease that have been recorded in Italy are people who worked in the health sector. In China, 3,300 health workers have been infected with this disease, including Dr Li Wenliang, who was the first person to alert the world to the deadly nature of the COVID-19 virus. With the enormous health crisis has come a literal economic earthquake which is being felt around the world and around our country. There are so many Australians who face an uncertain future and who are doing it really tough. When we were last here we put forward a very important package which provided relief to many Australians. At that time, Labor made clear we were concerned about the absence of an employee subsidy as part of that package. At the time, the Prime Minister was opposed to an employee subsidy. He said: … one of the weaknesses of the system that you're advocating for is that it has to build an entirely new payment system for that to be achieved, which is never done quickly and is never done well. I am so glad that the Prime Minister has done a U-turn in his thinking. It is a difficult thing in this business to admit when a wrong has occurred. But, in the package that is being put forward today, with the JobKeeper payments, that is what has occurred. We acknowledge what the government has done in accepting this, because the long queues that we saw outside Centrelink offices after the last time we met speaks to how important it is that we maintain the relationship between employers and their workforce, which cannot be done unless an employee subsidy is put in place. That's why the package of bills that are being put forward today is so important, and we are so pleased that the government has changed its tune in this regard. But it is not perfect, and we as an opposition will continue to advocate for improvements in this package. One of the areas which remain a concern is the failure of this package to address casuals who have been in their place of employment for less than 12 months. There are almost a million people in our workforce who fit within that category. Right now, about a quarter of our workforce is casualised. That represents a really significant increase in the casualisation rate in Australia over the last few decades, and places Australia amongst the countries in the OECD with the highest levels of casualisation. It means that risk within our workplaces is shifted to, in many cases, the most vulnerable and people who earn the least. There's something about that which is deeply unfair, and that unfairness is given expression in the package which we are considering today. That is why Labor is moving an amendment to include casuals who have not been in a place of employment for more than 12 months, so they can receive the benefit of the JobKeeper payments. It is really important that their relationship with their employers is also maintained. Another group of workers who are left out by this package are those who are temporary working visa holders in this country. There are a million of those as well. Now, we have a large population of temporary work visa holders in Australia—our Pacific neighbours working in the Seasonal Worker Program, backpackers, international students, temporary protection visa holders, some skilled visa holders and people on bridging visas. Many of these people will lose their jobs; many already have. It is very important that they are protected at this time as well. We agree with the government that people who are here on temporary work visas who are able to return home should do so. But the state of international travel and the way in which countries have isolated themselves means that, for a lot of these people, that will be an impossibility. So long as this population remains in Australia, they need to be supported, which is why we have put forward the amendments that we have today. Finally, I want to say that this is a package which requires an enormous amount of prudence. Almost 10 per cent of GDP—perhaps more than 10 per cent of GDP—is being spent in the three relief packages which have been put forward by the government. This is not done lightly. We will see our country now head into a trillion dollars of debt. Public money needs to be spent prudently. It's one thing to talk about having a brand of strong fiscal management, and another to give expression to those words by actions in this place. It's why we believe that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of this package of bills and what is going on in terms of the relief packages, and more parliamentary scrutiny would be better. But, in the absence of that, Labor has pursued the appointment of a Senate select committee, which will be chaired by Senator Katy Gallagher, and that will do really important work in making sure that there is prudent oversight of these packages. These bills are critically important to enabling our country to move through this crisis. But they speak to the collective spirit of Australians which is characterising our nation right now and is burning so brightly, and it is to the credit of every Australian. It is that collective spirit that I know will be the guiding light which sees our nation prevail in this unprecedented crisis. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the amendment seconded? Ms Burney 8GH I rise to support the 1.1 million temporary visa holders in Australia and reserve my right to speak. 12:43 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby As the Prime Minister has often said in the difficult weeks we have recently faced, everyone who currently has a job is an essential worker. Everyone who can continue to work, whether that's from their usual workplace or from their home, is an essential worker because they are the people who are keeping our economy going. They are the people who are providing the services other Australians need in these most difficult of times, and they are doing so despite the very great health and economic challenges our nation faces. Today we will debate and we will pass these historic bills, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments And Benefits) Bill 2020 and related bills, so that the Morrison government can support the businesses and the employees who have had their lives and their livelihoods so severely disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic. Today we will pass our $130 billion JobKeeper economic package—the largest in our nation's history—to enable eligible businesses to pay eligible employees $1,500 a fortnight so that those businesses and their employees can make it through this unprecedented health and economic crisis. Today we will take another step to ensure our nation survives these most difficult of times that are as bad and unpredictable as any war or previous pandemic. On behalf of my community, I want to thank the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the health minister, other ministers, their staff and departmental officials for all they are doing to support the Australian people. I also want to thank all of my fellow members of parliament and their staff, including my own, for the wonderful support they are providing to the many people who have contacted us in various states of worry and distress. The relief and gratitude expressed to me by my local businesses and their staff in response to the JobKeeper package have been incredibly moving. I've had business owners tell me they cried every day the week before the announcement because of the fear and worry they had for their business and for their staff, who they had stood down, but that following the announcement of the JobKeeper package they were filled with hope and with the knowledge that they and their staff could now come through this together. So many businesses have re-employed their staff as quickly as they could, and employees have quickly returned to work. I know this is a terribly difficult time for so many Australians, especially for businesses who have been instructed to close. I know it is so very hard for businesses and employees who have lost so much income and will continue to do so. But the results we are seeing so far in Australia, in terms of containing the spread of this deadly virus that has no cure and that has already taken too many lives, here and more particularly abroad, show that the difficult decisions we have made as a government and that the states and territories have made with us are having the effect that we wanted and needed for the safety of all Australians. For the very serious sacrifices that Australians are making every single day, and that those in my local community are making every single day, I say thank you. Thank you to our businesses and employees who have so courageously coped with the trauma of sudden closures, loss of customers, loss of income and loss of employment. Thank you to our healthcare workers—in hospitals and doctor's surgeries, in frontline health service delivery and, of course, in aged care—for the care they are giving to those whose lives are in danger; by doing so, they are risking their own lives. Thank you to our retail workers, our supermarket staff, our farmers and our food and goods manufacturers for providing essential products. Thank you to our school principals and their staff for continuing to teach our students when so many others around them have been working from home. Thank you to everyone who has contacted my office to express their support and concern for those most at risk, for their friends and neighbours, for the Prime Minister, for ministers, for me and for my staff. Thank you to everyone who is supporting our local businesses by shopping online or ordering takeaway to keep those businesses going. Thank you to everyone who is making sacrifices for the safety of others. Thank you to those who are staying home, to those who are practising social distancing when they leave the house, to those undergoing self-isolation in hotel rooms in other cities before they can return home and to those voluntarily self-isolating after travelling from interstate, as I have been doing for the last 14 days, since we last sat in parliament, and as I will be doing for the next 14 days, when I return home to my electorate of Boothby. And thank you to all those who will stay home this Easter, instead of going to their favourite holiday spots, so they can limit the spread of this deadly virus. There are so many small ways we can do our part. We will all need to do our small part and our big part once we pass through the worst of this pandemic to get our economy back on track, and that is the foundation these bills provide today. 12:48 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to speak on the coronavirus economic response package bills but also to move the amendment circulated in my name, which goes to the question of whether businesses should be able to ask employees to use all of their annual leave before receiving any of the JobKeeper supplement or wage subsidy. I'll speak further on that, but first I extend my condolences to those that have been tragically affected by COVID-19, particularly those who have family members who have died and those who are very ill. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the frontline staff, health workers, essential service workers, retail staff, truck drivers, factory workers, farmers and teachers, and so many public servants. Too often they are maligned, but they are really there when it counts. They should be acknowledged and they are acknowledged today, as we deal with this very significant challenge. The world has changed, at least temporarily; we don't know for how long. The phrases 'social distancing', 'self-isolation', 'iso-life', 'flattening the curve'—these are new phases that have become part of our lexicon because of these extraordinary challenges we confront. Let's hope we will see our way through that as soon as possible. I rise today, the opposition rises today, to support these bills. The Labor leader has foreshadowed that we will make constructive amendments to improve deficiencies that are clearly evident in these bills. There are deficiencies that go to the lack of coverage of employees but also to the exposure of businesses because of that lack of coverage. There are deficiencies, as I have already indicated, insofar as allowing for annual leave to be wound down without the JobKeeper money being provided directly and immediately to those workers. There are deficiencies because local government employees are not covered, even though we know hundreds are being stood down around the country. We should look at that and fix it. I also think we should be talking to state governments that have very strict rate caps on councils. If we can't fix it this way then state governments need to be looking at what they can do. There are deficiencies in terms of over a million temporary migrant workers in this country that are not able to access social services of any sort and cannot receive any supplement through the JobKeeper approach—so no jobseeker, no JobKeeper and no other form of welfare. We're going to have a million people exposed and that is going to be a massive social problem. It is intrinsically unfair, and something else has to be done in that regard. There are other issues too, such as large companies which, though they may not have a revenue fall of 50 per cent, may have revenue fall of 30 per cent. We may see thousands of workers from one company be laid off and not covered by the JobKeeper supplement. While there are deficiencies, we do support the package. Despite those deficiencies, it's a good package for those who are going to be the beneficiaries, and it is a very significant change to what the government was saying only 15 days ago in this place. Fifteen days ago, in this place, I stood at the dispatch box and asked the Prime Minister why we weren't going down the path of wage subsidies. I alluded to the 80 per cent subsidy in the UK, and, on behalf of the opposition, asked him why we weren't taking that approach, which so many other countries were taking. The Prime Minister said that was not the advice he received, and he was happy with the advice he received. And then, of course, they proceeded to close the parliament—until August. So we know that this package of bills was not even contemplated by the government 15 days ago; otherwise, they wouldn't have closed the parliament for five months. To the credit of the government, they have listened to Labor, to the unions, to employers, to peak employer bodies and to economists, and they have now come up with this package. And I welcome it, as do all Labor members. We welcome the package, despite its deficiencies, because it is absolutely critical for employees who would have been lining up in the unemployment queues. Frankly, I think that is what really hit home for the government. They left here two weeks ago today with the view that we were not going to have a wage subsidy. They went back to their electorates and saw thousands of people lining up around the block of every Centrelink office in the nation, and they realised the fundamental error of their thinking with respect to the support they needed to provide to businesses and employees. It was demonstrably clear, if it wasn't already clear when we saw those very long lines of Australians lining up for unemployment benefits for the very first time. And there were forecasts that we would have seen unemployment rise to more than 20 per cent in this country if something had not been done. The idea that we would just double the unemployment benefit and say everyone could be on welfare was always deficient, and it seemed to be contradictory to the view of the government generally that work is the best form of welfare. They didn't think that two weeks ago, but I'm glad they realised that was wrong. I welcome the fact that they have changed their position, but it should be noted for the record that that was the case. As many other speakers have said today in this debate, this is a good package, but there are people who miss out. I mentioned the fact that casuals will miss out. We believe there are just over one million casual workers who will not receive this support. That is absolutely devastating. People might be called a casual in a workplace, but they have a permanent family. They have long-term mortgage payments to make. They have major challenges, no different from anyone who is classified as a permanent employee. As the Labor leader said, there is no difference in the circumstances of those two workers; it is just about how you happen to be classified. If you are lucky enough for your employer to deem you to be permanent part-time, you are going to be covered by this. There is such a grey area between casual and permanent part-time. It is almost at the whim of the employer to suggest to the tax commissioner that you are eligible for the JobKeeper payment because you are a permanent part-time worker, or, with the same set of facts, that you are not covered because you are casual. That will be no clarity or delineation between those two classes of workers; it will come down to the subjective view of each employer. The government says it has to go down this path for clarity. But there is no clarity because there is a very grey area between those who are deemed to be permanent part-time and those who are deemed to be casual. The fact that we have gone down this path means we are going to expose already low paid workers who are precariously employed. They are already precariously connected to the labour market and they are now going to be disconnected from the labour market. That is a dreadful shame. They would be in receipt of the jobseeker payments, which as we know are quite generous—and we applaud the government for that approach—but the government may as well have kept them eligible for JobKeeper payments, which would have kept them connected to the labour market, particularly when we are looking to recover. The second victims of this exclusion are the businesses themselves that happen to be in a sector where most workers are casual. By not providing that assistance to the workers indirectly, through their employers, the employers also suffer because they now will not have a payment for the wages they are obliged to pay under law unless they stand down those workers. So businesses miss out when casual workers miss out, and that is a dreadful shame too. I think the government should rethink its position. This is an important package and we support it. As foreshadowed, we will continue to support the government and provide constructive advice. We hope they are sensible and listen to our advice. We want to make sure we do not leave people behind. At the moment, there are too many that will be left behind. But it is a good step forward, and we obviously want to continue to work with the government in this very significant time and on this very difficult challenge. I move: That the following words be added after paragraph (6): "(7) calls on the Government to ensure that the JobKeeper wage subsidy is only used by employers to pay their employees’ wages and not to subsidise their company’s balance sheet, noting that there should be no provision for business to force employees to use their annual leave entitlements and pay for that leave with the JobKeeper wage subsidy". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Collins HWM I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to. 12:58 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That the following words be added after paragraph (7): "(8) calls on the Government to provide much more support for staff in schools, TAFEs, and universities affected by this crisis, noting that: (a) hundreds of thousands of school and university staff, including casual workers, are facing job losses, but will not be eligible for this JobKeeper payment; and (b) the Government should be saving jobs and making sure Australia has a strong and sustainable education and training sector on the other side of this crisis". Labor of course welcomes this legislation and the introduction of wage subsidies for Australian workers. We argued for them before the government's announcement and we will support them now that they are before the parliament. With so many businesses shutting their doors, with so many others losing turnover and with so many Australian jobs on the line, people need this financial support and they need it now. From the start, Labor promised to be constructive and practical in our response to this crisis. It's a pledge that we take very seriously. We know that people are worried about how they'll pay the rent or how they will pay the mortgage, about keeping their families safe and secure. We hope that these payments can give Australians some peace of mind at this extraordinarily difficult time. As I said, we would never oppose for the sake of opposition, but we won't stop fighting for people who are missing out because of the way these payments are structured. It's what happened when we campaigned for the inclusion of people on youth allowance, Austudy and Abstudy in the coronavirus supplement payment, an amendment that we successfully negotiated with the government. That's our job, and I really believe this sort of constructive holding the government to account means a better outcome in the long term. As it stands, the legislation that we're voting on today does have some significant holes in it. In my shadow portfolio of education, Labor is urging the government to provide better support for casuals in schools, in TAFE and in universities affected by this crisis. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs—teachers, of course, and academic staff, but also administrative staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners. All of them have families; all of them are worried about their jobs. The majority of these people will not be eligible for JobKeeper payment either because they don't meet the requirement of being employed on a regular basis for more than 12 months or because few schools or universities meet the threshold of a 30 per cent fall in revenue that's required to qualify. On Sunday the Treasurer announced that all registered charities would be eligible for JobKeeper payment at a lower threshold of turnover decline of 15 per cent. Of course, at that time the universities and non-government schools were very excited to hear that. It really felt like a lifeline to these two desperate sectors, but within a day the government walked back this decision by excluding non-government schools and universities, even though most are registered as charities. Leaving schools and universities to fend for themselves is a big mistake, and we're already seeing the consequences of it. Many schools have begun to stand down their casual employees. More than 300 teachers on the New South Wales Central Coast were told this week that no shifts were available for the foreseeable future. One school in regional Queensland has stood down more than a hundred staff. Many of these teachers and school support workers have contacted my office asking for help because they are desperate. One woman told me how, after a 10-year teaching career, she'd had a break to go on maternity leave and had recently returned to teaching as a casual. Now that her work has dried up she doesn't know how she's going to support her family, now with a young child. This teacher said she feels as though she's been treated as a sacrificial lamb for her country and feels deeply undervalued as a professional. These are the same people that kept teaching our kids, kept standing at the front of the classroom, as the coronavirus was spreading. They were there for us, and we should be there for them. It's no good calling teachers heroes one week and then turning our backs on them the next week, as this legislation does. If the government doesn't believe the JobKeeper payment is appropriate for schools, then it should explain why, and the Prime Minister should tell Australian casual teachers what he will do to support them instead. It's true that state and territory governments have an important role to play here too, and I note that the ACT government have supported their casual staff. But, to solve this problem nationally and to give casual staff the security they deserve, the government does need to sit down with the employees of the non-government school sector. It also needs to sit down with TAFE employees around Australia and have that same conversation. There are thousands of livelihoods on the line in TAFE as well. We are absolutely open to another solution if the government has one. Labor are approaching this with an open mind and we will support any sensible plan that fixes this anomaly. I also want to update the House on the extremely worrying situation facing our universities at the moment. Higher education in Australia is under immense financial pressure. For years our universities have relied on international student fees to help fund their other operations—our world-leading research and teaching. The COVID-19 pandemic and the global travel restrictions that followed have led to a crisis in funding for universities, with income from international students plummeting in recent months. Universities are worried about both international student and domestic student numbers and worried that they will continue to fall in the second semester. There are now very genuine fears that, without government assistance, some universities may collapse. Of course, that would be an absolute catastrophe. If we don't act now, if we drag our feet and allow universities to fail, we'll see vital research cut, thousands of jobs lost and students potentially left hanging in the middle of degrees. Higher education is our third-biggest export industry. It is the source of 260,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. It contributes more than $41 billion to our national economy every year, and universities are the cornerstone of many regional communities and a provider of 14,000 jobs in our regions. The University of New England, based in Armidale, employs more than a thousand staff. Think about the University of Tasmania's Launceston or Burnie campuses that employ hundreds. We've got campuses in Geelong, Bathurst, Rockhampton, Wagga Wagga and Townsville. Think of all the regional cities across Australia and, if you cut a few hundred jobs from those regional communities, what the broader impact is. Universities are absolutely critical to us dealing with this urgent health crisis and they're going to be just as critical to our recovery in the years to come. Not only do universities employ the researchers who develop new treatments and cures; they educate our doctors, our nurses and our health experts. Across Australia universities are lending a hand to help in the fight to find a vaccine and new treatment for COVID-19. The University of New South Wales is just one example. They've established a rapid research fund to address the diagnostic, therapeutic and containment challenges of COVID-19 as well as the long-term social and economic impacts. Other universities are working with the health system to fast-track final year students in medicine and nursing to get them quickly into our hospitals to assist with these efforts. Universities tell us that access to JobKeeper payments on the same terms as other not-for-profits would be a huge help. If the government doesn't believe the JobKeeper payment is the appropriate one for universities, then it has to explain why and come to the table with a practical solution to help universities instead. We need to think about students who are falling through the gaps of the support system, particularly international students. I know that universities are doing their best to help these people, including by hoping to establish a hardship fund, and the government has to work with them on that too. It is not ethical to allow these people to become destitute and it's not safe to push people into taking work that they would otherwise not do, because of sickness, because they've got no other way of supporting themselves. Whether on schools or universities, all the government have done so far is tell us what they can't do. We need a practical solution telling us what the government can do for these sectors. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Is the amendment seconded? An opposition member: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 13:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That the following words be added after paragraph (8): "(9) calls on the Government to extend the 15 per cent reduction in turnover threshold to all National Disability Insurance Scheme and Disability Employment Services providers, and deliver a retention and support package for the disability sector workforce". This amendment calls on the government to extend the 15 per cent reduction and turnover threshold to all National Disability Insurance Scheme and Disability Employment Services providers, and deliver a retention and support package for the disability sector workforce. I say let us leave no-one behind in this crisis. I say let us learn from this crisis. In this terrible time for Australia, there are many vulnerable Australians doing it tough. I hear this in the disability portfolio, from disability workers without access to basic protective equipment: gloves, masks and sanitisers. I hear it from people with disabilities, some of them in group homes, and their loved ones. They fear perhaps they could be infected or indeed, more gravely, they fear that the workers who look after them may not be able to attend them in their homes. I hear it from the disability providers, many of whom were struggling to make ends meet before the coronavirus hit. I say there is a strong national interest in keeping as many disability businesses afloat in this country as we humanly can. There is an acute national public interest in making sure that our 13,000-plus disability service providers do not collapse before the onslaught of this virus. There is an acute national interest in maintaining 350,000 disability care workers in this country in employment where they deliver irreplaceable essential services. Under the new proposed law from the government, businesses that experience a fall of 30 per cent or more in their turnover will be eligible for the JobKeeper payment. Fittingly, and in recognition of the public service they provide, the bar is lower for charities. To be eligible they need a fall in turnover of 15 per cent. What this means in the disability sector is that those organisations that are registered charities, which are providing excellent services to vulnerable people and their families, have a fighting chance to get the support they need to keep doing their vital work; but disability businesses providing identical services to vulnerable people will have to meet a higher bar and will be likely excluded from the government support they need through JobKeeper. This will mean, in real terms, threefold consequences: already struggling disability providers go to the wall; their employees, these frontline heroes, will lose their jobs and join the unemployment queue; and, worst of all, there is the effect on people with disability, who rely on these services, who risk abandonment. It is not too dramatic to fear the stranding of some of our most vulnerable Australians in terrible situations in their own homes around our nation. This virus does not distinguish or discriminate between disability charities and disability services, and nor should we. It will cut a swathe through all members of the disability family, people with disability, their carers and, of course, disability services. It is why we say that all in the disability sector should be afforded the lower 15 per cent turnover test to be eligible for JobKeeper relief. Disability workers need help too. They need retention schemes similar to those for aged-care workers that have already been pledged; consistent training for new workers; funding for coronavirus-specific training; specialist training for workers in coronavirus infected NDIS participants; emotional and psychological support for these workers; and sector capacity building to coordinate the sharing of staff amongst providers across regional areas. There are many who are vulnerable in the face of this pandemic, and there are many have opted to make themselves vulnerable for the greater good. I speak, of course, of our amazing frontline healthcare workers. I speak of our carers and aged-care staff working with people, disability staff, doctors, nurses, cleaners and orderlies at hospitals, and security. I speak of the people at the check-out, the frontline staff manning the safety net at Centrelink. I speak of the journalists turning up to provide the information that Australians are hungry for. These are just a few of the altruistic vocational Australians turning up to work for the rest of Australia. They're not just turning up for a pay cheque; they are risking sickness or worse, yet they are turning up to help their fellow Australians in need. There are many people who cannot go to work because this virus has already taken away their immediate livelihoods. And in relation to these millions of Australians, this safety net, worthy as it is, does not go far enough. Let us leave no Australian worker behind. I don't want people falling through the cracks—the forgotten who should not be forgotten, the neglected who should not be neglected. Let us leave no Australian behind. Let us not leave behind the arts and entertainment workers, the freelancers, the contractors, the people behind the screen who entertain us during this period of the virus, the entertainment industry. Let us not leave behind the travelling show industry—10,000 employees, a billion dollars in turnover, and 700 to 800 families who supply entertainment for people, right across from the Ekka, the Royal Show and the Easter Show through to the country shows from Rockhampton to Lakes Entrance. Let us not leave behind people like Ben Hughes, a construction worker from the United Kingdom, living in Hoppers Crossing. He's worked here for five years, has paid his taxes and is expecting, with his Australian fiancee, Rachel, a baby in the next six days. Let us not leave behind the aviation workforce at Virgin and Tiger—8,000 people. Virgin does not operate in a free market, and we should not pretend to wash our hands of the responsibility to provide support. Let us not leave behind the renters and the landlords, residential and commercial. Let us not leave behind the carers on healthcare cards not currently eligible for support. Let us not leave behind young people under 22 like Shanie Turner of Airport West, displaced by Jetstar, living a long way from her family, with no support available. Vulnerable workers with diabetes, asthma or immune deficiencies should not be left behind because of a lack of income support if they have to self-isolate. Let us not leave behind 1.1 million casuals. I will not forget about you. Labor will not forget about you. The government should not forget about you. Let us leave no-one behind in this crisis. Let us learn from it. There was the panic buying at the start of the crisis. It was sad to see the internet pictures of the elderly standing bewildered in front of empty supermarket shelves. It was disheartening to see so many of our fellow Australians queueing for the first time at Centrelink in pictures redolent of the Great Depression. When this crisis passes, we need to learn from it. We need to bring manufacturing back to this country. Our manufacturing industry is as important as our Army, Navy and Air Force. We need it back. We never again should see a situation where valuable medical supplies that Australians require are being shipped overseas because of global market considerations and insufficient considerations of Australia's sovereign capacity. Never again should Australian interests be sold out on the economic theories of a global supply chain which sees Australia at the end and an afterthought if someone else needs what we need. We need pharmaceuticals, ventilators and the like, and they should be within our control and within our borders. We need to ensure that our Australian flagged ships carry our supplies to the world and we retain sovereign capacity in many parts of our economy. We need to ensure that we learn the lessons of this crisis when this crisis passes. There's a thing that we don't often say in this country, and that is that we do things better here when we put our mind to it. We do things better in Australia. We punch above our weight in the whole world, and therefore we need to do better. Finally, we are now endorsing the expenditure of $214 billion of taxpayer money which will be spent in the next six months. Whilst the intentions are good, mistakes will be made. We say that some of what is happening does not go far enough, but there'll be other points where the poorly and rushed calibrated system may see expensive mistakes made. This parliament needs to scrutinise that expenditure. The Prime Minister correctly said we are facing a conflict which is comparable to the great challenges of Australian history—war and depression. This parliament and this nation did not bend the knee to those crises by not having the parliament sit during those situations, and we conquered those situations. We will conquer this situation, this coronavirus—of that you can be certain. If not exactly when, be sure that we will. But this parliament should not bend the knee to the virus by not sitting to scrutinise the important debates of our democracy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Maribyrnong be agreed to. 13:19 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That the following words be added after paragraph (9): "(10) calls on the Government to: (a) recognise the importance of local government; (b) acknowledge that the closure of council facilities has resulted in significant revenue loss and workers being stood down; (c) acknowledge that, without support, up to 45,000 local government workers could lose their jobs; and (d) work together with state governments to address these important issues". Life's very different at the moment, for all of us, for everyone. In some respects, it's very strange. For a lot of people it's really hard. You just have to look at those lines of people snaking out of every Centrelink office around the country to realise that. Hundreds of thousands of people over the last few weeks have lost their jobs, and a lot of other people are working from home. Then there are the people who can't work from home—the doctors, the nurses, the ambulance officers, the cleaners, the kitchen hands. Everyone who works in our hospitals—they're the real heroes in all of this. While we're staying at home, they're out there saving lives. There are lots of parents doing crash courses in school education as well, and there are lots of people who can't see their family, the people that they love, at least not face to face: grandparents locked away in isolation. Mums and dads are spending a lot more time than they usually do with their kids. But not everyone. A mate of mine lives in the United States. His mum lives just around the corner from where I live. She's got cancer. It's terminal. She's been told that she's only got another couple of months to live, and he's been told he may not be able to come back to see her again—at least not in the flesh. He might not even be able to get to her funeral. He called me the other day and asked, if he couldn't go, if I'd stand there in his place and be one of those five people allowed to attend. That's just one example of what this virus has done to the world that we live in. We support this legislation; it's good legislation—it's what we've been calling for for weeks. All those people standing in queues out of every Centrelink office around the country perhaps may not have had to be there if we had passed legislation like this last time we were here, two weeks ago. I think the government gets that. I think a lot of members went back to their electorates two weeks ago and saw those queues—they saw the anxiety and the worry on people's faces as they stood outside Centrelink offices around the country—and realised that something needed to be done differently here. So I thank the government for their change of heart. I thank them for bringing this legislation before the parliament. It's going to help a lot of people. There are some people, though, who it won't help. There are more than a million people who are casuals and who miss out under this legislation. There are also a lot of council workers—the people who work in our councils—who don't get the benefit of this legislation. It's important that I point out that thousands of council workers who have lost their jobs in the last few weeks. In Geelong, 700 council workers were stood down last week. In the Prime Minister's own electorate, in the Sutherland Shire, 260 council workers were recently stood down. According to the Australian Local Government Association, as many as 45,000 council workers could lose their jobs over the course of the next few weeks. Why? Because councils run things like swimming pools, libraries and community centres, and some run regional airports, all of which have either had to shut down or are doing a lot less. As a result, their budgets are haemorrhaging. A council like Blacktown council in Western Sydney, which is one of the biggest councils in Australia and which I spoke to yesterday, is losing $1.7 million every week because they've had to shut things down—just like the private sector has had to shut down. But, unlike the private sector, they're not getting any help. If you're a swimming pool instructor working at a private pool you get help out of this legislation, but if you're a swimming pool instructor at a public pool you don't. The government has written to councils all across the country, asking them to identify shovel-ready road projects which could be part of the recovery after the worst of the virus has come and gone. They have asked for that list by today. I recognise that the minister for local government is in the chamber here. He is doing good work here, and I thank him for the work he's doing. This is a good initiative; it makes sense to identify the projects that local governments can do which can be part of the recovery phase. Local governments can not only build roads but they can help rebuild communities after the worst of this virus has passed, and help us to get life a little bit back to normal. But that's the recovery phase; we are now in the survival phase, and councils need help. Otherwise, we risk seeing more people who are currently working for councils lining up outside the front of Centrelink. Think about this: rates notices are about to go out to people all across the country at the moment, and a lot of people are going to walk to the letterbox, open it up, pull out the rates notice and think, 'How the hell am I going to pay this?' And a lot of other councils are going to think, 'What are we going to do if we don't get that revenue to help to keep things going: to mow the lawns, collect the garbage and do all that work?'—work that we expect them to do. The United Kingdom has introduced a subsidy like this, and it applies to local government staff. They have also done what we did after the bushfires, and that is to provide funds to local councils to help keep them going and to do the essential stuff. But this bill doesn't do that; the Prime Minister has said that it's a job for the state governments. I think it's a job for all of us. If councils can't collect the garbage as often as they do or if our local parks start to look like national parks, then a lot of angry people are going to be ringing us and asking what we're doing to help. It's something that we can all do, working together, and that's why I've moved this motion in the House today, calling on the federal government and the state governments to work together to help to fix this—to keep local government going and to keep local government workers from losing their jobs. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Is the motion seconded? Mr Stephen Jones A9B I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Blaxland be agreed to. 13:27 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the following words be added after paragraph (10): "(11) notes that a number of major charities will be unable to access the JobKeeper program, and will have to shed staff and cease programs as a result". When parliament met 16 days ago, Britain, New Zealand, Ireland and Sweden were among the countries that had implemented significant wage subsidies to save jobs. Labor said at the time that Australia should do the same, and we're very pleased that, as a result of significant pressure from Labor, the business community and the union movement, the government has announced a $130 billion wage subsidy scheme. This reflects Labor's fundamental view. Like it says on the tin, we're Labor; we believe in the dignity and the purpose that comes with the job. We believe that it is important to minimise the unemployment tragedy that flows from the coronavirus crisis. One private sector forecaster estimated that without this package unemployment would have gone to 17 per cent and that with it, it will peak at nine per cent. An eight per cent reduction in unemployment is worth the significant debt that the government will accrue as a result of this package. Total support will now be more in the order of 10 per cent of GDP than the three per cent of GDP it was beforehand. But there are gaps remaining. There are a million casuals and two million temporary migrants. There are university workers and the 45,000 council workers that the member for Blaxland just referred to. And there are 1.3 million workers in the charities sector. Charities are facing a perfect storm right now. They've seen a collapse in their donations, and that's unlikely to get better. Leading right through to Christmas, it's likely that donations will be down. Philanthropic foundations are giving less because their share market returns are lower. Yet we need charities more than ever before. Charities are helping out on the front line: on domestic violence and substance abuse; suicide prevention and mental wellbeing; assisting the homeless; and helping out in Indigenous communities. Charitable medical research institutes are hunting for a cure and treatments for coronavirus, and many charities are still engaged in bushfire and drought relief. I commend the Treasurer and Senator Seselja for their engagement with the charity sector and with me over improvements to this legislation. The announcement on Sunday that charities would face a 15 per cent threshold rather than a 30 per cent threshold is welcome, and some charities that did not qualify for the JobKeeper payment before will now qualify for it. But many charities have told me that unless tied grants are excluded from the calculation of income they will be excluded. They have said that, unlike businesses, they can't simply move money around. They've said that it's ironic that if they were receiving grants to do bushfire and drought relief—or, indeed, to help with the coronavirus crisis—that that should disqualify them. They've seen op-shop revenue and early childhood revenue fall by 80 to 90 per cent. If that were all they did, they'd qualify. But, because they have diversified operations in many cases, charities such as Oxfam, Anglicare, Uniting Care, Fred Hollows, Samaritans, St Vincent de Paul, Wesley Mission Queensland and many of our medical research institutes fear that they won't qualify for the JobKeeper payment. That includes Uniting Care Australia, which engages 50,000 staff and 30,000 volunteers. It includes Anglicare, which has 20,000 staff and 9,000 volunteers. Each of these charities supports over one million Australians annually. To a specific example: Uniting NSW.ACT are a not-for-profit running 56 services for 4,598 young children, with 850 employees. They won't qualify, because they haven't seen a reduction in revenue of 15 per cent or more. That's just because of the relative size of the early learning service compared to Uniting NSW.ACT's other services. They have projected that their early learning services will make a $2.7 million loss every quarter, and they don't see how they can keep their centres open. In the Prime Minister's own electorate of Cook, Uniting early learning has three services that will be ineligible for the JobKeeper payment. They operate services in thin markets like Orange, Grafton and Murwillumbah that might have to close. They point out that they can't run their early learning services on 50 per cent funding and that if they closed them then that would take away early childhood services from frontline healthcare workers. Wesley Mission Queensland says that they might need to close childcare centres in Chermside, The Gap and Toowong, which provide support for healthcare workers. They've said that their suicide prevention program and their national Auslan interpreting service are under threat. St Vincent de Paul Canberra/Goulburn has distributed millions of dollars in financial grants to bushfire impacted households across south-east New South Wales. The grants have to be used for their stated purpose. They can't be used to offset losses, and St Vincent de Paul fear that they will be unable to access the JobKeeper payment. The Australian Council of Social Service conducted a survey of members on Monday and found that many of them are anticipating that they might have to shed staff. That survey found that 37 per cent of anticipated job losses would occur in organisations whose overall revenue loss would be less than 15 per cent. That would involve cuts to youth mental health and youth disability support services, disability services, domestic and family violence services, and aged-care services. Finally, there are the medical research institutes. The Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes has warned that, because about half the money comes from government grants and can only be expended on medical research programs, the collapse in philanthropic donations might mean that many of their members won't be able to access the JobKeeper payment. That includes the Burnet Institute, the Garvan Institute, the Kirby Institute, the Menzies Institute, the George Institute for Global Health and the Doherty Institute, which did the modelling on coronavirus that was released yesterday. It is simply unimaginable that we would exclude medical research institutes from the JobKeeper package. I urge the government to do to right thing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Ryan 249224 I'm happy to second the amendment calling for more support for charities and our medical research institutes, and I reserve my right to speak. 13:34 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Before I start, I convey on behalf of the Greens our thoughts to the member for Cooper, my parliamentary neighbour, and to her family in this very, very difficult time. This novel coronavirus is transforming the world and our country before our very eyes, and it's exposing a lot about how we have structured our societies, what is important when it really matters and also what can be discarded. But if the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us one thing it is that it is not just that we're all in this together and that if we want to get through this we all have to get through it together; it's shown us that by valuing the things that we have in common and things that governments have attacked for the last 30 years we are able to pull through in times of crisis. It is with a touch of irony that we are retreating as individuals, isolating ourselves in our own homes, to advance the needs of society. The neoliberal truism from Margaret Thatcher that there's no such thing as society couldn't be further from the truth right now. We're all making our own little sacrifices to stop the devastating impact of this pandemic, but some of us have to make much bigger sacrifices than others. For many those sacrifices can't be avoided. If you have a relative, a partner or housemate with health vulnerabilities, your social sacrifices will be greater than others. For those who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs or who have had their businesses shut down those sacrifices are severe. To the nursing and medical staff risking everything to leave their homes and care for others, the retail workers stacking the shelves, the couriers delivering our essential goods to market and the cleaners keeping our hospitals sanitised and safe: thank you so much for putting yourselves at risk. Some sacrifices cannot be avoided, but others can, and that is where government comes in: to look after people. It must be the first priority of government to make sure that no-one is left behind. What is getting us through this crisis are all the things, as I said before, that have been attacked for the last 30 years: a strong public healthcare system, government deciding to look out for each other and putting life above a surplus and understanding that if we pull through together and look after everyone then we are all better off. In many respects I think the government has made some significant steps that I never expected this government would make, but it is clear that in other respects they have had to be dragged there. There was advocacy from the Greens and community groups that means in some states we now have eviction bans for renters. This was because of Greens amendments that passed New South Wales and Tasmanian parliaments. We finally saw the rates for people on government income support—students and the unemployed—lifted. Not-for-profit sectors were brought in to be supported, not just for-profit businesses—something we pushed hard for—and women at risk of domestic violence in this time of heightened stress, loss of income and isolation are being supported. When I became leader, I talked about the need for free child care but I didn't expect we would be seeing it so soon. Most of the legislation for this support was delivered in this building a few weeks ago, but at that time the Greens were saying loudly and clearly that we also need to guarantee people's wages to keep them employed and not overwhelm Centrelink offices that have been starved of resources and funding for the last decade. We moved an amendment here last time to achieve that. The government said no at the time but now we are back debating that very legislation that the Greens called for. But still our job is not done because even now the government is arbitrarily sorting people by who it will look after and who it will leave behind in the wake of this COVID disaster—renters, one million casual workers who worked for less than 12 months, people on the disability support pension and those who are carers, residents working here on temporary visas, international students, the arts and entertainment sector. Why has the government drawn a line to sort people into deserving and undeserving of help? It makes no sense why some groups need to be looked after and others don't. What a lot of the groups being left behind have in common is that they are young people. Again, it is young people the government is doing over. From encouraging our climate to collapse to lifetime debts for education, from unaffordable housing to an unfolding extinction crisis, the government doesn't seem to care about young people having the same safety net that previous generations enjoyed. And now the looming recession is going to hit young Australians hard. I am not just talking about forced isolation or a delayed career or being forced to move back home with parents. Young people are wearing the social pain because they are the ones occupying the jobs in industries that have been shut down—hospitality, retail, tourism, the arts and entertainment industries—but they are being intentionally dismissed by this government. Half a million of the million casual workers the government is abandoning from the JobKeeper scheme are under the age of 24. Let me say this again: half a million young people under 24 are purposely being excluded from help by this government. Many will be forced to default on their rent, borrow money from friends or have to navigate our unemployment system. The Greens will move an amendment to scrap the 12-month working requirement and provide young people with jobs support and peace of mind. We need a wage guarantee and a jobs guarantee for everyone. The government's policy misses the mark on so many levels, and these young people and casual workers are being excluded purely as a budget savings measure. The sectors where casuals have been employed in high numbers for less than 12 months include retail, hospitality, tourism, accommodation and education—the exact sectors hit hardest by the forced shutdowns. There are one million casual employees the government is turning its back on and these are real people living real lives, people like Shannon from Adelaide, who returned to work six months ago after having had a baby. She is casually employed but doesn't qualify for the JobKeeper payment. Her words to the Prime Minister are short and sharp. She said, 'I am one of the one million people left behind in the JobKeeper package. I have been out of work since early March and I have a young family to support.' There is Scott, who recently moved to Sydney in order to complete his training as a boilermaker. He was employed as a casual and now he is out of work. His direct plea to the Prime Minister is: 'No income makes it hard to find a place to rent, and without a place to rent it is pretty hard to find a job. It is going to take me months to save up the bond for somewhere. It is not just young workers but carers too. Neesa from Busselton is a single mother caring for her son with autism. She has just lost her job, and this is her message: 'My landlord has ignored all contact. I have pleaded with him to reduce my rent for the time being. Our medical bills have gone up as have our grocery bills. I'm scared about how to feed my son and keep a roof over our heads. I feel unseen and overlooked by the current government.' In my electorate, Ali in the Docklands receives the disability support pension, another group that is left behind by this package. He is immunocompromised and can no longer take public transport. His story for the Prime Minister is: 'Two weekly appointments used to cost me $9 in myki fares but last week it cost me over $120 in taxis. Because of this, I haven't been able to pay my utility bills or even buy groceries for this upcoming week.' And then there are the 565,000 international students, who the government has confirmed it won't lift a finger for. We welcomed these students into our country, we accepted the fees they are paying to our universities and we took the money from the leases they signed. Now they have lost their jobs, and in their time of need we are abandoning them. Temporary visa holders are in a similar position. Few temporary visa holders have the financial capacity to simply leave, as the government is suggesting. For them, this is a sentence to poverty and hunger with serious public health implications. How can we ask people to self-isolate without income and, in some cases, without a home? Finally, the largest group being left to languish are renters. The government are bending over backwards to secure the rights of landlords and property owners. They are working hard to find a pathway for commercial arrangements to continue, even when commercial land value right now is reduced to zero. But what about a roof over someone's head? What about the human right to housing? The government, it seems, couldn't care less. The issue keeps slipping off the national cabinet agenda. We heard a proud announcement today how far advanced the cabinet is on a code for commercial tenants but still nothing for residents. People are being evicted right now, people are being threatened with eviction right now and it keeps going in the too-hard basket. Unless the government acts and acts in the next couple of days, this will reach crisis proportion. This must be a matter of priority to ensure that there is a national eviction ban and that there are rental holidays for those who need them. There are so many others who are going to be left behind, but the bills we are passing today give extraordinary power to the Treasurer to create payment schemes. We say amend the legislation in the Senate to look after the people being left behind. But if you are not prepared to do that then amend your schemes after we leave this place to make sure those people are not being left behind. Despite the promise of everyone getting a chance to speak here, we are running out of time for other members of the crossbench to have their say, which is typical of how the government has worked throughout the whole process. I will say one final thing: we are about to adjourn this parliament within a day or so and then not come back until August. That means that the key ministers about to spend huge sums of money, unprecedented amounts of money, will have next to no oversight from their parliamentary counterparts. We support legislation going through to ensure that money can be used to keep people safe, keep people in jobs and keep businesses going but it must come with some oversight. What we need is a joint House committee where members of this place and senators can call ministers to account over the coming months and ask them to explain how they are spending money so that we can put to them that there are people being left behind. If we just suspend this place and have a Senate committee that, while it is a powerful Senate committee, won't have the capacity to call House ministers because they can simply refuse to appear, then we are entering a realm of unaccountability. Democracy should not be put into isolation during this crisis; we need more democracy, not less. The Greens will be pursuing amendments in the Senate to ensure that, in this crisis, no-one is left behind and to make sure that government keeps being held to account so that we can include those groups that the government is forgetting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The honourable member for Fenner has now moved a further amendment. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fenner be agreed to. 13:45 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak to the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020. I thank the government on behalf of Warringah for its prompt responses to this crisis today. While the measures outlined in these bills are far reaching and welcome, legislation prepared in haste has gaps and some key groups will miss out on receiving support. I've already written to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister outlining the many concerns that people in Warringah have. The issue with JobKeeper is that many miss out or are inadequately supported, such as casual employees, pay-as-you-go contractors and temporary visa holders. These groups are all proudly included by the government in reports of employment figures, so they should now, in their time of need, be included in the government's response. In relation to casuals, to require a consistent relationship with an employer for over 12 months disqualifies many casual employees who have been working routinely for a range of employers over many years. This does not reflect the modern workforce. For those ineligible for JobKeeper, the government says they are caught and supported by the jobseeker payment. However, this gives rise to inequity between single- and dual-income families—an inequity that I fear will impact women the most as, whilst JobKeeper does not impose a partner income test, the jobseeker payment does. Whilst I appreciate that the income threshold has been raised, over 55 per cent of families in my electorate are dual-income families, and many of these will be left in the cold to cope with substantially reduced family incomes. This may have dire mental health and domestic violence consequences. The position needs to be addressed in relation to pay-as-you-go contractors. It is inadequate today. Many in the arts, entertainment and fitness industries work through pay-as-you-go contractor relationships from project to project. They cannot turn to a previous employer for JobKeeper, and many will not be eligible for the jobseeker payment. I urge the government to consider a special package for the arts and entertainment industries. We should ask ourselves: where would we all be in this period of home isolation without the arts and entertainment industries? There is no assistance for many visa holders and other vulnerable groups in our community in the measures today. Asylum seekers do not have another place to go. They are here because they have fled for their safety. They are in our community and require assistance. There are many in our community who applied for permanent residency before 1 March 2020. They have lived, they have worked and they have paid taxes in Australia for many years, and they too should be eligible. Many childcare centres, restaurants and others in the service industries rely on foreign workers to support their trade. If we want those industries to recover and those businesses to reopen, we must also support their workforces. I urge the government to extend its measures to these groups. In addition, the government should provide greater clarity for startup businesses that have been in existence for less than a year and on the mechanisms through which non-profits will qualify. Many non-profits diversify their business model and will not be eligible for JobKeeper due to the requirement of a 15 per cent reduction overall of the whole business, yet essential services to our communities will be lost and many will lose employment. In relation to self-funded retirees, this crisis has shaken many individuals who have carefully planned for their futures. I have received many representations from self-funded retirees who have been decimated by losses in income. These individuals have worked hard throughout their lives, they've contributed to Australia's wealth and they've pragmatically saved for their retirement. They have not previously been a burden on the welfare system. Many self-funded retirees are impacted by the government's call for landlords to set aside or reduce commercial and residential rents. I urge the government to consider a time limited access to a support payment like the coronavirus supplement afforded to jobseekers. This should only be assessed if an individual can show 30 per cent or more decline in income from property and where that income is below a certain threshold. The rental situation is dire. I've received many very concerning reports of unscrupulous behaviour in relation to tenants and also in relation to landlords. Large companies that continue to operate at profit are using the crisis to stop paying rent to small self-funded retirees. Large profiteering landlords are refusing to negotiate on ongoing commercial leases of businesses forced to close. Unless help is provided, many businesses will simply not be there when we get through this crisis to reopen and they will not be in a position to sign up to the JobKeeper package and keep their employees. I appreciate the work done to develop the amended code of conduct for commercial tenancy, but more oversight and assistance in this area are urgently needed. The childcare package released this week, whilst well intentioned, has caused many negative consequences for childcare centres operated by local councils, family daycare providers and many in the sector. Many childcare providers in Warringah were still operating at high capacity at the time of the announcement and then saw their income cut to one-third of what it was as a result of the government's announcement. They are now facing closure. With unprecedented expenditure and discretion given to decision-makers, we must have appropriate parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. There needs to be flexibility and discretion to provide for the very many and varied scenarios, but there also needs to be accountability. Whilst the Senate select committee that has been announced is better than nothing, it will not provide the appropriate and timely scrutiny and collaborative input to Australia's response to the crisis that we should see. Whilst the bills presented today provide certainty for some Australians, there are many who will continue to fall through the cracks. I am concerned for the mental health and wellbeing of these individuals in particular and will continue to advocate for amendments to the legislation to capture their situation. There remain many areas of concern in Australia's response to this crisis, especially the repatriation of Australians still stranded overseas. I again urge the government to adopt a more collaborative approach in developing its responses, especially in relation to the make-up of the coordination committee. It is essential that this committee include independent expertise from all sectors and regions to ensure our response and economic rebuild is as strong and as future focused as it can be. I feel strongly for our youth, who will need to carry much of the burden of recovery for Australia, and especially for the class of 2020. Thank you again to all our frontline workers: the public transport operators, the health workers, the lifeguards, rangers, police, and school teachers. Thank you for keeping Australia going and safe. And to all Australians, especially everyone in Warringah: please stay home and stay safe. 13:53 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to support the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020. I've always seen my role as an Independent as one of being a constructive critic, congratulating the government on good work where it is done or calling for more where it is needed. I see my job as being to help the government succeed, because the people of Indi and Australia need the government to succeed in this crisis. But in turn it's important not to succumb to the temptation to silence, to wave through whatever the government proposes with no questions asked. That's why last week I wrote to the Prime Minister outlining 11 specific and practical recommendations to help enhance the local economic and health response to this twin crisis. I am pleased that the government has picked up on a number of those recommendations, including supporting our regional newspapers, which are so important outside metropolitan areas. That spirit of practical and constructive criticism and of wanting the government to succeed is what I bring to the legislation before us today. When I rose to speak about the previous coronavirus economic response package I noted that it did not go far enough in supporting businesses to retain their staff. The package before us now with the JobKeeper payment as its centrepiece is a giant leap forward. This legislation should go down as a marker of what this parliament can achieve when all voices are listened to—businesses, unions, government, opposition and crossbench. Since the JobKeeper payment was announced I've been inundated by constituents saying, 'Yes, this is what we need.' However, I've also heard equally from many people telling me where it falls short. It has been widely pointed out the JobKeeper payment doesn't go far enough to support casuals who have been employed for less than 12 months. In Indi, 20 per cent of workers are casuals; many of these people will miss out on this payment. Many of the people who will miss out are the lifeblood of the hospitality and tourism sector—chefs, cleaners, waiting staff and cellar door workers—some are artists, musicians, film makers and event planners. The last time I spoke in this place I called on the government to support these people. I do that again today. The second part of the government's latest economic response is the early childhood education and care relief package, and I welcome the government's committing to providing free child care to all Australian parents. High-quality child care and early childhood education accessible to all is one of the most important inputs for long-term educational outcomes and wellbeing, and it's crucial that these stay open for essential workers at this time. However, I have some real concerns about the design of this package and what it means for the viability of childcare providers, especially in rural and regional Australia, where in-home care, family day care and local-council run services are common. The system was announced last Thursday and came into effect on Monday. I understand that haste was required, but with that haste came considerable confusion. Since the announcement, I have been flooded by extremely concerned providers from across the sector in Indi. Many childcare centres in my electorate hadn't been severely affected by the coronavirus—some still had 100 per cent attendance—yet this announcement throws their finances into disarray, with fears their revenue will halve and their staff will be forced onto JobKeeper. Many local governments run childcare centres. The rural city of Wangaratta and Alpine and Murrindindi shires have all contacted me, alarmed at the change. They report that the policy change will have an immediate negative impact on their capacity to maintain services, unintended consequences of a policy intended to keep childcare centres open. Further, councils aren't eligible for the JobKeeper payment. The new policy does have provision for providers to be given additional funding if they can demonstrate exceptional circumstances, but applications for that funding don't open until tomorrow and so far the government has published no advice as to what qualifies for exceptional circumstances, who will receive additional funding and how much they will receive. As a constructive critic, I am laying out these concerns because I want the government's package to succeed and I fear it will not. The government must immediately remedy the fears of small providers, and it could do so by offering two simple guarantees. Firstly, guarantee that all childcare providers will be eligible for the JobKeeper payment and, secondly, guarantee that through the exceptional circumstances funding no provider will be worse off than they were prior to the onset of the crisis. If the government could provide these two guarantees they would plug these holes in the policy and achieve the objectives which we are all seeking. Finally, governance: the issues of the childcare package underscore important questions about the governance of our coronavirus response. Yes, we need the government to move fast, but moving fast in an environment where parliament is adjourned till 11 August needs a robust mechanism to ask questions and to scrutinise. The government cannot be expected to have all the answers to every issue in Australia, but unless they invite diverse voices into the room when they're making and scrutinising these decisions they're setting themselves an impossible challenge. We need to establish a mechanism for this parliament to scrutinise the measures. We need this because it's the best way to ensure the government can succeed, and we all want the government to succeed. That's why, along with my crossbench colleagues, I drafted two motions for two joint select committees to look into the government's health response and into their economic response. These were supported by the entire crossbench and 10 Senate crossbenchers. The crossbench offered them in good faith. The Labor Party and the government have instead decided that a Senate select committee be established to perform the critical role of scrutinising the government's pandemic response. However, I believe this proposal is insufficient for the task at hand. Joint committees provide a way for all parliamentarians to assist in enhancing our response. The Senate select committee is a lesser outcome for three reasons. Firstly, only a joint committee is able to compel ministers to both houses. Secondly, in this difficult time we should draw on the expertise of all our parliamentarians, of members of the House on all sides with deep experience in both health and economic policy representing all the diversity of our electorates. Thirdly, and most importantly, creating joint committees of both houses supported by the government, opposition and crossbench would have been a powerful act of unity and leadership to build trust in the government's response. The greatest disservice any parliamentarian could do right now would be to sit silently and fail to offer information to the government that could help them respond to the crisis, so I will continue to play my part, as all Australians have been called on to play theirs, and constructively work to achieve the best possible outcomes for all of us in this time of health and economic crises. Debate interrupted. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 40 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Under the circumstances there are quite a few ministerial arrangements today. I inform the House that the Minister for Home Affairs will be absent from question time. The Attorney-General will answer questions on his behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Industry, Science and Technology will be absent today. The Minister for Health will answer questions on her behalf, and the Attorney-General will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. The Minister for Defence Industry will be absent today. The Attorney-General will answer questions on her behalf. The Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia will be absent and the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management will be absent from question time today. The Deputy Prime Minister will also answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time today and the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for International Development and the Pacific and the Assistant Defence Minister will be absent today. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction will be absent and the Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. Finally, the Minister for Indigenous Australians will be absent from question time and the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 40 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID-19 40 14:02 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Everyone in parliament would agree that no Australian health worker should die due to a shortage of personal protective equipment. There are still reports that hospitals, GPs and pharmacies are struggling to cope with a shortage of personal protective equipment. Could the Prime Minister please update the House on when these shortages will be fixed? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the shadow minister for health for his question. I'll ask the Minister for Health to provide a more detailed response. This has been one of the key focuses of the government now over some period of time. We've been able to secure significant supplies, particularly in recent days and weeks. I want to thank all of those who have been involved, whether from industry or government directly, in securing those supplies from a large number of sources. We've also been working now over many weeks to increase our own domestic production capability of that same equipment. It is important for all the reasons that the member has said. I'll ask the Minister for Health to further update the House. 14:03 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to acknowledge the member for McMahon for his question. One of the highest priorities of this government has been to ensure continued supply of personal protective equipment in what has been an intensely competitive global environment. We've seen the shortages and the suffering not just of health workers but in relation to the broader population, whether it's in Europe, North America, parts of Asia or elsewhere. Against that background, we've been determined to continue, through both domestic production and international procurement, the supply of personal protective equipment. That has included the distribution of 11 million masks to date, which includes 2½ million to primary healthcare networks to support GPs, community pharmacies and Aboriginal and community controlled health organisations; more than a million masks to support those who are assisting in frontline activities; and six million masks to state and territory health departments to support the acute-care sector, in particular hospitals. We have also, as part of our procurement program, now landed over 30 million masks in Australia. This has been a difficult and challenging task. That is part of a broader order process of 500 million masks. As a consequence, we are now allocating a second round of 11 million masks. Shortly before question time I announced that that would include seven million for states and territories for their frontline public hospitals; 2.3 million for primary health networks, including 1½ million for GPs, 500,000 for community pharmacies, 75,000 for Indigenous workforce and healthcare, and 160,000 for respiratory clinics; and 1.7 million masks for our aged-care workers. We will continue to provide those masks. We are now getting ahead of the curve on this front, but we are very mindful of international supply constraints. I want to thank our healthcare workers. They are literally saving lives and protecting lives. We will do everything we can to support them and to protect them. COVID-19 41 14:05 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are stepping up in response to the coronavirus by following health advice and social-distancing measures that protect them and their fellow citizens. How is the Morrison government working to ensure that it can continue to protect the lives and livelihoods of our fellow Australians throughout this pandemic? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bass for her question and for her leadership in her community during this crisis we face, as well as acknowledge all members in this House for the strong leadership they're showing in their local communities at this difficult time. Over the past 11 weeks, since we first declared the coronavirus as a disease of pandemic potential, we have been putting in place the key protections and supports that will be necessary for Australia to combat the virus and to combat, withstand and cushion the significant impact that will flow as a result of the economic consequences of the virus. We have navigated our way together through these early stages and set up a national baseline of these supports right across the country. That has been done not just through the actions of the federal government, of course, but through the strong, coordinated leadership that has been exhibited through the national cabinet, the premiers and chief ministers and all of their state and territory governments. We now have in place one of the strongest testing regimes of any country in the world. We have been flattening the curve, reducing the rate of daily growth from over 20 per cent to what is now an average of around two per cent. We are boosting the ICU capacity and getting access to those critical supplies that the member for McMahon was just asking about, and we will see ICU capacity treble. The time that we have bought in the way we have flattened the curve with the measures we've put in place, particularly when it comes to social distancing and other restrictions in the community that have been accepted and adapted to by the Australian community, has been nothing short of phenomenal, and we thank them for their cooperation. Federally, whether it's been the private hospital guarantee; the work we've done on accessing respirators and testing facilities, and engaging with other countries—I was speaking to the President of Korea only yesterday about these issues and the Secretary of State from the United States this morning—the telehealth facilities; the aged-care workforce; the search for a vaccine; the metal health support—some $6.3 billion worth of health related measures—is all buying us valuable time. Whether it's been protecting the vulnerable through the $123 million to support Indigenous communities; the $200 million for emergency relief; the support for delivering meals to the elderly; the $150 million for domestic violence initiatives—particularly through programs such as 1800RESPECT—cybersecurity and e-safety supports, because we have so many more Australians, particularly children, online who are vulnerable; support through our disability services; the economic lifeline that has been provided through doubling of the jobseeker arrangements with the supplement; the $130 JobKeeper program; the mandatory code to support tenants through their leases; the childcare arrangements, which are free to Australians who particularly need it, this is all buying us valuable time, time that will enable us to work through this crisis to the other side and beyond. Health Care 41 14:09 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell My question is to the Prime Minister. The health minister has said expert medical advice is that everyone aged over six months should be vaccinated against the flu. Does Australia have enough flu vaccines for all Australians aged over six months? How is it to be provided to Australians, including vulnerable Australians? 14:09 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Dobell and acknowledge her work as a pharmacist over the course of her career. The flu vaccine is a very important thing. I have just stood up with both Professor Michael Kidd, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for primary care, and Dr Tony Bartone, who is the President of the Australian Medical Association, and Dr Bartone urged as many Australians as possible to have the flu vaccine. On all of our current projections we are going to meet all of the demand. In particular, on the National Immunisation Program we have 8½ million flu vaccinations, which include those between six months and five years of age, those with certain comorbidities, Indigenous Australians over the age of 50 and in particular older Australians beyond 65. The advice that I have is that we have a sufficient National Immunisation Program and other supplies in Australia. I think that we are seeing a very good take-up. But out of an abundance of caution we have also spoken with suppliers. Indeed, I have spoken with the global CEO of CSL within the last 48 hours and I am very confident that CSL, which is a great Australian company, will provide additional supplies. They're currently assessing that. That is likely to ensure not only that we meet our demand but that we have spare capacity to ensure that everybody who seeks support for flu vaccination, through the Australian National Immunisation Program or through the private market, will have that support met. COVID-19: Employment 42 14:11 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest measures the Morrison government is taking to help workers stay connected to their employers and to keep people in jobs while the coronavirus crisis continues to unfold? Treasurer, isn't this further proof that we will do what it takes to ensure that Australia bounces back stronger? 14:12 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Boothby for her question and acknowledge her deep commitment to ensuring that her constituents get as much support as they need during this very difficult time for them and for the nation. Today is one of the most important days in the history of this parliament. Today we reach across the political divide to pass legislation that will save millions of Australian jobs. Today the people's house will deliver for the people of Australia. The JobKeeper payment is an economic lifeline for millions of Australians. It's a game changer. A $1,500 flat payment paid every fortnight to those who are eligible is equivalent to around 70 per cent of the median wage. And in those sectors that have been hardest hit by the coronavirus—namely retail, hospitality, tourism—in many cases it can be around 100 per cent of the median wage. This package is costed at $130 billion, the most significant package that has been brought to this parliament to support Australian jobs. Those who are eligible are part-time workers, are full-time workers, are casuals who have been with their employer for 12 months or more, are sole traders and are those who are working for the not-for-profit sector. I can inform the House that as of 10 am this morning more than 730,000 businesses had registered their interest in the JobKeeper program on the ATO website. For those employees and employers who are looking for more information: treasury.gov.au. There are around six million Australian workers that we believe will be able to access this scheme, and it will provide a very significant economic lifeline to them at this very difficult time. But what's most significant about the JobKeeper program is that it will maintain that formal connection between the employer and the employee. It will make it easier for Australians to stay in a job and for businesses to keep them in a job. We're very focused on the recovery phase, and the JobKeeper program will help the Australian economy bounce back stronger than ever. COVID-19: Biosecurity 42 14:15 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. On 15 March the Prime Minister banned cruise ships from docking in Australia with arrangements 'directly under the command of the Australian Border Force'. Four days later, the Ruby Princess docked in Sydney. Given Australian Border Force is responsible for protecting Australia's borders and had direct command of those arrangements, does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the Ruby Princess fiasco? 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member would be very well aware of the statement that was made by the ABF commissioner, Michael Outram, on this matter on 25 March 2020, which set out very clearly the actions and responsibility of the Australian Border Force in relation to that matter. I table that statement for the purposes of the House and for the information of the member, and I think that addresses his question specifically and completely. COVID-19: Child Care 43 14:16 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for Education. In recent days I've been flooded with concerns from childcare providers worried that they will lose significant revenues as a result of the recently announced changes to childcare funding. Can the minister guarantee that no childcare provider, including those run by councils and schools, or in-home carer will be worse off under the new funding arrangements? 14:16 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Indi for her question. As she would know, we're backing free early childhood education and care for around one million families no matter what type of service they use. This has been an incredibly significant change, which was brought about because there was overwhelming feedback from the sector of the potential for a large number of services to collapse. Therefore, in the space of seven to 10 days, we overhauled the childcare sector to put some fundamental underlying security into the sector. What this change means is that the new payment, which is 50 per cent of the revenue that services received, up to the hourly cap, in the fortnight before 2 March, will be paid to providers weekly, and it will be calibrated with the JobKeeper payment. For all services out there who want to get further information about their eligibility for the JobKeeper payment, we have set up the childcare subsidy help desk. Those providers can dial 1300667276 to find out about their eligibility, how they apply for JobKeeper, and how that, which will provide approximately a billion dollars to the sector, coupled with the $1.6 billion that we are putting into the sector with this new, underlying payment, will enable their viability to continue. There is another mechanism for providers where there might be extenuating circumstances in which they need further assistance. A special circumstances payment will also be set up, and that will go live on the Department of Education's website tomorrow. For all those services—some, for instance, might operate for 24 hours a day—we'll have to take their circumstances into account. There might, for instance, be some providers who look after children with special needs and who are accessing a large proportion of the additional childcare subsidy. In those instances also there will be additional arrangements which will be put in place. Could I take the time to thank all those in the sector and all the officials who worked with the government to design this new system of providing free child care, and especially all those workers on the front line who, over the next six months, will be helping us defeat this pandemic. COVID-19: Economy 43 14:19 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the economic support the Morrison government is providing to support Australian jobs, businesses and households while the coronavirus pandemic unfolds? 14:20 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Reid for her question and acknowledge her background in small business, her time as a practising psychologist and her commitment to serving her constituents. Australia has approached the global pandemic with the coronavirus from a position of economic strength. We have got the books back in order by delivering the first balanced budget in 11 years. This has given us the financial firepower to respond with these unprecedented measures that we have announced. But we've stuck to our principles in relation to all the measures that we've announced. Our principles are ensuring that our measures are targeted, proportionate, temporary and scalable. We've announced three separate packages. The first package was a stimulus package, at $17.6 billion, with accelerated depreciation allowances, an instant asset write-off and $750 payments to 6½ million Australians, and I can inform the House that some six million payments have already been made, totalling around $4½ billion making its way to pensioners, carers and those on other income support. We announced a $1 billion relief and recovery fund and we announced a significant cash-flow boost for small businesses. The second package, on 22 March, at $66 billion, was different in both scale and scope. It involved an effective doubling of the safety net, with our $550 coronavirus jobseeker supplement, another $750 payment, changes to the deeming rates and the drawdown rates, giving people early access to their superannuation, as well as strengthening further the cash-flow boost for small business, and changes to the insolvency and bankruptcy laws to provide a regulatory shield. On top of that, we now have our $130 billion JobKeeper package. I'm pleased to inform the House that, today, Standard & Poor's reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating. In doing so, they said, 'Australia's strong fiscal performance remains a credit strength,' and that the measures that the Morrison government have put in place—and these are their words—'won't structurally weaken Australia's financial position'. That's a very significant endorsement of the necessary measures that we've had to take, the unprecedented measures that we've had to take. Those measures have been designed to keep Australians in jobs and Australian businesses in business. JobKeeper Payment 44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given the JobKeeper wage subsidy has been supported by both sides of this chamber to maintain the relationship between employees and employers, will the Prime Minister extend the wage subsidy to the 1.1 million casual workers who are currently excluded? 14:23 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The package of measures that we announced before the JobKeeper program was for the jobseeker program. The jobseeker program ensured that through the jobseeker supplement—the COVID supplement—we were doubling the level of jobseeker support to Australians who found themselves in a situation where they were no longer in work. Those arrangements were the first layer we put down to ensure that our social security network was strengthened and expanded to ensure that it could capture more and more Australians who found themselves the victims of the economic crisis that has hit Australia as a result of the coronavirus. In addition, people who are eligible for those payments don't just receive the jobseeker payment and the supplement for the coronavirus. They are also able to get access to a range of other social security supports, whether that be rental assistance or the Family Tax Benefit part B and A and a range of other measures that can support people through these situations. Now, it would be a mistake— The SPEAKER 10000 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 The point of order is on relevance. The question was very specific. It went to the relationship between employees and employers being maintained—that's at the heart of the government's scheme. What the Prime Minister is talking about is once that's severed and people are unemployed. That's what we're trying to avoid here. The SPEAKER 10000 I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to explain his question. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question that was asked. Mr MORRISON E3L As I was just about to remark, we put the jobseeker payment and its increased capacity in place because we knew there would be those who would not be ultimately eligible for other measures we may consider. What we have done with JobKeeper is ensured it's extended to casual employees for those who have been with their employer for 12 months or more, a status that is already recognised under Australia's taxation system. In putting together the $130 billion package, that is where we ultimately drew the line. When you're putting these lifelines in place, you have to draw lines somewhere. When we drew that line, we knew we could do it, knowing full well that we had already acted to put the jobseeker safety net in place for those who wouldn't be eligible under the JobKeeper program. So we have put our arms wide out as a government and as a country to support those who have been impacted by the devastating effects of the coronavirus in our economy. The jobseeker program and the JobKeeper program work together. They work together to provide the foundational supports in our economy and in our community to ensure that we can help Australians get through these crises. That was the reasoning behind our decision, and we will continue to ensure that that support is in place. But, as I've said on a number of occasions, it is so important we find our way through and out, because these lifelines cannot be in place indefinitely. That is why we are working on the health issues, to ensure that we get back to a position as quickly as we can and, subject to the health advice, to ensure that we get our economy moving again. COVID-19: Regional Australia 44 14:27 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is ensuring regional Australia that essential operations continue to function during the coronavirus pandemic? 14:27 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the Congupna kid for his question. I say 'Congupna kid' because, back in the 1980s, when he was recruited by Geelong, he came from that little town of Congupna to play at the games highest level—the Victorian Football League. Back then it was a different era than it is now. He played more than 60 games for Geelong, for the Cats. Mr Marles interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party say, 'Hear, hear!' He's a great Geelong supporter. The member for Nicholls played in an era when it was one in, all in. The coach would get the team before the game and he'd say, 'When the fight's on today, it's one in, all in.' We are now up for the fight of our lives, and it is one in, all in. For every single Australian it is one in, all in because we are all in this together. And it is a fight we will win. We will win it together. We will win using the same axiom that coaches used in the 1980s in the VFL. We need to exercise all of those hygienic handwashing exercises and social distancing. There are many heroes at the moment: truckies, farmers, even sign language experts. The one standing beside Mark McGowan the other day: I have to give her a shout out. How good was she! How good are the sign language experts. Never have we relied on them so much, so often. But, of course, we've got those frontline health professionals. Whether they're in rural and remote Australia or in capital cities: wherever they are, no matter what they're doing, we thank those doctors, nurses and pharmacists—and the cleaners. We thank them, we rely on them and we'll go on doing that. One in, all in. There is no shortage for food for families in Australia. I want to assure the House that food security is what it should be. Our farmers, those fantastic heroes of rural and regional Australia, grow enough food to feed 75 million Australians and others besides. That's three times our population. They feed 75 million people every year. One of the challenges, of course, has been finding consistency to ensure that we have ease of access across some of those borders which have been closed—and I thank my state colleagues and territory colleagues as far as transport and infrastructure are concerned. We have been meeting on a bi-weekly basis via teleconference and daily by phone, and never have I got on so well with so many Labor state ministers! We've also announced a $1 billion relief and recovery fund. There is an additional $100 million to provide direct financial support to smaller regional airlines, and $198 million to subsidise those routes into the 138 or so regional centres which rely on aviation to take vital medical personnel, medicines and all the rest to those important centres. JobKeeper Payment 45 14:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that, under the government's legislation, he will have the power to extend the JobKeeper wage subsidy to casuals employed for less than a year, local government workers, university staff and teachers, temporary workers, disability workers, arts and entertainment workers, and workers employed by charities that have experienced a drop in donations alone? 14:31 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I can confirm there is a power in the legislation for the minister to make changes to the system, but I can also confirm to the chamber, to the House, that national cabinet agreed that local government is the responsibility of state governments. In terms of casuals, as the Prime Minister has already told the House, casuals who've been with their employer for 12 months or more are eligible for the JobKeeper payment. This is a $130 billion program. This is a very substantial program—indeed, a program like none other. It's different to the United Kingdom's program. It's different to New Zealand's program. It's different to Canada's program. It's an Australian solution to an Australian challenge. Under this program. some six million Australian workers will be eligible and will benefit. That's the expectation. Part-time workers, full-time workers, casuals, sole traders and the not-for-profit sector will all benefit from this very significant wage subsidy. It will help this country and the millions of Australian employees who use this program to get to the other side of the coronavirus crisis. JobKeeper Payment 45 14:32 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting Australians by making important but temporary changes to our industrial relations system to ensure millions of Australians have access to the $130 billion JobKeeper scheme? 14:33 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for Forde for his question. As the member points out, the changes are temporary but they are also substantial, critical and very important. The changes that are being made to the Fair Work Act are being made to make certain that it is possible for the $1,500 JobKeeper payments to be made and to maximise the effect of the $1,500 JobKeeper payments, of which, of course, there will be $130 billion worth. They're changes that will only apply to employees and employers who are eligible for and receive the payment and they will only apply for the six months that the system remains in effect. These are absolutely necessary, given the nature of section 45 of the Fair Work Act and the construction of awards and enterprise agreements, to make sure that the $1,500 payments, when they are applied without further wages, are actually able to be applied. Without these changes, that would not be possible. The changes that go to issues such as employees' duties and location will also have the effect of maximising the effectiveness of the $1,500 payments. Again, they are temporary, so these changes will cease to operate in September 2020. I want to thank the ACTU and employer organisations for helping with the design features of some of the matters that are being addressed in the Fair Work Act. The central change is what is called in the act a 'JobKeeper-enabling stand down' direction. That will facilitate an employer reducing, by direction, the number of hours that an employee would work according to this very important test: where the employee cannot be usefully employed because of changes to their business attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic or government initiatives to slow the transmission of the virus. The ultimate safeguard here is that the Fair Work Commission will be able to determine that very well known test of whether an employee cannot be usefully employed because of changes to the relevant business. The Fair Work Commission will adjudicate as to whether or not that test has been met. That critical change makes the system work. Also critical is the fact that, as all members will be aware, the employer must pay the greater of the $1,500 JobKeeper payment or the lawful amount owing to the employee in accordance with their normal hourly rate, including applicable penalties and overtime. The changes in flexibility around things like duties and location could mean, for instance, that, where a cafe owner is now only able to serve coffees and is not serving food anymore, they can work with the chef and direct the chef, subject to the safeguards of the Fair Work Commission, to take coffees to customers, even though that's not what the chef usually did. Something like that can keep a business afloat. I just note, finally, that the Business Council of Australia noted that those flexibilities about duties and locations won't apply to people who aren't in the system, but there is still the ability to change the awards, and that is a process that's been cooperative and should be ongoing. JobKeeper Payment 46 14:36 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Why will the government allow business to double dip by receiving the JobKeeper wage subsidy at the same time that they are running down their employees' annual leave at the full rate as though the subsidy was not being paid? 14:36 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As the member for Watson, I suspect, knows, no person under these arrangements who takes leave would take leave otherwise than by agreement with their employer. So it would be by agreement between the employer and the employee if they took leave, and that would enable that employee to get the full value of their leave, paid at their actual wage rate for that entire time, and that would enable the employer to support them in doing that through this arrangement. That is good news for the employee, it's good news for the employer and it enables both of them to work together on an agreement that they consider to be in the best interests of both of them. That's what we're asking Australians to do: to work together to find the right outcome with the supports and arrangements we've put in place. It's no different to what we're asking, through the national cabinet and state legislation, landlords and tenants to do. These are not usual times and they will require unusual arrangements, but what we're providing for here is these unusual arrangements by agreement, and in these cases it would be by agreement between the employers and the employees. COVID-19: Hospitals 46 14:37 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on steps the Morrison government is taking to support Australia's hospital network in response to the coronavirus pandemic? 14:38 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I thank the member for Higgins, not just for her question but for her service throughout her career as a leading Australian medical professional, a paediatrician and a researcher. One of our great challenges as we address the coronavirus in Australia is to ensure that we have the capacity within our system for all possible eventualities. It's part of a grand national approach, a strategic approach, where we're seeking to contain the virus and increase our capacity. As we saw from the modelling yesterday, we could have faced a situation of between three and 20 million people who had the virus. We are not facing that now, thank goodness. That, from the outset, set the two great tasks of containing the virus, which we are doing, increasingly, but we have a long way to go. I really want to emphasise that. There are some who, with the best of will, would say, 'Things are looking good; now we can just relax.' That's not the case. We have a long, long way to go. But as that curve is flattened we've also been building the capacity of the system: primary care, aged care and our hospital system. One of the most important parts of that has been the partnership between the public hospital system and the private hospital system into a single integrated national network. That partnership means that we've been able to bring an additional 30,000 beds and beyond into the fight against coronavirus in an integrated approach. It means that 57,000 nurses and 105,000 hospital workers, all up, are being brought into that battle. Importantly, it means the retention of those jobs through the coronavirus fight and beyond. It means the capacity of that system will be available now but will also be there as we emerge. That, I think, is an immensely important position for Australians, because that capacity will be there to deal with all of the other health needs that as a nation we know so well, be they cardiac or cancer, be they orthopaedic or otherwise. So this partnership is exceptionally important. What it also means is that the private sector will work in with the public sector. As a government we've given a guarantee that we will cover everything beyond the state partnerships with the private sector and that we will also meet 50 per cent of those partnerships. All of this is about the federation working, working within the national cabinet that the Prime Minister and the premiers have designed, and saving lives and protecting lives. JobKeeper Payment 47 14:41 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. On Sunday the Treasurer said that all registered charities would be eligible for the JobKeeper wage subsidy if they had a decline in turnover of 15 per cent or more, but less than 24 hours later the government reversed that position and said that schools and universities would be excluded. Why? 14:41 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Universities and non-government schools, to help the honourable member, are being treated like other not-for-profits. They are eligible for the JobKeeper payment. However, those with an annual turnover—this would obviously be relevant to universities, not to non-government schools—of more than $1 billion will need to meet the threshold of 50 per cent and those with an annual turnover of less than $1 billion will need to meet the turnover threshold of 30 per cent. Charities other than universities and the non-government schools that are registered with the national regulator will be eligible for the JobKeeper payment if they have suffered a decline in turnover of 15 per cent. This reflects that at this particular time there is going to be a significant increase in the demand for such services. Domestic and Family Violence 47 14:42 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for the Environment representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is increasing resources available for combating the scourge of domestic violence, particularly during the coronavirus pandemic? 00:00 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Can I thank my friend and colleague the member for Lindsay and note her leadership in her community of Western Sydney, not just with the coronavirus pandemic but also throughout the bushfires, where I met with her community earlier this year. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, while for many people working from home is tedious, annoying and frustrating—we see the anecdotes often on social media—for many, particularly women, at home is not a safe place to be. The increasing concerns around financial security; being in an enclosed environment, perhaps with a perpetrator of domestic violence, and all of the associated challenges; and the difficulty of being able to access the services you need all create a unique pressure that has been very important for this government to recognise. We have made the biggest ever Commonwealth investment, $340 million, in the national plan, the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children 2010-2022, but we have now added $150 million. My colleagues in the other place the Minister for Families and Social Services and the Minister for Women have led the COAG Women's Safety Council and provided, immediately, $32½ million to the states and territories, to provide the services that they need. While that happens, a further $97½ million will be allocated as we all work together to see what is needed. Services do need to be able to continue to support those in need over the next six months: emergency and crisis accommodation, counselling and outreach, men's behavioural change services, and responding to the unique challenges of rural and regional women. All of these things matter. What I want to say is that while you may feel isolated in your home—and, indeed, we understand that—the services are there. The help is there. You must ask for help. It may be via telephone; it may be via the web; it may be via 1800RESPECT. But all governments are there to support women and indeed all victims of domestic violence in these challenging circumstances. The national information campaign was part of our funding, and that, again, will encourage people to go to the right place to reach out for help. We've enacted supports. The Treasurer has talked about the JobKeeper program, because financial independence adds to women's security. The Minister for Education has talked about access to schools and access to free child care. All of this supports women in challenging situations. All of this adds to the package and the determination of this government to make sure that, during the challenging months ahead, no-one is left behind. COVID-19: Aviation Industry 48 14:46 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the government confident that all domestic airlines in Australia will survive the COVID-19 crisis without further support? 14:46 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Ballarat, the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development, for her question. We are doing everything that we can to get every regional airline through. That is why on 18 March, when I stood at the Wagga Wagga Airport and announced the initial $715 million package, it benefited not only the big players in the industry, Virgin and Qantas, but also regional airlines. What we did was we backdated those announcements that affected fuel excise, Airservices Australia fees and such things as security screening. Because of the backdating, that provided $159 million straight into those companies' bottom lines. What we then did is we announced our $298 million package for regional aviation. So $198 million of that is going to those regional air services for the 138 or so centres right across Australia that rely on vital air services—sometimes daily and sometimes weekly—to provide in the interim, going forward, maybe a service per week to provide medical personnel, medicine and, indeed, medical supplies to those centres right across Australia. All of those airlines—be it Regional Express, be it QantasLink or be it Virgin—can access that $198 million of subsidy for that particular service. Then, of course, on the same day I announced $100 million of underwriting for regional airlines. We want regional airlines to come through the other side. It's one in, all in. We want to make sure that regional aviation, and all aviation, can be its best self out the other side. That's why the federal government is providing and has provided more than $1 billion of support for aviation. We want our airlines to come through the other side. We realise it's going to be very, very tough for them. COVID-19 is having a devastating effect on regional, domestic and international travel, and we want to make sure that our aviation industry is protected. Thank you for the question. COVID-19: Health Care 48 14:48 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update for the House the Morrison government's health response to the coronavirus pandemic? 14:48 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to really thank the member for Goldstein for his question and also for the initiative which he, along with other members in this chamber on both sides, has taken to support local communities by encouraging community groups and assisting them as they support older Australians or isolated Australians. I think it's been an immensely human and important move, and it's been one that people on all sides are pioneering and practising in their own electorates. The central approach within our health response, as I mentioned earlier, is twofold. The first part is to reduce the rate of infection or to help contain the virus, and the second is to increase the capacity. In terms of reducing the rate of infection, there are four core elements. The first is what we are doing with regard to the ring of steel around our borders. That is well known. The second is our testing regime, which is at the global forefront. Earlier today, the figures provided by the national incident centre were 313,000 tests so far and a positive rate of just under two per cent. What that actually means is that we are testing widely and broadly and that we are getting a representative outcome from our testing. That allows us then to go to the third element, which is the contact tracing and finding all of those who have been in contact and therefore are most at risk. This is about ensuring that the thing which the Prime Minister and Professor Murphy talked about yesterday—reducing these community transmission cases, finding them and mopping those up—is given the best chance moving forward. The more we can do that, the further we can reduce the rate of infection. Then, of course, perhaps most important of all is the social distancing and self-isolation, which Australians have been practising magnificently. We have all, sadly, seen in our own electorates what that has meant in terms of normal engagement and what it has meant with regard to the way we've been able to go about our lives. But what is so contrary to our nature is so fundamental to our future. So those actions which Australians are undertaking, and which I know they will continue to undertake over Easter, are saving lives and protecting lives. Each one of us can save a life by isolating and maintaining our distance. At the same time, we've been boosting our capacity, as I mentioned earlier. One particular feature, which is immensely important, is bringing universal telehealth online. We have 2½ million services already. We have transformed the way medical primary health has been and is being delivered in Australia. That's protecting our doctors and our nurses; it's protecting our patients. And all of these elements are coming together as we flatten that curve, as we increase our capacity and as we work together to save lives and protect lives. Private Health Insurance 49 14:52 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Private health insurers will save up to $5½ billion from the deferral of non-urgent services over the next six months. Those savings far outweigh the small amount that's been returned to policyholders via the six-month premium freeze. What's the government doing to ensure that those savings are returned to Australians doing it tough and not pocketed by the insurers? 14:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'll ask the Minister for Health to add further to this question. You rightly note that policyholders have had the benefit of a reprieve from those companies. I think it's very important, as we continue to work through these many issues, that wherever possible we try not to look at these issues as a contest or a conflict between interests here and that we try and encourage others to come to the table in good faith and not to second-guess their motives wherever possible. That will be subject to the normal tests that I think will exist in the public space. But it has not been apparent to me that the private health insurance companies have engaged in bad faith in this process and nor would I expect them to do so. If they were to do so, then the government would obviously take steps to ensure that that was remedied. With that introduction, I'm happy for the Minister for Health to add further. 14:53 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Thanks very much, Prime Minister and the member for McMahon. One of the things that we've been very focused on is ensuring that we are working with the private health insurers as well as the private hospitals. I've already had the opportunity to address private hospitals during question time. I have spoken at length with the leaders of both the large and the small private health insurer organisations—Members Health for the small and Private Healthcare Australia for the large—as well as with many leaders within this particular sector. They have responded, and I know they have also spoken with the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister's Office has provided a very clear and strong message that they expect the private health insurers to step up. But they have already taken steps. I've not heard that figure, and I would want to respectfully check the figure which the member has set out. I do know that after the discussions they chose a very significant measure of waiving the increases. I do know that individual insurers are making very significant provisions for hardship and supporting individuals. In addition to that, one of the things we are always looking to do is to make sure that we have not just a sustainable public health system but a sustainable private system. We are expecting a very significant surge in elective surgery after the virus has passed. There will be ebbs and flows. We'll seek further advice on those figures you've raised. If the member has that detail, I'd be interested to receive it. But I would say this: all of the insurers that I spoke with are, above all else, focused on provision of support for those Australians who have that need to ensure that hardship packages and additional support are addressed during the course of the coronavirus period. COVID-19 49 14:55 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting Australians through the coronavirus pandemic? 14:56 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and for the hard work he's doing in his community to support Australians in a very difficult time. Can I thank all members who are, in their own way, seeking out to serve their individual constituents. It's extraordinarily heartening to see the whole House operating like that. The Morrison government is quite rightly supercharging our safety net in these extraordinarily difficult times. The new time-limited coronavirus supplement being paid at $550 a fortnight is a great example. It means anyone eligible for the maximum jobseeker payment will now receive more than $1,100 a fortnight, effectively doubling the jobseeker payment for the next six months. They'll receive that on top of their current payment each fortnight, flowing from 27 April. In addition to effectively doubling the jobseeker payment through the introduction of this supplement, we're also expanding eligibility and waiving elements of means testing, including the liquid asset waiting period, the ordinary waiting period and the asset means testing, and adjusting the taper rate for partner access so that people can gain access to jobseeker even though their partner earns upwards of $80,000 per annum. The intent is to assist Australians who ordinarily wouldn't have eligibility to access these payments. Last night we completed the vast bulk, over 90 per cent, of the $4.5 billion in $750 payments through to six million Australians 10 days ahead of schedule. A further $750 will be paid in July. On Friday last week I announced a pause on all social services debt raising and recovery, again, to assist Australians. All those workers within Services Australia have now been redeployed to processing and call centre activities. Likewise, on 21 March, the Disability Reform Council for the NDIS announced over $1.1 billion worth of measures to assist the sector; some 470 providers have taken up the option to get one month's advance payment on their provider or supplier costs to $587 million; and a 10 per cent loading has been added to core supports at $512 million. Plans have been able to be extended for 24 months, and we're currently in the process of calling over 40,000 vulnerable Australians with NDIS plans to ensure their safety, wellbeing and ongoing management. Tomorrow the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee advisory group will seek to deliver a response plan focusing on the unique health needs of people with disability to implement immediately following the disability advisory group being added to that. I want to assure all Australians that the Morrison government is absolutely committed to supporting them in what is a very difficult time for the country. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 50 14:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the fact that Australians relied on the ABC to give them emergency updates during the bushfire crisis. Now Australians are relying upon the ABC to keep them informed, to stay safe and to support the ongoing education of their children during this health crisis. Will the Prime Minister restore funding so the ABC can keep doing its job so effectively? 14:59 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The ABC is doing an excellent job and they'll continue doing that job with the resources that have been provided to them. Like all agencies and like all Australians, they will all do the best job they can with the resources they have available to them. COVID-19: Child Care 50 14:59 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting families with the costs of child care as we confront the coronavirus pandemic? 15:00 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for his question and for the passion that he brings to education in this country. It's a heartfelt passion; he wants to see every child get the very best education they possibly can, and it's a pleasure to work with him. We're backing free early childhood education and care for around one million families, no matter what type of service they use. Under the plan, the government will pay 50 per cent of the sector's fee revenue up to the existing hourly rate cap as of 2 March, before enrolments dropped due to coronavirus. We require services not to charge families fees. The new system started from 6 April and will be reviewed after one month, with an extension to be considered after three months, so we're looking at six months of free childhood education and care for one million families. The plan complements more than $1 billion we expect the sector to receive through our new JobKeeper payment to help ensure many of the 200,000 vital education workforce can stay connected to services. It means all families can access free child care. That is a lifeline for the country's 13,000 early childhood education and care services. The plan means the sector is expected to receive $1.6 billion over the coming three months from taxpayer subsidies because of the 2 March baseline that has been set, compared to an estimated $1.3 billion if revenues and subsidies had continued based on the existing system that has a significant reduction of enrolments the sector would have seen as a result of the coronavirus. We're asking three things of the sector. We ask they prioritise children of essential workers, and, as the Prime Minister has said, every worker is an essential worker. Whether it be the doctors and the nurses in our health workforce, whether it be the people repairing the tyres for the trucks that are delivering the goods to the supermarkets, whether it be those who are working in our agricultural sector or whether it be those who are working in our cities to deliver services, they are all essential workers. We also want them to prioritise vulnerable children. As the member for Farrer was saying, we need to ensure that our children remain safe during this next six months in particular, so we want to make sure that those vulnerable children are prioritised and also that they prioritise those families who have an existing relationship with their provider. What we were seeing were families unenrolling their children from their providers. We want to make sure that they re-engage with their provider, especially once we get through this six months, so that our childcare sector will be ready to be up and running to help us get our economy rebuilding after this pandemic. COVID-19: Indigenous Australians 51 15:03 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister outline his plans to guarantee food security to First Nations communities during the coronavirus crisis, especially in remote communities in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and northern Queensland? 15:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. As I indicated before, there's some $123 million of support which is going in to support Indigenous communities. One of the very pleasing elements of the payments that the Minister for Government Services has outlined is that when those payments have come through in Indigenous communities there has been a very large purchase of food in those communities, and that is fantastic. We were so pleased, and I want to thank everyone who was involved, including the member for Barton, for the messaging that was going into Indigenous communities about how those payments might be used in those circumstances, and this was a tremendous result. Obviously in the town stores, as a result of that, there have been some supply shortages going to those communities, and I know the Minister for Indigenous Affairs is working directly with the executive chair of the COVID commission, Neville Power, to ensure that those supply lines of those food stocks going back into those communities are being refreshed as we speak. That is one of the key tasks of the coordination commission. They are a group of very successful, very practical problem-solving people from the private sector who are able to work through logistics issues, including food supply chain issues. Working out of the Department of Home Affairs, Paul Grigson, who's the deputy secretary there, is leading a team that is also working on the supply chain issues, getting supplies of food not just to remote Indigenous communities but also to rural communities and regional communities. So we're restocking and supplying our shopping centres and supermarkets not just in the cities but right across the country. Another key issue we're working on at the moment is that they're supplying not just the big supermarkets in the big shopping centres but the corner stores as well. When we want people to stay at home and only go out for what they need, we don't want them to have to go too far. In remote Indigenous communities, they have no choice, and I want to commend Chief Minister Gunner for the great job he's doing in the Northern Territory in securing these communities. But getting food to them is an important task, and I can assure the member that the COVID commission, working together with the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, is making sure, with the chief ministers and premiers in those states, that these supply lines are being replenished and that that support will be in place for those communities. Of all the issues we discuss at the national cabinet, I want to assure the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians that our biggest concern, of all the vulnerable communities in Australia, is for Indigenous communities. Recently I spoke with Prime Minister Trudeau, and it's a similar issue in Canada and the remote indigenous communities in Canada. We had a very good discussion about it, and we are employing very similar measures to protect and insulate those communities but also maintain supply of supports to them—not just food but essential services as well, whether it be education or health or, indeed, protection from violence for people in those communities. So I thank the member for her question. I know the Minister for Indigenous Australians will be happy to keep her updated on that matter on a regular basis. COVID-19: Trade and Tourism 51 15:07 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is for the Minister for Education, representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting Australia's tourism and trade sectors through the coronavirus pandemic? 15:07 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Mackellar for his question. While we've been here in question time, I received a text message: Coronavirus Aus Gov msg: Stay home this Easter & help save lives. Only leave for what you really need + exercise, work, medical & care. Aus.gov.au. That is an incredibly important message for all Australians to abide by. What it means for our domestic tourism industry is that what would be a normal Easter won't be a normal Easter for them anymore. It won't be a normal Easter for those who rely on international tourism. They have seen their market absolutely devastated by this coronavirus. That is why the government has put in place JobKeeper and the jobseeker payment to provide ballast for those who operate in the tourism industry. I don't think there is any sector across this nation that has been harder hit than that tourism industry, particularly when it comes to domestic tourism. That is what underpins so many of the hotels, the motels, the restaurants and the cafes right across our great nation. When it comes to those who are operating in our trade sector, we are also providing assistance. Last week the government announced the new $110 million initiative to back Australia's agriculture and fisheries sector by helping them move their high-quality produce into key markets, with return flights bringing back vital medical supplies, medicines and equipment. This is a very smart initiative and a win-win when it comes to getting our goods overseas and when it comes to bringing much-needed medical supplies back. This initiative utilised the freight capacity of Qantas and Virgin aircraft, maintaining four key routes through aviation hubs, including London, Los Angeles, Hong Kong and Auckland. There is also the $49.8 million for Export Market Development Grants this financial year, supplementing the $60 million already committed and bringing EMDG funding to its highest level in more than 20 years, at $207.7 million. This allows exporters and tourism businesses to get additional reimbursements for costs incurred in marketing their products and services around the world. It will benefit over 200 businesses in the tourism sector alone. We want to make sure, as best we can, that our trade and tourism industries not only survive this pandemic but come out the other side even stronger. We're committed to doing everything we can to help achieve that, and we will continue working every single minute of every single day to achieve that while this pandemic continues to impact our community. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 52 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Easter 52 15:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I simply remind Australians once again: this Easter, don't go away; stay home, only go out for what you need. That way, we can continue to lock in the gains that you have achieved for this country. Thank you. 15:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I join with the Prime Minister on that message. I'm sure we can have a happy and, for those people of faith, a holy Easter, with the Easter bunny still coming on Sunday. DOCUMENTS 52 DOCUMENTS Presentation 52 15:11 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I'm not certain that it falls within the category of the usual tabling of documents, but I have two letters addressed to me from the member for Mayo and the member for Clark, both of whom seek the tabling of those letters. Commonwealth Ombudsman 52 Presentation 52 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the reports on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under section 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 for the periods 1 January to 31 March 2019, 1 April to 30 June 2019 and 1 July to 30 September 2019. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 52 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 27 to 30 of 2019-20 52 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 27 to 30 for 2019-20. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 52 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Parliamentary Arrangements 52 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson We're about to vote on a number of second reading amendments and then on the bill itself. Given the importance, as we dealt with last time, of members not crossing from one side to the other, can I suggest that it suit the convenience of the House if any questions which are likely to have the government opposing an amendment be put in the terms that the amendment be disagreed with, up until we get to the final second reading amendment, where there's a form of words we used to use 10 years ago about questions standing in their original form. That way, everyone will be able to vote the way they want, with only the crossbench, who have allocated seats on each side, being the ones who have to move back and forth. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Manager of Opposition business for that. That is my intention. For those members who are here today that weren't here on 23 March, this will be a difference. Essentially, as the Manager of Opposition Business outlined, the question will be put in a way that the government and the opposition won't swap sides. That's certainly my intention. It will obviously minimise that. Just to recap: normally the question I would be putting on second reading amendments—I think there are about eight amendments to the amendment—would be, as you'd be familiar with, that the amendment be agreed to, and then the opposition would cross. So the question will be put that the amendment be disagreed to, which will enable the government to vote aye and the opposition to vote no. Then, as the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, there's a different procedure for the second reading amendment itself, moved by the member for Rankin. But I suspect that's about eight or nine divisions away, so I'll recap on that when we get to it. BILLS 53 BILLS Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020, Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020 53

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020

Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020

Second Reading 53 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with the resolution agreed earlier, I will now put the questions on the bills. The original question was that these bills be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Rankin moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. As we've just foreshadowed and as the members participating in the debate would be aware, a number of subsequent amendments had been moved by honourable members to that second reading amendment. As I've just foreshadowed, I'll be putting the questions on those subsequent amendments in the form that the amendment be disagreed to. After this four-minute division, we'll be having one-minute divisions. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fenner be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:30 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Blaxland be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:32 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Maribyrnong be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:35 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Sydney be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:37 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Gorton be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:38 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Corio be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:40 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Watson be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:42 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Grayndler be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:44 The SPEAKER 00APG For the information of honourable members, we've been through all of the amendments to the amendment, and we're now back to the question on the original second reading amendment moved by the member for Rankin, so I'll put this question again in a way that means the government and the opposition don't have to swap sides. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [15:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 60 15:48 The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the bills will be taken as a whole. The resolution also provided for any government amendments to the bills that have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, any opposition amendments to the bills that have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, and any amendments that have been circulated by non-aligned members to be treated as if they had been moved together by the member proposing them. Copies of the amendments have been circulated and have been placed on the table. The question now is that the bills be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendment to the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 — (1) Clause 7, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of clause, add: (3) Before making rules for the purposes of subsection (1) that provide for a payment or scheme to assist businesses to cover the costs of wages of their employees, the Treasurer must consider the following:    (a) the need to support essential workers and services in key sectors and regions;    (b) the need for all casual employees to access support;    (c) the consequences for employees who may be required to run down leave entitlements;    (d) the needs of charities that may experience a decline in donations but not in GST turnover;    (e) the recognition of the status of universities and schools that are ACNC-registered charities;    (f) the needs of registered NDIS providers and the disability workforce;    (g) the needs of active business participants;    (h) the need to support temporary visa holders who are unable to return home;    (i) the needs of local government employees. 15:49 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I understand that, given the resolution, I don't need to say that I move the amendment. It's automatically taken as moved. The opposition is putting forward one amendment to the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020. The way this bill has been structured is that all the power of eligibility lies outside of the parliament, and what we're effectively doing is giving the Treasurer extraordinary powers to be able to devise the scheme. This amendment accepts that that's the way that it's been structured, but the fact that it's been structured that way prevents us from going line by line and moving amendments to change the principles of eligibility. So what this amendment does to the sections of the bill that give the Treasurer the power to establish the rules is put in demands about what he must consider. That would put in place the demand that he consider the need for all casuals to access support so that we don't have this ridiculous situation where the person who is working for pocket money gets $1,500 a fortnight and the person who's working for their livelihood gets told they're ineligible. It would also deal with the consequences for employees who may be in a situation where they are required to run down leave entitlements. Just think of how this works. At the moment, the way it's designed, an employer has an employee running down their annual leave, and that annual leave is already credited against the balance sheet of the employer. The employer is able to receive the wage subsidy and still run down the annual leave at the full rate, which means that what the taxpayer's funding is not the worker. It's not actually a job subsidy; we're funding the balance sheet of the employer. There are some measures that have been brought to this parliament that have been upfront and that, it has been said, were being brought forward for the specific purpose of supporting business during that time, and we have backed those measures in, but we should not have a situation where something that is meant to be a wage subsidy is allowed to be rorted as a payment to the employer, not to the employee. That's what's allowed to happen during periods of leave, and it's not what this is about. If the amount is going to be forwarded to the employer during a period of leave, the employee should only be losing their entitlement to the extent that the employer is paying for them to lose their entitlement. And that may well mean that people would be able to take their leave over a much longer period of time, which would make a real difference to workers during this period. The needs of charities that may experience a decline in donations but not in GST turnover; the recognition of the current status of ACNC registered universities and schools; the needs of NDIS providers and the disability workforce; the needs of active business participants; the need to support temporary visa holders who are unable to return home; and the needs of local government employees—these issues should be front of mind. At the moment, they don't get a look-in. The principle of this bill is that we want to keep people's relationship with their employer. It is better for them now. It will keep some businesses running that would otherwise fall over. And, at the end of this period, it will make a massive difference as to how the economy can recover. There is no economic reason for rejecting any of these principles. The only reason for rejecting these principles is a stubbornness because they weren't part of the original announcement and, therefore, the government won't shift. A number of these measures, including the one I referred to with respect to leave, would be cost-neutral for the government but make a massive difference to people's income during this time. And there are other issues—for example, whether employers choose to not put forward all their employees. That is a risk at the moment in the way the government is intending to design this, which will create a situation where employers can try to get agreement from workers, for actions that are meant to be voluntary, by threatening not to put them forward for the JobKeeper payment. This is an issue which can be resolved by the Treasurer, and I want to refer to that while I'm on my feet. We've all presumed that the employers who are eligible will apply and they will then put forward the names of all their employees who are eligible. The rules that were submitted yesterday don't guarantee that. The Treasurer can fix this and should fix this. Think about this: the government was aware of the risk of people being forced to take leave for double the time and at half the pay. The government has made some efforts to try and make that voluntary and to make sure that it will be voluntary. I commend the government for those discussions. Most employers will deal with this in the right way. But under the rules at the moment, in the way the Treasurer has put them forward, on the face of it—and we've had these rules for less than a day—it will be possible for an employer to say to their workforce: 'I haven't decided which of you I'm going to put forward for the wage subsidy. Before I make that decision, who's willing to take their leave—double the time and at half the pay?' They wait till that question is answered and then choose which employees get put forward for the job subsidy. By doing it for an extended period of time, the rort that I described earlier doubles the period during which the money is going to the employer rather than to the employee. Most employers will deal with this appropriately. Most will. But, in every case in industrial relations, we always have to set the boundaries to make sure that we have protected Australia from bad actors. At the moment, in the current design, this doesn't. It can be fixed, and for most workers it won't need to be fixed. But it is a relatively easy fix that matches what the government says it is trying to do. I appreciate that some of this is because of the rush with time, and it all goes to the reason why parliament should be sitting more often: that there will be outcomes we have not anticipated. But this is one that won't require the Treasurer to come back to the parliament if he chooses to change the rules. This amendment will demand that these issues be considered as these rules, as they are referred to in the act, are put in place. Finally, I want to refer to conversations that have been happening with the Attorney-General. The draft of the changes to the Fair Work Act that we were provided with last night had some areas that were of significant concern. What's happened overnight is that there have been a number of further changes which have fixed some of those concerns. There is a final issue which had not been fixed, and I want to report to the House that I am satisfied about it because a particular undertaking has been given in conversations with the Attorney-General. The challenge is this: we want people to agree with their employer during this period for as much flexibility as possible so that things that would normally not happen can happen during this period so that businesses survive and people keep their jobs; it's a level of flexibility we want. There are some employment conditions where employees, once they have done something, lose the right to object to it in the future. So the fact that these rules are only temporary won't change the fact that there will have been a point in the past at which they agreed to it. We need to make sure that no employee is punished in the future for flexibility now, and that hasn't been covered in the amendments. The Attorney-General has given an undertaking that, when he puts together the form for employers to be able to use these provisions, they will have to give an undertaking that it won't be to the detriment of the employee in the future. I do believe that that covers it off. To the extent that we've been able to deal with all the issues in front of us in an extraordinarily brief period of time, I think we have got to a good point. This amendment would put extra demands on the government in addition to what they are wanting now. But I have to say that, if we believe in the economic case for this change—and we all do—leaving so many workers behind is in no-one's interest. I commend the amendment. 15:59 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for his contribution on the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and related bills. We don't agree, and won't be agreeing, to these amendments. In relation to the member's first comments on the structure of the scheme: yes, the scheme is structured, of course, to provide a wage guarantee and to support the six million Australians who we believe are ultimately going to access the JobKeeper payments. But, importantly, it is also there to ensure that the businesses which employ them are there in six months time in order to continue to employ them. I think that looking at that structure answers some of the questions and some of the points that the member has made, particularly in relation to leave entitlements. It's a vexed and complex issue, but I think the work that has been done by the responsible minister in particular in negotiating a number of these arrangements addresses the primary concerns. But, at the same time, it's in the framework in recognition that, ultimately, in addition to supporting the employees we're also supporting the liabilities, at times, of employers to make sure that they're there in however long it takes to get through this crisis—that they are there on the other side to continue to employ them. In relation to casuals, which the member raised: the Prime Minister made it very clear—and I think put it very well in question time—that the jobseeker scheme builds upon the earlier tranches of economic support that the government provided, most notably the jobseeker payment. Jobseeker payment recognised that there would be those who, through no fault of their own, lost their job. That's why, through the coronavirus supplement of an additional $550 a fortnight, that additional support is available to them. The JobKeeper payment, as the Treasurer has described, is a uniquely Australian designed scheme within the broad framework of a wage subsidy. No-one was talking about this extending all the way to casuals a few weeks ago. We made it very clear that we wanted this to be as expansive as possible: a six-month payment at 70 per cent of median wages that extends to part-time and long-term casuals—and we've drawn on definitions that are well understood within industrial relations law with respect to the definition of casuals. So the JobKeeper scheme appropriately recognises that. That is wide in its remit and, for those employees or former employees who can't access JobKeeper, this just builds upon the increased safety net that this government has provided through the jobseeker payment. In relation to charities and not-for-profits, which were mentioned by the member for Watson: again, the government has recognised the enormous contribution that charities and not-for-profits play in our country, and the some one million employees who work in that sector. We're very keen to extend this to charities and to not-for-profits. I would note that there are provisions in the bill which ensure for entities which are deductible gift recipients that donations are taken into account for the purposes of the turnover test, to make sure that those entities which rely heavily on donations are able to get access to the JobKeeper scheme for their employees because of what we expect is going to be the inevitable drop-off in donations to those types of entities. So we have an expansive scheme and it addresses a number of the points that the member for Watson has raised, and for those reasons we don't support his amendments. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The question before the House is that the opposition amendment be disagreed to. 16:03 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to speak on the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and related bills. On behalf of the Greens, I support these amendments that are being moved by the opposition, because they go some way towards picking up some of the people who have been left behind in the government's package. Chief amongst those, and who we have been campaigning for, are casual workers. I hope the opposition might reconsider its earlier position and support some of the amendments which the Greens will move in the Senate in an attempt also to close some of the holes and fill some of the gaps that have been left in this scheme. Certainly, when that happened last time we were able to get somewhere with the government. I would hope that when it comes to looking after workers that we can potentially go even further in the Senate than some of these amendments, and make sure that people aren't left behind. I have two questions for the minister, relating to some of the things that the minister just said and who is going to be covered by these schemes. One is with respect to groups of employees who aren't casuals but who work on repeated short-term contracts. I'm thinking particularly of people who work in the arts. There would be people who work on productions—on shows like the Melbourne Comedy Festival, which has just been cancelled—whose income will be patchy over the course of a year. They will perhaps move from production to production, from gig to gig and work for a period. It might be for a few weeks or a few months at a time. They will save up an income and then wait until they get the next job, and then go on to that. They will often do that as employees. They may not do it as casual employees—I'm not talking about casuals. It may be that they do it on a contract basis, or they do it as full-time employees on a fixed-time contract or they do it as part-time employees. I understand the point about casuals, and I disagree with it—and we'll pursue those amendments separately. But, putting aside whether people are casuals or not, my question to the minister is that if someone has a proven history of earning income to keep themselves afloat, and they do it on a job-by-job basis—for example, in the arts industry—is it the case that if they happened to be working on, say, a production or on a contract at 1 March then they're entitled to jobseeker payment, but if for whatever reason their contract finished two days earlier then they're not now going to be entitled to jobseeker payment? And, if that's right—and we're talking about people who have been employees, as opposed to sole traders, and putting aside casuals versus noncasuals—would the minister consider an extension of the scheme to cover those people who have a proven history of earning incomes above the jobseeker level? I would ask the minister to consider making those people entitled to the JobKeeper payment—let them register as a sole trader or however we need to to minimise the changes that need to be made to the scheme. If someone has a proven history of income earning, albeit in a patchy way, will the minister undertake to look at making the scheme available to those people, even if they weren't employed on 1 March, or if, for whatever reason, their employer determines that they're not going to pick up the scheme on 1 March? For people who work on and off throughout the course of the year and get a decent income, but find themselves, for whatever reason, ineligible for the current JobKeeper payment, will you consider making them eligible for JobKeeper if they can demonstrate a proven history of earning income through work? That's the first question that I have for the minister. The second question relates to the breadth of the rules and the powers that can be made under the payments and benefits bill. Can the minister confirm to the House that the power and the rules that will be made cannot be used to take away an existing entitlement or benefit that someone may have under some other act or some other scheme? In other words, if someone has an entitlement, whether it's under an industrial award, or it's a social security payment or the right to get some kind of housing payment—whatever it is, if someone has an existing right to access a benefit can the minister confirm that the payments and benefits bill does not authorise the making of rules to take away those benefits and entitlements? And, if that's not the case, can the minister say so, but give an undertaking that they won't be used in that way? 16:08 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin In relation to long-term casuals, and as I described earlier in my remarks to the member for Watson, where possible we have sought to draw on an existing understanding of those terms within our industrial relations framework. With respect to casuals, we refer to them as 'long-term', 'regular' and 'systematic', so if they've got a systematic, long-term and ongoing relationship with that employer and therefore for the purposes of our industrial relations system they are considered a casual employee of that employer—and have been for longer than 12 months, as of 1 March—then, yes, of course they will be entitled to the JobKeeper payment. I know the member for Melbourne explicitly carved out from his question the point around sole traders. As I'm sure he understands, particularly in the arts and entertainment industry so many of the individuals involved are in that contract relationship as sole traders or, effectively, as self-employed individuals. The government has been very keen to make sure that sole traders—people who, at the end of the day, only get paid when they work—are also included in this JobKeeper scheme. Again, we've drawn on the well-understood term within our industrial relations framework of an 'ongoing and systematic relationship' between an employee and an employer for the purposes of that casual test. Again, to go to the specifics of the arts and entertainment industry, of course those independent contractors, sole traders and self-employed individuals would also qualify. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the opposition amendment be disagreed to.

The House divided. [16:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 29 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Archer, BK Chester, D Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS Porter, CC Robert, SR Sharma, DN Sukkar, MS Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wilson, TR Zimmerman, T 24 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Haines, H Hayes, CP Jones, SP King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ Plibersek, TJ Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills agreed to.

 Third Reading 64 16:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received messages from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution an appropriation for the purposes of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020. In accordance with the resolution agreed earlier, I will now put the question that these bills be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. BUSINESS 64 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 64 16:19 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde on indulgence—Just in recognition of the unusual times that we're in and the fact that, to hold this sitting here today across this chamber, 47 of our colleagues—on this side and on the opposition benches—aren't here, as they've been paired. I'd like to just acknowledge their names for the record: the member for Bennelong, the member for McPherson, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Monash, the member for Wright, the member for Dawson, the member for Stirling, the member for Cowper, the member for Banks, the member for Dickson, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Brisbane, the member for Lyne, the member for Moore, the member for Curtin, the member for La Trobe, the member for Canning, the member for Mitchell, the member for Page, the member for Petrie, the member for Swan, the member for New England, the member for Hughes, the member for Bowman, the member for Chisholm, the member for Capricornia, the member for Maranoa, the member for Forrest, the member for Groom, the member for Hume, the member for Fairfax, the member for Flynn, the member for Barker, the member for Braddon, the member for Hinkler, the member for Durack, the member for Grey, the member for Ryan, the member for Sturt, the member for Herbert, the member for Bonner, the member for Fisher, the member for Mallee, the member for Robertson, the member for O'Connor, the member for Hasluck and the member for Longman. I would like to thank the House and thank all the members for their assistance in being prepared to not be here to assist the House to hold these sittings today and to pass this very important legislation. 16:21 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler on indulgence—I, too, would like to name all the members who are not here today from the opposition. Their nonattendance has allowed us to be here to pass necessary legislation to help in relation to the coronavirus. The opposition agreed to pair 47 government members, and, because of that, many of my colleagues were not able to be here today. As a matter of fact, as a consequence, only 21 Labor members are here in the chamber. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who showed their cooperation in allowing us to have our sitting today with the necessary social distancing that applies. I would like to thank Ms Aly, the member for Cowan; Mr Burns, the member for Macnamara; Ms Butler, the member for Griffith; Mr Byrne, the member for Holt; Mr Champion, the member for Spence; Ms Chester, the member for Bendigo; Ms Coker, the member for Corangamite; Mr Conroy, the member for Shortland; Mr Dick, the member for Oxley; Mr Dreyfus, the member for Isaacs; Ms Elliot, the member for Richmond; Mr Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter; Mr Georganas, the member for Adelaide; Mr Giles, the member for Scullin; Mr Gorman, the member for Perth; Mr Hill, the member for Bruce; Ms Kearney, the member for Cooper—and I also pause to acknowledge the tragic death in their family and pay my respects to her and her partner, Leigh Hubbard; Mr Kelly, the member for Eden-Monaro; Mr Keogh, the member for Burt; Mr Khalil, the member for Wills; Mr Mitchell, the member for Lyons; Dr Mulino, the member for Fraser; Ms Murphy, the member for Dunkley; Mr Neumann, the member for Blair; Ms O'Neil, the member for Hotham; Ms Owens, the member for Parramatta; Ms Payne, the member for Canberra; Mr Perrett, the member for Moreton; Mrs Phillips, the member for Gilmore; Ms Rishworth, the member for Kingston; Ms Rowland, the member for Greenway; Mr Snowdon, the member for Lingiari; Ms Swanson, the member for Paterson; Ms Templeman, the member for Macquarie; Mr Thistlethwaite, the member for Kingsford Smith; Ms Thwaites, the member for Jagajaga; Ms Vamvakinou, the member for Calwell; Mr Watts, the member for Gellibrand; Ms Wells, the member for Lilley; Mr Wilson, the member for Fremantle; and Mr Zappia, the member for Makin. I would also like to acknowledge: we did have a reserve list of members to be in the building but not necessarily in the parliament, just in case we needed to have others to attend. So I acknowledge Ms Bird, the member for Cunningham; Dr Freelander, the member for Macarthur; Mr Husic, the member for Chifley; Mr Gosling, the member for Solomon; Ms McBride, the member for Dobell; and Mr Smith, the member for Bean. I generally thank those members for their cooperation in allowing us to sit the way we have to pass the necessary legislation to help and assist in relation to the coronavirus. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Greens on indulgence. 16:25 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne on indulgence, if I may—it's not in exactly the same category, but the member for Kennedy, Mr Katter, who I spoke to beforehand, has expressed that he is also staying away to facilitate a parliament that can meet with restricted numbers. I understand that the members for Mayo and Clark may have also separately corresponded and had their correspondence tabled; they are in the same position. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Chief Government Whip, the Chief Opposition Whip and the Leader of the Greens for placing the names of all of those members on the record. It is very important that those members are recognised. I know electorate offices are very, very busy, as we know here, but I thank them for the sacrifice of agreeing not to come. Looking around the chamber, it's self-evident why they couldn't all come. COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 65 Report 65 16:26 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I present the 11th report of the committee, Petitions and ministerial responses. PETITIONS 66 PETITIONS Transaction Fees 66 Religious Beliefs 66 Banking and Financial Services 66 Telecommunications 66 Donations to Political Parties 66 Mental Health 67 Wolf, Dr Naomi 67 Taxation 67 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications 67 Gambling 68 Arts 68 Human Rights 68 Prime Minister 68 Defence Facilities 69 Religious Freedom 69 Water 69 Forestry 69 Climate Change 70 Migration 70 Crime 70 Australian Bushfires 71 Australian Bushfires 71 Douglas, Ms Pamela Anne 71 Water 71 Houston, Pastor Brian 72 Prime Minister 72 Australian Bushfires 72 Climate Change 72 Cybersafety 72 Illicit Drugs 73 Climate Change 73 Parliamentarians' Communications 73 Climate Change 73 Transport Industry 74 Parliamentarians 74 Water 74 International Development Assistance 74 Epilepsy 75 Migration 75 Law Enforcement 75 Taxation 75 Education 75 Australian Bushfires 76 Welfare 76 Transaction Fees 76 Climate Change 76 Banking and Financial Services 77 Telecommunications 77 Parliamentarians' Remuneration 77 Domestic and Family Violence 77 Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption 78 Food Labelling 78 International Development Assistance 78 Banking and Financial Services 79 Roads 79 Blood Donation 79 National Disability Insurance Scheme 79 Autism 80 Medical Workforce 80 Migration 80 Welfare 80 Work-Life Balance 81 Environment 81 COVID-19 81 Environment 81 Environment 82 Minister for Indigenous Australians 82 Film Industry 82 Aged Care 83 COVID-19 83 Services Australia 83 Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption 83 Food Labelling 84 Australian Bushfires 84 Indigenous Health 84 Closing the Gap 85 Australia Day 85 Child Support Scheme 85 Transport Industry 86 Environment 86 Democracy 86 Climate Change 86 COVID-19 86 Australian Flag 86 Australian Constitution 87 Uluru 87 Reserve Bank of Australia 87 Prime Minister 87 Indigenous Australians 88 Nuclear Waste 88 Coal Industry 88 COVID-19 89 United Nations 89 Air Travel 89 Superannuation 89 Transport Industry 89 Australia Day 89 Transport Industry 90 Promotional Toys 90 Federal Government: Fixed Terms 90 COVID-19 90 Morrison Goverment 91 Parliamentarians 91 COVID-19 91 Broadband 91 Personal Information and Privacy 92 COVID-19 92 National Emblem 92 Vaccination 92 Falun Gong 93 Newstart Allowance 93 Falun Gong 93 Environment 94 PETITIONS 94 PETITIONS Responses 94 16:27 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass by leave—I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House. Education 94 Health Care 96 Uluru 96 Australia Day 97 Adani Carmichael Mine 97 Education: Indigenous Studies 97 Hong Kong 98 Internet Content 98 Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption 99 Taxation 100 National Integrity Commission 100 Prime Minister 101 Banking and Financial Services 101 Climate Change 101 Climate Change 102 Environment 103 Banking and Financial Services 103 COMMITTEES 104 COMMITTEES Regional Australia Select Committee 104 Report 104 16:27 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls On behalf of the select committee and the chair, Mr Tony Pasin, I present the committee's interim report on regional Australia, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr DRUM 56430 by leave—I would like to acknowledge that, on 25 July 2019, the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, the Hon. Michelle Landry MP, asked the committee to inquire into and report on matters affecting regional Australia. The committee has conducted three site inspections and three community roundtable discussions in George Town, Launceston and Hobart in Tasmania. Due to the uncertainty regarding the current coronavirus pandemic, the committee has been unable to consider a fulsome interim report and intends to conduct further public hearings and site inspections when appropriate. The committee also understands that challenges stemming from the 2019-20 bushfires have impacted on the ability of some organisations and individuals to participate in the committee's work. The committee intends to seek an extension of time to report fully. Thank you on behalf of the chair, Mr Tony Pasin. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 I thank the member for Nicholls for that interim report on an important matter of regional affairs. Sitting suspended from 16:29 to 22:51 House adjourned at 22 :5 1 until a date and an hour to be fixed , in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 105 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Defence Procurement (Question No. 283) 105 283 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence in writing, on 4 February 2020: In respect of the Defence capability acquisition project Battlefield Command System (LND0200PH2):(1) What was the project's approved date of final operational capability.(2) What is the project's current forecast date of final operational capability. Mr Dutton 00AKI The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: 1. Battlefield Command System (LND0200PH2) Final Operational Capability is 30 June 2022. 2. Battlefield Command System (LND0200PH2) forecast Final Operational Capability is 30 June 2022. Electric Vehicles (Question No. 291) 105 291 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, in writing, on 05 February 2020: Further to the answer to question in writing No. 252—in the response to part (2) of the question, the Minister indicates that the Adelaide Hills is an anticipated location for an electrical vehicle charging site to be delivered by Evie (the Adelaide Hills region being within the electoral division of Mayo); however, in part (1) of the question, the Minister states that 'The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has been advised by Evie that there are no sites confirmed for the electoral division of Mayo as part of this deployment plan': does the Minister mean that there is a single site anticipated to be located within Mayo but that exact site has yet to be confirmed, or does the Minister mean that whether a site will be located within the Adelaide Hills or not has yet to be confirmed. Mr Taylor 231027 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Neither the Australian Government nor ARENA have input into Evie's determination of individual electrical vehicle charging locations.Evie is still in the process of confirming a site in the near vicinity of Adelaide as part of its project. ARENA understands Evie's current preference is to find a site in Adelaide Hills, however this has not yet been finalised. Migration (Question No. 293) 105 293 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 5 February 2020: Mr Tudge M2Y 1.What is the Government's understanding of the reasons for delays in Venezuelan citizens being able to renew their passports and identity documents.2.Is it correct that: (a) the Interim President Juan Guaido signed a decree extending the validity of all Venezuelan passports for an additional five years past their expiration date; and (b) countries including the United States, Canada, France, Spain, Mexico and Chile recognise this decree and the extension of passports for entering those countries and for general consular purposes.3.Will the Government recognise this decree and the extension of the validity of Venezuelan passports for some or all Australian Government purposes; if so, when and how will this recognition operate; if not, why not. The answer to the honourable member's question is: This is not a matter for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. This question should be referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon Marise Payne. Recycling (Question No. 295) 105 295 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 6 February 2020: In respect of Contract Notice CN3656413 published on AusTender on 30 January 2020: 1. What market economic analysis is to be conducted by the Centre for International Economics. 2. Is the analysis relevant to any government policies or programs; if so, what are those policies or programs. 3. What methodologies will be used for this analysis. 4. Do the methodologies include economic modelling; if so: (a) what type of modelling is to be employed; (b) what model will be used; and (c) what policy scenarios will be examined in this modelling. Ms Ley 00AMN The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The analysis evaluated the costs and benefits of implementing the Council of Australian Governments' announcement to ban the exports of waste plastic, paper, tyres and glass. 2. Yes. The Council of Australian Governments' waste export ban. 3. Cost benefit analysis. 4. Yes.    (a) Cost benefit analysis.    (b) Partial equilibrium model with excel based cost benefit analysis.    (c) Modelling assessed four alternate scenarios, relative to the base case to inform implementation of the Council of Australian Governments' waste export ban. 1. The base case included the existing domestic policy settings. It did not include the introduction of export bans. 2. Scenario 1 introduced the export ban as defined by Environment Ministers in November 2019. 3. Scenario 2 was a variant on Scenario 1, with an exemption for clean paper and cardboard. 4. Scenario 3 was a variant on Scenario 1, with an exemption for whole tyres for retreading. 5. Scenario 4 was a variant on Scenario 1, which included an exemption for whole tyres for retreading and an exemption for clean paper and cardboard. Tuggerah Lakes Estuary Management Plan (Question No. 313) 106 313 Ms McBride 248353 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 25 February 2020: In respect of my letter, dated 13 February 2020, concerning the 2019 federal election commitment of up to $4.7 million for the Tuggerah Lakes under the Environment Restoration Fund: 1. What is the exact amount of funding that the Central Coast Council is to receive. 2. Is it a fact that nine months after the election, this funding has not yet been received by the Central Coast Council. 3. When will these funds be received given the urgency following the recent floods. Ms Ley 00AMN The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Central Coast Council is to receive $4.7 million to undertake projects in support of the implementation of the Tuggerah Lakes Estuary Management Plan. Works will include: wetland and threatened species habitat conservation, streambank and catchment improvements, bushland and saltmarsh rehabilitation, and foreshore and water quality improvements throughout the estuary catchment. 2. The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources' Business Grants Hub issued the Central Coast Council with a funding agreement at the beginning of March 2020 and it is expected that the Business Grants Hub will execute the funding agreement once it has been agreed with the Council. 3. Once a funding agreement has been executed, the Central Coast Council will receive funding in accordance agreed milestone payments listed in the funding agreement.   East Antarctic Marine Protected Area (Question No. 327) 106 327 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Environment in writing, on 05 March 2020: 1. Has the proposal for the East Antarctic Marine Protected Area (EAMPA) changed since it was first tabled by Australia, France and the European Union in 2012; if so: (a) in what way has it changed; and (b) have the changes reduced the biodiversity outcomes that will come from the park. 2. What is the Australian Antarctic Division doing this year to give the confirmation of the EAMPA its best chance at this year's Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) meeting in October in Hobart. Ms Ley 00AMN 3. What will the Environment and Foreign Affairs Ministers and the Prime Minister be doing at a high level with other key CCAMLR signatories, in particular China, to see the EAMPA get over the line this year at CCAMLR. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Question 1 (a) Yes. The EAMPA co-proponents (Australia and the European Union and its Member States) have revised the proposal a number of times since it was first tabled at CCAMLR in 2012. These changes have been made in response to feedback from various CCAMLR members, with a view to obtaining the necessary consensus for the proposal to be adopted. Specific changes to the proposal include: The number of areas proposed for protection by the EAMPA has gone from 7 to 3 with the size of the EAMPA being reduced from approximately 1.9 million square kilometres to 1 million square kilometres. Clarification on where different fishing activities can occur. The inclusion of a krill no-take zone to assist with monitoring important environmental changes in this area. Enhanced protection of key shelf ecosystems. Most recently, in 2019, a different approach was taken to the text of the proposal such that it more closely resembled the language and document structure of the Ross Sea region MPA adopted by CCAMLR in 2016. Question 1 (b) The changes made to the EAMPA proposal have been made in response to feedback from various CCAMLR members, with a view to obtaining the necessary consensus for the proposal to be adopted. The fundamental principles of the EAMPA proposal have not changed: representation of Southern Ocean biodiversity, enabling multiple-use of areas while achieving conservation, adaptively managing the areas as new information comes to light, and maintenance of scientific reference areas to support ecosystem-based management. Question 2 The Australian Antarctic Division of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, continues to work with other Australian government agencies, as well as the European Union and its Member States, on the best strategy for the successful adoption of the proposal. The strategy leading up to the meeting in October 2020 is currently being considered. Question 3 Advocacy for the EAMPA proposal is currently under active consideration, noting that opportunities for face to face advocacy are fast reducing as international meetings are cancelled and travel restrictions are put in place in response to COVID-19. Human Rights (Question No. 333) 107 333 Mr Leeser 109556 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 05 March 2020 : Since 4 January 2012 when the Human Rights Parliamentary Scrutiny Act 2011 commenced:(1) How many officers in your department have worked on human rights compatibility statements.(2) How many human rights compatibility statements have been issued.(3) What is the APS level of staff who have worked on these statements and what is the salary range of each of those levels.(4) Approximately how many hours of staff time has been spent preparing compatibility statements and responding to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.(5) What is the estimated cost to your department of producing compatibility statements, over the period January 2012 to present.(6) What is the estimated annual cost of producing human rights compatibility statements.(7) On how many occasions has the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sought a response from your department about the human rights compatibility statements prepared by your department.(8) On how many occasions has this resulted in changes to the legislation presented by your department, and can details be provided of any changes that have been made. Mr Frydenberg FKL The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Finance complies with all requirements of the Human Rights Parliamentary Scrutiny Act 2011, including the preparation of human rights compatibility statements for all new legislation. The level of the APS officers involved, the amount of time spent on each statement and the estimated cost of preparing the statements will vary depending on the legislation to which it relates. This information is not readily available and to answer the individual questions would require an unreasonable diversion of resources.