2020-04-08 46 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 8 April 2020

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 13:55, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Senate Procedure 1 13:55 The PRESIDENT I0Q Senators, welcome back again—somewhat earlier than expected when I made a similar statement a fortnight ago. I thank you for your, and those not present for their, understanding. The Senate meets today in accordance with a request made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, under the order of the Senate of 23 March 2020. I notified senators of the time and date of the meeting on 2 April. I table the correspondence. Before we commence, can I remind you of the minor procedural adjustments to apply to sittings this week to enable observance of social distancing and other health advice. First, you may speak from a seat that is not your own. Broadcasting has been provided with an informal seating plan based on advice from the parties. In lieu of calling a division, as occurred on 23 March senators can request that their votes or the votes of their parties be recorded. If a division is required, senators may be counted if they are standing behind the bank of seats on the relevant side of the chamber. If the Senate is required to resolve into Committee of the Whole, that committee may be chaired from the President's chair. The doors to the chamber will remain open throughout proceedings. Divisions will be counted with the doors unlocked, with the usual rule that senators may not enter the chamber or move from the seats they have taken or the place they are standing once tellers are appointed. With the concurrence of the Senate, it is so ordered. Finally, work continues on the ability of the Senate to meet otherwise than in accordance with the existing procedures, including the consideration of electronic and remote participation. I am not yet in a position to provide any firm advice on such arrangements at this stage. If they are required they will be considered by the Procedure Committee, as ordered by the Senate on 23 March. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 13:57 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—I move: That the hours of meeting be 1.55 pm to adjournment and the routine of business be as follows: (a) notices of motion; (b) placing of business; (c) ministerial statements; (d) questions; (e) motions to take note of answers; (f) a motion relating to the establishment of a select committee on COVID-19; (g) consideration of the following 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 (h) committee membership; (i) a motion relating to the next meeting of the Senate and leave of absence for all senators; and (j) adjournment without debate. Question agreed to. NOTICES 2 NOTICES Presentation 2 13:58 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for two sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Taxation Administration (Private Ancillary Fund) Guidelines 2019. 13:58 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move: That the Senate: (a) expresses its ongoing support for the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse; (b) acknowledges the pain and suffering of survivors of child sexual abuse; (c) expresses its ongoing support for survivors of child sexual abuse, and (d) encourages survivors to keep coming forward. Presentation 2 BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 2 13:59 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today for personal, health and other reasons: (a) Senator Abetz; (b) Senator Antic (c) Senator Askew (d) Senator Bragg (e) Senator Canavan; (f) Senator Chandler; (g) Senator Fawcett; (h) Senator Griff (i) Senator Hanson (j) Senator Henderson (k) Senator Hughes; (l) Senator Lambie; (m) Senator McDonald; (n) Senator McLachlan (o) Senator McMahon (p) Senator O'Sullivan (q) Senator Paterson (r) Senator Rennick; (s) Senator Stoker; and (t) Senator Van. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 3 13:59 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today: (a) Senator Ayres; (b) Senator Bilyk; (c) Senator Brown; (d) Senator Carr; (e) Senator Dodson; (f) Senator Farrell; (g) Senator Gallacher; (h) Senator Green; (i) Senator McCarthy; (j) Senator O'Neill; (k) Senator Polley; (l) Senator Pratt; (m) Senator Marielle Smith; and (n) Senator Sterle. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 3 14:00 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today: (a) Senator Di Natale; (b) Senator Faruqi; (c) Senator Hanson-Young; (d) Senator McKim; (e) Senator Rice; and (f) Senator Steele-John. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 3 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS COVID-19 3 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia At this, one of the most difficult times in our nation's history, we come together to serve the Australian people and guide our nation through this unprecedented challenge. Our focus today, as it has been every day since this crisis began, is to help Australians get safely to the other side. This fast-moving, highly contagious disease is unrelenting and terrifying in scale and nature—a health crisis like no other in living memory. It does not discriminate between young and old, fit and healthy, men and women, factory workers to CEOs—people from all walks of life, including, as we know, politicians. As the experience in the UK has shown, princes and prime ministers are not immune from this virus either. It has impacted many lives around the world and here in Australia, and we know that it will affect many more. Every Australian has felt the impact of the coronavirus, some very directly, but everyone through its impact on our economy and our daily lives, and 5,956 Australians have tested positive to COVID-19. Tragically, 48 Australians have died from this virus. It is worse, much worse, in some other parts of the world. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones and friends while we continue to support our fellow Australians battling ill health. We are all in this together. This is first and foremost a health crisis, and the government is dealing with the medical battle as our highest priority. But it is not only the health and wellbeing of Australians at risk. Life as we know it has changed in the face of COVID-19. In dealing with this challenge we had to make changes that have affected the lives of every Australian. Businesses have closed their doors and workers have lost their jobs. It will be sometime before we know the full extent of the economic and social impact of this health crisis. Schools have changed to different modes of learning. A number of community services are no longer operating. Facilities we've come to take for granted—gyms, pool and cinemas—are no longer open to us. Thriving industries have ground to a halt. Strict social restrictions have forced on us a new way of living. Actions we are taking in responding to this new reality are in the best interests of Australians. They are necessary to save lives. The steps we have taken are slowing down the spread of the virus, to ensure our hospital system, in particular our ICUs, is able to deal with the flow of patients in need of care. Official data shows that we are heading in the right direction. When we last met, new cases were growing at more than 20 per cent per day. In recent days it has averaged two per cent a day. This is, of course, encouraging. We seem to be achieving our mission to flatten the curve, but, while it looks right now like the trend is our friend, we cannot take our foot off the brake in terms of slowing down the spread of this virus. We have to keep at it together, for all of us. It is important that all Australians continue to heed the advice of our top medical officials, particularly over the Easter break and over winter. The regulations, protocols and advice that federal and state governments have put in place are based on expert medical advice, and we all have a role to play in self-isolating, working from home, practising good hygiene, engaging with friends and family virtually and not physically. We are asking all Australians to follow the health advice that has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer so that they can protect their own health, the health of their families and the health of the whole community. We are asking Australians to stay home as much as they can and to work from home where they can. We know Australians are asked to accept a lot of changes to save Australian lives, and we need to lead by example. That is why the government moved, during our last sitting, to suspend the previously agreed parliamentary sitting calendar until 11 August 2020. We are a very large continent. The logistics involved in bringing this parliament together ordinarily involves 227 members and senators plus staff and many, many others travelling to Canberra from all corners of our great nation. In the context of the health advice, we expect all Australians to restrict travel and to stay at home where possible. This is not something we should be doing right now unless it is necessary. We are asking Australians to comply with these restrictions to help us save lives. Where we can, we, of course, also should and must comply with these restrictions. Most states and the Northern Territory have, in fact, closed their state or territory borders and imposed strict quarantine requirements on returned travellers to their jurisdictions. Yes, as federal members of parliament, we do have access to relevant exemptions as essential workers, as we must. We have those exemptions appropriately, even though, without taking all these necessary precautions, we are seen as at a comparatively high risk of contracting the coronavirus disease, given the work we do day in and day out. So on public health grounds it is surely incumbent on us to use that exemption judiciously, to act consistently with the public health advice directed to all other Australians to the largest extent possible and to minimise our travel during this period. Parliament not sitting for a period does not mean the government is not under scrutiny from the parliament. The government supports the important work of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, ably chaired by Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. We will also be supporting the establishment of a dedicated select committee to be chaired by the shadow finance minister, Senator Gallagher, which will be examining and scrutinising the government's response to COVID-19. In fact, our government very much welcomes the establishment of this Senate select committee, which will have as its job to scrutinise and question all of the initiatives and measures taken by our government in responding to the coronavirus crisis. That committee will be supported from the coalition side by Senator James Paterson, a very experienced committee chair across the broader Prime Minister and Cabinet and Finance portfolios, who will be our nominee for Deputy Chair, and Senator Perin Davey, who will bring an important regional perspective to the work of that committee. All interested senators will be able to participate in that long-term inquiry as they see fit. It also, of course, remains possible for senators to ask ministers questions on notice, and I know a number of colleagues in this chamber take furious advantage of that opportunity. Furthermore, the parliament may well sit again between now and August, if and as required. The motion the Senate agreed to unanimously when we last met allowed for the President to determine the day and time of the next meeting of the Senate at the request of or with the agreement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. That is, in fact, precisely how today's sitting of the Senate came about, and I will be moving a motion to the same effect before the Senate adjourns today. To put it simply: the Senate can sit and will sit to ensure measures are implemented that protect Australians and support the economy, jobs and Australians in need of support, in response to the increasing threat of the COVID-19 coronavirus. But, during this period, we will only sit if that is necessary for us to act consistently, as much as we can, with the public health advice directed by medical experts to all Australians. Mr President, our nation has faced many challenges, and history tells us we will emerge on the other side of this stronger and closer. Through our determination, our strength and our resilience, Australia and all Australians will see this challenge through in our own unique and gritty way. The COVID-19 coronavirus crisis is not just a health crisis. It has rocked the foundation of our economy, and we know many Australian businesses and workers are hurting. As a government, we feel their pain and we are here to help. We want all Australians to have the best possible opportunity to get safely to the other side of all this. We want to help as many businesses as possible to remain in business, and we want as many workers as possible working for those businesses to remain in their jobs. And we want to ensure that those Australians who do lose their jobs receive appropriate support through our temporarily boosted social safety net. Our $130 billion JobKeeper package—which the parliament, in a very unified fashion, will legislate today—will provide a historic wage subsidy to around six million workers. This flat payment of $1,500 per fortnight, paid through employers, will help keep Australians in jobs as businesses tackle the significant economic impact from the coronavirus. As of this morning, more than 730,000 businesses have registered for this support. It is equivalent to around 70 per cent of the national median wage for workers in the accommodation, hospitality and retail sectors. It will equate to a full median replacement wage. Not since World War II has the government dealt with a piece of legislation as significant and as important as the legislation we are dealing with today. What we as a country are offering to our fellow Australians who are economically impacted by the coronavirus is extraordinary in scale and size. These are extraordinary times. The JobKeeper package is one piece of the bridge we are building together to the other side of this crisis. It brings the total additional support for the economy to $320 billion or to 16.4 per cent of GDP. We have previously doubled support for welfare recipients and provided greater support for social security and veteran income support recipients and eligible concession card holders. Individuals in financial distress because of the coronavirus crisis can access part of their superannuation now to relieve financial strain. Retirees have more flexibility to manage their superannuation assets, and lower deeming rates will help those under financial pressure. Eligible small- and medium-sized businesses have received a boost to their cash flow and will have easier access to new loans. Rent relief is on the way for commercial and residential tenants. We have injected more money into our domestic violence and mental health support services, which are so valuable to us. All the while, we have continued to build the National Medical Stockpile. Over 30 million masks have arrived in recent days, with more than 500 million masks on order. Domestic production is also underway. I should advise the Senate that, since we last met, I've made $800 million in additional funding available from the advance to the finance minister legislated during our last sitting. That $800 million in funding has been provided to the Department of Health to fund the further procurement of masks and other emergency health equipment to deal with the impact of COVID-19 in Australia. We have moved decisively as a nation to address the economic storm confronting us, with an unprecedented economic and fiscal response. We have done what we believe was needed and will not hesitate to do more if required. As a government, we are forging a path through this crisis that will enable us to come out stronger and ready for the recovery that will follow—because follow it will. And we do not want any Australian left behind in the meantime. Our government stands ready to add to these measures as necessary, as this crisis continues to unfold. As a government we know, and the Australian people know, that during this time of serious national challenge, all of us represented in this chamber and in this parliament will continue to pull together in doing what needs to be done in the national interest. I thank the Senate. 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I join with my colleague Senator Cormann in his remarks and rise to reply to the ministerial statement on behalf of the opposition. Colleagues, in times of crisis we show who we are and we demonstrate what we can be. Do we care only about ourselves or do we care about each other? To best face this crisis we must face it together, and, in this, we show who we are and what we can be: Australians together. We need to care about each other as individuals: checking in with each other, maintaining physical distance and staying home, as hard as that can be in so many cases, such as not being able to see loved ones who may be vulnerable. And we need to care about each other as a country and as a parliament. That care should be expressed less in the words we speak and more in the decisions we make and in how we support our healthcare professionals, our cleaners, our people in the essential supply chains, and how we resolve to support people whose lives have been turned upside down by this crisis: Australians who have lost their jobs, Australians whose businesses face collapse, Australians stranded overseas and many more. We need to support each other by maintaining a sense of common purpose that we are all in this together and that we help our fellow Australians in times of need. This is the fundamental humility and egalitarianism of the Australian spirit, the spirit which recognises that what my neighbour, my friend or my colleague is going through could just as easily happen to me, because none of us are immune to hardship, and this virus, with its attack on the powerful and the vulnerable alike, reminds us of that. It reminds us we need to care about each other and to find common cause—not just in times of crisis but all the time, because at this time when this crisis presents itself, as in life, we are all in this together. This is so poignantly demonstrated by those Australians on the front line: those who care for our sick, those who work in our hospitals, those who clean our workplaces, those who teach our children, those who stack the shelves and serve us in our supermarkets, those who transport the essentials we need, those providing the public services we rely on and so many more. You have our thanks and you have our respect. In this crisis, the trade union movement is again demonstrating that it is the champion of working people. Reforms driven by the advocacy of the trade union movement provide further protection for working people. Of course, some weeks ago, the labour movement and the opposition—the Labor Party—proposed wage subsidies as a critical means of ensuring that both workers and businesses are looked after during this crisis and to ensure that we emerge stronger than we would have otherwise. Rather than sending more Australians to the unemployment queues, we want employers to be able to keep them on. We want to maintain the relationship between workers and their employer, rather than severing that relationship and creating a new relationship with Centrelink. We know how hard that is to break. Unfortunately, there are some key aspects of what Labor and the trade union movement have called for that have not been adopted by the government. We have placed on record our concern that the structure of the JobKeeper payments will mean Australians will miss out. This is because the payments are directed on the basis of the structure of the employer, not on the need of the individual worker. The reality of the government's policy is that employees in exactly the same circumstances may be treated differently, depending on the size and structure of their employer. We've spoken of the over one million Australians who are casual workers who will not be eligible for the JobKeeper program—a program which we think fails to recognise that, in any modern workforce, any worker defined as casual but who has been stood down has financial commitments and expectations based on work and income that has been regular. Labor believes that no worker should be left behind. We are also concerned about permanent workers being forced to take annual leave at this time. We see left out of JobKeeper people who work in local government, who work for the NDIS, who work in the university sector and who work in the private education sector, as well as temporary visa holders. We think that is counter to the national interest. Consistent with this, Labor has been and will be moving second reading amendments in the House of Representatives and we will do the same in the Senate. In the House we will move amendments in the consideration in detail stage that outline our major concerns. If these are not successful in the House of Representatives, we will not be pursuing those amendments, nor will we support amendments moved by other political parties in the Senate. We do not want to see the circumstance where the House and the Senate are at loggerheads, bouncing legislation back and forth and causing delays the Australian people cannot afford, because this package must be passed as urgently as possible. Labor will facilitate passage by the end of this day. I would also note that, even if Labor's amendments are not accepted, it is within the power of the government to do the right thing. With the stroke of a pen, Treasurer Frydenberg can fix issues with JobKeeper and Minister Ruston can fix issues with the jobseeker payment. The legislation already gives them the authority they need. Whilst we are determined to see the passage of this legislation today, this does not mean we think the parliament shouldn't be sitting beyond today. We've made clear our preference that the parliament keep sitting, as so many others are around the world. That we are here today at relatively short notice demonstrates it is possible to do so. I do want to recognise that there are many senators who would have preferred to have been here today to advocate for those they represent, but, just as others Australians are being asked to observe social distancing, so too must we. There are some in this place who have suggested the Senate alone could keep sitting, but, of course, we know that would be unworkable without the House and, as importantly, without a legislative program being brought forward by the government. In the absence of the government supporting continued sittings, Labor is moving to establish a Senate select committee to provide scrutiny of the government's response. Labor will ensure that our representatives on this committee demonstrate the seniority we believe is required for such an important task. It will be chaired by Senator Katy Gallagher and will have on it the deputy leader, Senator Keneally, and Senator Murray Watt as the third Labor member. As many have rightly noted, this is an unprecedented crisis. The government's domestic response does reflect that, even though we may think it should go further. Labor has supported every measure put forward by this government. However, whilst the government's domestic response reflects the unprecedented nature of this crisis, I regret that its urgency in repatriating stranded Australians has not. We have given the government a very wide berth to take the steps it deems necessary to protect Australians. I want to acknowledge the work of the consular services and officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and others. The reality is that we have thousands of Australians who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in very distressing situations. I do not have the time today to fully document the hundreds of cases raised with my office and the offices of my colleagues—Labor members and senators—nor to fully catalogue our concerns. I will simply say this: it has been clear for weeks that many Australians do not have recourse to commercial options to get home to safety, despite their best efforts and vast amounts of money blown on cancelled tickets. They are concerned about many things, but two stand out. First, many can see what other countries are doing to repatriate their citizens from locations where Australians too are stranded—Germany alone has arranged 170 flights. Second, many feel that the government's delays are simply putting more of them at risk as their situations deteriorate. So I once again urge the government to reconsider its blanket refusal to arrange affordable assisted departures for stranded Australians and I urge the government to ensure that cost is not a barrier to return. It makes no sense that a UK citizen should pay 250 pounds for a ticket that costs an Australian $5,000. It is untenable in this crisis to rule out assisted departures, and it is unsafe. We must do more. I say to the minister: just as Labor has offered its support to all the government's domestic measures to protect Australians, we again offer our support to the government taking whatever steps are necessary to bring Australians home to safety. We have much to be grateful for in our nation's history. We have been blessed in so many ways. But Australians have also known hardship, and Australians have also known tragedy. We have known wars, depression and recessions. We have known terrorist attacks. We have known natural disasters—bushfires, floods and drought. These and many more we have faced. We have faced them all and we have come through each challenge that history has placed before us and we have done it together. We have looked to one another and we have looked out for one another. So too, and in the same way, we will come through this. 14:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens in reply to the ministerial statement. COVID-19 is transforming the world and our country. It's exposing a lot about how we've structured our societies and about what's really important when it really matters. It's exposed that many of the jobs that have long been undervalued will in fact be essential to get us through this crisis and to help the country recover. On behalf of the Australian Greens I acknowledge and commend the immense efforts of our nurses, doctors, paramedics, cleaners, pharmacists, aged-care workers, teachers, early childhood educators and supermarket staff, many of whom are putting themselves at personal risk to save others and to support our community during this crisis. My heart goes out to all of those who have lost loved ones; to people who have the virus or whose family members or friends are unwell; to the families and friends who are separated by isolation; to parents struggling with work from home, homeschooling and caring for elderly relatives; and to those struggling without the social networks that usually sustain them. What you are doing is saving lives. It's been said repeatedly, but we are indeed in this together, and we need to make sure that no-one is left behind. The Greens will be supporting the bills and helping to pass them today, but we owe it to those who will miss out to propose amendments to make this package better and to make sure that no-one is left behind. We owe it to the one million casual workers who will miss out on the JobKeeper payment, those for whom an arbitrary cut-off date means the difference between keeping their job and being left out. We owe it to those in the arts and entertainment sector, to whom we turned to raise funds during the bushfire crisis and whose films, books, games and shows we are now relying on to keep us sane during isolation. We owe it to the renters, who have been hit hard by this crisis but still have no national plan in place to protect them. Keeping a roof over people's heads during this crisis is surely one of the most fundamental things that this parliament should do. We owe it to those receiving disability support and carers pension, who are currently excluded from the COVID-19 supplement despite the significant additional costs that isolation is imposing upon them. We owe it to the million international workers currently here working under a visa, those who've been contributing—some for many years—in our communities but who this government is now telling to go home. We owe it to the more than 500,000 international students that we wooed to our country, whose university fees we accepted, but that we now ask to fend for themselves. The Greens will not give up on these people. We will propose a suite of amendments today to plug the gaps in the government's safety net and make sure no-one is left behind. We'll also push to ensure that there is appropriate oversight throughout this crisis. The scale of this crisis and the response that's required mean we need more transparency, more democracy, not less. We're giving away extraordinary powers under this legislation—quite possibly the most powers conferred on an executive since World War II. It is necessary, but we shouldn't be abdicating our constitutional role as a house of review and of scrutiny. We will ultimately be supporting the proposed Senate select committee to oversee the COVID-19 response, and we will be ably represented by our whip, Senator Siewert, but we will also push for parliament to continue sitting to provide those checks and balances that this situation demands. This crisis has exposed the extent to which Australia's safety net has been picked away at for 30 years, but it's also showing the potential to rebuild it. It's my hope that the structures that we're rapidly rebuilding in this crisis will be retained. It's a chance to think about how we want this country to go forward and to dare to dream of a fairer, happier and more ecologically sustainable future. 14:28 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria As Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I stand to associate our party with the comments from Senator Cormann, particularly his references to the indiscriminate nature of this virus with regard to its victims—and regional Australia is not immune. It's a crisis that, as Senator Wong so eloquently stated, is something that we will get through together, as one. We have faced seemingly insurmountable challenges in our past as a nation and, when we come together, we can do great things. As we look across the federation, I think it's been really heartening to see how Australians have really embraced, at very much a community and organisational level, the leadership, through the work of the national cabinet, of our premiers and our Prime Minister and have adopted very tough measures around socially isolating et cetera. We're learning new ways of connecting, and, hopefully, some of them will stay with us once we get through this. Out in regional Australia, we are socially isolating. We're doing the right thing. We're also producing a lot of fresh food. This unprecedented government response from the national cabinet in the face of this unique health challenge is so significant. I think the legislation we've been called to parliament to pass today will help us stem some of the more devastating impacts on our economy and our workforce going forward. Regional Australians know about resilience and compassion in adversity. I would also like to associate the Nationals with Senator Wong's commentary around the community response and the need to connect at a personal level. I thought hers were very apt words. Our nation, when you look around the globe, has actually chosen quite a unique approach to deal with this crisis. I think we need to be proud of our premiers and our Prime Minister and of the way we're all working across all party lines to find a solution that's right for us. To our families living in the bush: we have your back and we're making sure that any response that our government puts forward recognises the challenges for rural and regional communities and our industries. On the issue of telecommunication concerns, we welcomed the NBN Sky Muster program's support and the increase in data, as rural and regional Australians, businesses and families struggling to educate children at home need that additional data. We have a health package that recognises the unique aspects of health provision out in regional and rural areas. There are specific measures for remote community preparedness in our Indigenous communities. There has been the establishment of respiratory health clinics. We've seen one open in Mildura this week and one up in Emerald, and there will be more rolled out in regional communities over the coming weeks. There has been an increase to telehealth services. It has been a real boon for regional Australians to be able to stay on their property or in their community and still access specialist health services. We've also put forward specific measures for rural aged-care services. We've also invested money to support remote communities, to minimise the impact and to have specific evacuation strategies available to them, because we know that if this virus gets into some of our more remote Indigenous communities it will have a devastating impact. We're also focused on supporting Australia's regional airline network, because many of our regional communities rely on air services for urgent and essential transport, medical supplies and personnel. We've been really focused on keeping Australia's supply chain open so our food producers can get our crops harvested and to market, wherever that happens to be. That has been critical in keeping our shelves stocked at supermarkets. Our farmers, across every state and territory, have been very committed to ensuring we will not run out of food in this country—so please don't panic buy! They're working very, very hard. We've got a $110 million export initiative to help our agricultural and fishery sectors get that produce on planes and into key overseas markets, because that means securing regional jobs and making the recovery quicker once we're through this. It also means keeping the trucks on the road. When I was driving up from Wodonga yesterday, there was barely a car in sight, but there were trucks on both sides. Ferrying essential medical supplies, food et cetera has been really, really key. Keeping the roadside service stations, the roadhouses and the truck driver lounges open so that our truckies can get the rest, food and personal care that they need whilst doing this very, very critical task of keeping those supply chains open has been something that governments have been very, very focused on. Nationals senators have been fierce advocates, on behalf of our growers, of extending the working holiday-maker visas—the seasonal and Pacific islander visa classes—because agriculture needs these workers on farms to ensure that we can have a fresh, domestic food supply in our supermarkets. Whether it's Senator McMahon, for our melon growers in the NT, Senators Canavan and McDonald, for the mango growers in Queensland, or Senator Davey and me, for the apple and pear growers in the southern area, we can't underestimate what that particular measure by the government means to so many of our primary producers. We've brought forward measures to keep regional media strong so that we can be kept informed out in regional and rural Australia. Small businesses are the cornerstone of our communities, so we've cut red tape. We're also bringing forward these supplements that offer an extra boost for rural businesses, and I think the JobKeeper wage subsidy, which will keep employees and businesses connected through this crisis, is an absolute milestone achievement. I congratulate everyone, from Porter to McManus, for getting this done. As the Senate team, we're at home, wherever we are out in the regions, working to support our communities, not just through drought and bushfire response and recovery, which is ongoing, but also by making sure our communities can access this much-needed government support—from the trophy shop operator in Central Queensland to the work that's being done, particularly by Senators McMahon and McDonald, to make sure supermarkets, which won't let you bulk-buy anything, revise those measures for people who live out on stations, where a round trip to the supermarket could be upwards of 800 kilometres. That has been essential work and a commonsense approach in a time of crisis. I want to inform the Senate of a good news story that's happening out there in the regions. Senator McMahon informed me of Gary Frost, who runs the Dunmarra roadhouse on the Stuart Highway, halfway between Darwin and Alice Springs. People can't dine in, so he has a plane and he actually drops pizza and beer out to stations at no additional delivery charge. So there you go! Thank you very much, Gary. It's typical of the can-do attitude and commitment of communities right across Australia in a time of crisis. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator McKENZIE 207825 Yes, we should put his name forward. I'll take that interjection, Senator; thank you. It is a story that's repeated right across the country. There are unique stories of compassion, of resilience and of supporting the most vulnerable. We are really at our best in a time of crisis. I commend individuals and organisations that are being their very, very best selves at the moment. The Nationals back our health response, particularly those on the front line. We don't underestimate how hard this will be. Millions have lost their jobs, 48 Australians have lost their lives, and we haven't seen the end of it. But, in adversity, through droughts, floods and fire, we've stood together. Finally, as we head into Easter, we know that we made a big bang-on about heading out into the bush so that you could support our businesses as they recover from drought and bushfire—and that all beckoned—but, today and in the coming period over Easter, please do not visit your favourite regional Australian destination. We're not immune. Do the right thing: stay at home. When the time's right, we will look forward to welcoming you all with open arms to celebrate our beautiful flora and fauna. 14:37 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to speak briefly in response to the minister's statement. COVID-19 does indeed present a significant challenge for Australians. But I would also like us to consider, in particular, some of our regional neighbours—places like Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and, indeed, the South Pacific. We should keep an eye on those jurisdictions and look to help and assist those jurisdictions if we can, even if it's only in spirit in some instances. The government has been successful: the trend is looking good in respect of flattening the curve. The responses haven't been perfect. No doubt the Senate will deal with that in time, and I will say a few words on that a little bit later. Centre Alliance will be supporting the government's bills today, but we will also be moving amendments to fill cracks. I haven't seen all of the Greens amendments. I suspect some of them may be the same, but I would just address this to Senator Wong and the opposition as we move these amendments: we may have some good ideas—we may have some ideas that fill cracks in the legislation—and they should be considered. Our aim here is not to get the legislation quickly through the parliament; it's to properly scrutinise it and get a better outcome, and if that takes a little bit more time then so be it. I encourage you to look closely at those amendments. I am glad that there is support for a Senate committee that will look at COVID-19 and the government's response; however, I will point out that the Senate committee doesn't provide opportunity for debate on issues. It does not allow for disallowances, as the Treasurer makes changes to the rules that we are set to agree upon—or at least the shell legislation that will enable the Treasurer to make rules. Because of comity principles, it does not allow for the Senate to call ministers from the other place—or at least to require them. There is an issue with that and I will be putting a question to Minister Cormann in relation to that at question time. Of course, the business of government is continuing. We must recognise and acknowledge that there are a number of public servants around Australia who are continuing to do their work. They're continuing to make sure that the arms of government are working. The parliament should, of course, be examining what they're doing and, if necessary, criticising and seeking changes to the way they might be doing things, and a Senate select committee that is examining COVID-19 cannot do that. For that reason, it is my very strong view that the parliament should continue sitting. Of course, it's clear that we won't have the numbers to force that to happen, so I would like to remind all senators of standing order 55(2), which allows that: The President, at the request of an absolute majority of the whole number of senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a time of meeting in accordance with that request, and the time of meeting shall be notified to each senator. So there is, in fact, a mechanism, and I extend an offer to Senator Wong, Senator Waters and others: if indeed there is a problem that requires— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator PATRICK 144292 And, indeed, Senator Cormann. If there is a measure that is implemented through the rules that is unacceptable, or if there is something that is happening that requires attention, we have the ability to recall the parliament. That is not my preference, but I just want to make sure all senators are aware of that option. Once again, it is my strong view that we should continue sitting. 14:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek to make a statement in response to the minister's statement. We acknowledge that there is no manual for dealing with this virus and we empathise with the government's challenge. That is, though, all the more reason for the government to openly share data, future projections and information with the people. As pressures mount regarding personal security, as well as emotionally and financially, on people across our nation, any shortage of data is being seen as an absence of trust by the government in the people, and that, in turn, will make it difficult for Australians to trust government and the parliament. Government honesty and trust in the people will be met with trust from the people. At this time, One Nation would also like to thank everyone who is caring for us and keeping us safe, including healthcare workers, police, defence and emergency workers, and everyone serving others, including those helping to supply and feed us, teach our children, generate electricity, collect garbage, clean, supply water and much more. They are people who are keeping services working for us all. COVID-19 has exposed as severely lacking in our current economic and industrial structures the productive capacity and economic resilience that were once part of Australian culture and history. We need to take this opportunity to take stock and then rebuild our society on the values, systems and cultures that ensure a return to personal enterprise, instead of the creeping dead hand and suffocating blanket of a large and ever-growing central government. History shows that the secret of human happiness and human progress is nothing new and has been discovered, lost and rediscovered for millennia—and, more recently, lost in our country. We need to bring back Australia's economic sovereignty, productive capacity and economic resilience, based on restoring personal enterprise and compliance with a constitution that enshrines competitive federalism and individual liberty. We all need, as representatives of the people and servants to the people, to ensure that the people's government is held accountable for what it does and does not do during this emergency. We are giving the government a blank cheque, and rightly so, because there are many uncertainties in this. There is such a complex system that we are already trying to amend. But ministers have the power to make these changes through regulations, and that is given to ensure that cracks in the legislation are closed quickly to ensure people are covered fairly right across our country. It is a blank cheque, but we must do our job as senators to make sure that we review that and the progress of it. What many Australians, looking beyond our health and financial safety, want is to make sure that we leave COVID-19 behind us, and that we are left with better freedoms and liberties and a stronger, freer economy than before. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 10 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE JobKeeper Payment 10 14:45 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister explain why casuals employed for fewer than 12 months, local government workers, many university and non-government school workers, temporary migrant workers who can't go home, most arts and entertainment workers and many charity workers have been excluded from the JobKeeper program? 14:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank the senator for her question. This relates to exactly why the parliament is here today legislating the government's historic $130 billion package to ensure that an estimated six million workers are connected with their employers throughout the COVID-19 crisis. In relation to the senator's question: because the government had to draw a line somewhere. A package of $130 billion covering almost six million workers will be passed by the parliament today. This is an incredible package. It has been carefully designed. As you know, it applies to full-time workers and part-time workers and, as the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Minister for Finance have acknowledged, the definition of 'casual' that has been adopted for the purposes of this legislation has been taken from the Fair Work Act: casuals who have been in employment with their employer for a period of longer than 12 months. But this does not mean that the employee categories that the senator referred to are not recognised by the government. They are. They will be, in some circumstances, able to apply for the jobseeker allowance. This is, of course, with the additional supplement that has been provided by the government in relation to COVID-19. This is a historic package that will pass the parliament today. It applies to in excess of six million Australian workers. It is a generous package. But, ultimately, as the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Treasurer and the Minister for— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a supplementary question? 14:48 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria How many casual employees will miss out on the JobKeeper program? 14:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, it is not how many casual employees will miss out; it is how many casual employees are actually included in the package. The PRESIDENT I0Q On a point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Direct relevance. The PRESIDENT I0Q I think, with respect, Senator Cash has been speaking for only 10 seconds. The question is not being answered necessarily in a way that people would like, but the turn of phrase I heard the minister using then was actually turning directly to JobKeeper—unless I misheard. So I am going to say that I consider it to be directly relevant. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, the question was very simple, very precise and very pithy: 'How many casual employees will miss out on the JobKeeper program?' The minister then said: 'It's not a question of how many will miss out; it's a question of how many are in.' With respect, Mr President, it is not consistent with your previous rulings for you to rule on this occasion that such a complete mirror image of the question can possibly be directly relevant. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann HDA Senator Cash was directly dealing with the question about JobKeeper and, as Senator Wong well knows, the JobKeeper and jobseeker programs are complementary and there is an opportunity for everybody who needs support to receive that support. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, we have always allowed ministers an element of time to turn to a question. This question, I remind the minister, was very specific in its nature. The minister has only been speaking for 10 seconds and I don't think had got quite to a full-stop. I am listening very carefully to the minister. I will happily entertain other points of order later on in the answer if people feel that way but at this stage I think it is inappropriate for me to rule that the minister is not being directly relevant. Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M As I was saying, casuals are actually catered for if they have been in an employment relationship with their employer for longer than 12 months. In relation to the question asked by the senator, many casuals will still be in employment because there are a number of industries that are currently ramping up and recruiting. In terms of casuals, as the Minister for Finance has acknowledged, the JobKeeper and jobseeker programs are actually complementary. How many casuals are currently earning less than $1,500 a fortnight? More than 50 per cent. Around 41 per cent of casual employees had been with their employer for under 12 months as at August 2019 and they will not— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question? 14:51 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Can the minister confirm that under the government's legislation the Treasurer will have the power to extend JobKeeper payments to these casuals and to other excluded workers? 14:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I understand that the Treasurer has today uploaded a number of rules that will be made in relation to the JobKeeper payment, and the Treasurer has stated—and the government actually stated at the time—that this is an evolving situation and we continue to monitor it. But, to go to your point, Senator Walsh, there are two types of payments: JobKeeper and jobseeker. If you are not eligible for JobKeeper, then you are able to look at whether or not you will be eligible for jobseeker. The two payments—as the Minister for Finance has so eloquently pointed out—are actually complementary. COVID-19: Economy 12 14:52 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister update the Senate on further decisions and measures taken by the Morrison government to support the economy and jobs during the coronavirus-induced crisis? 14:52 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator McGrath for that question. The COVID-19 crisis is a battle we are fighting on two fronts. It is both a health battle and an economic battle. Our health mission, as we've discussed, is to slow down the spread of the virus to save lives. I can inform the Senate today that the early signs are promising. Official data shows that we are heading in the right direction in terms of slowing the spread of the virus, with the growth in new cases going from above 20 per cent when we last met to just two per cent in more recent days. The government's economic mission is to keep businesses in business and as many Australians as possible working for those businesses in their jobs. To date, our support for the economy has totalled $320 billion, or 16.4 per cent of GDP. We have doubled support for welfare recipients and provided greater support for social security and veteran income support recipients and eligible concession card holders. Indeed, for those casuals who have been in employment with the same employer for less than 12 months, if they lose their job or need that support, they are able to apply for the jobseeker payment, which we have doubled compared to what was there before. Individuals in financial distress because of the coronavirus crisis can access part of their superannuation to relieve financial strain. Retirees have more flexibility to manage their superannuation assets, and lower deeming rates are helping those under financial pressure. Eligible small- and medium-sized businesses have received a boost to their cash flow and now have easier access to new loans. Rent relief is underway for commercial and residential tenants, while business continuity payments are keeping childcare services afloat. The economic battlefront is one we continue to deal with today. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a supplementary question? 14:54 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister inform the Senate how Australian businesses and workers will benefit from the government's JobKeeper program? 14:54 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator McGrath for that supplementary question. Yes, I can. The JobKeeper payment is designed to help keep as many businesses as possible in business and to help keep as many Australians as possible working for those businesses in their jobs. It is paid to the employer to reduce payroll pressures, given a significant impact to their turnover, so they can keep employees in a job rather than having to let them go. The historic wage subsidy will be delivered to around six million Australians, just under half of our working population, who will receive a flat payment of $1,500 per fortnight through their employer before tax. This $130 billion JobKeeper package will help keep Australians in jobs as well as tackle the significant impact from the coronavirus. The payment will provide the equivalent of around 70 per cent of the national median wage. Indeed, for workers in the accommodation, hospitality and retail sectors, it will equate to full median replacement wage. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question? 14:55 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Minister, why is the JobKeeper payment so important to building a bridge to economic recovery for the Australian economy on the other side of the pandemic? 14:55 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator McGrath for that supplementary question. It is vital that, through these challenging times, employers and employees stay connected as much as is possible. This payment will ensure that this can be the case even when many businesses move into hibernation because their areas of activity have been impacted by the coronavirus crisis or they have been asked to restrict activities on the basis of medical advice. The JobKeeper payment is about enabling businesses to keep their workers engaged so that they are ready when we come out of this crisis on the other side. Businesses must be in the best possible position to rebuild and recover, and the most important part of that will be having workers still attached to their businesses. The $130 billion JobKeeper package is unprecedented in our history. It is designed to get this country through an unprecedented challenge and place it in the best possible position on the other side of this pandemic. Pensions and Benefits 13 14:56 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister confirm that those whose partners earn over $78,000 a year, New Zealanders who are permanently living in Australia and temporary visa holders are not eligible for the jobseeker payment? What is the government's plan for those who are at risk of falling through the cracks as a result of not being eligible to either JobKeeper or jobseeker payments? 14:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much, Senator Sheldon, for your question. The government has announced measures over previous weeks and we come today to this place again with another package so that we can assist as many Australians as possible to get to the other side of what is an unprecedented crisis. We were absolutely focused in the first instance, with our first package that came out, which was the jobseeker package and the corona supplement, to make sure that we addressed the concerns of, and the impact on, those who are the most vulnerable in our society, those people who find themselves without income. Today, obviously, we have another significant package. It is probably the biggest package that this parliament will ever have to address. Hopefully, we will never again have to be in a position to address a package the size of $130 billion. This package will look to add on top of the previous two packages to support another group of Australians who have been impacted by the coronavirus. Today, as we did when we were here last time, as we did before the parliament got up, this government continues to put in place a range of different measures to make sure that a broad range of Australians— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt on a point of order? Senator Watt 245759 On relevance, Mr President. Again, we have a minister refusing to answer the question as to whether particular categories of workers are not eligible for the jobseeker payment. We don't need another speech about how great the government is. We'd just like an answer to our question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, that was the first part of the question. The second part of the question was somewhat broader and commenced with 'what is the government's plan'. With respect, I am listening to the minister— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I just need to finish. I'm listening to the minister. The second part of the question was more broadly worded. Today after question time we will have an opportunity to debate the nature of answers to questions. Senator Wong, you were seeking the call? Senator Wong 00AOU With respect, Mr President, the word 'plan' doesn't exist on its own. The word 'plan' in the question referred directly to those who are not eligible for either JobKeeper or jobseeker payments. My submission is that direct relevance goes to the way in which the word 'plan' is used. Ministers can't just pick a word and extrapolate it from the circumstances. The PRESIDENT I0Q I take the point. The question was: what is the government's plan for those who have—the question claimed—'fallen through the cracks'? I believe that was the phrase that was used. I'm listening to the minister, who is addressing a range of issues. I think that question was by its nature broad. There's an opportunity after question time to debate the nature of answers and what senators think of those answers. I'll continue to listen very carefully to the minister. She's now been reminded of it twice. Senator RUSTON 243273 As I was trying to point out to those opposite, the measures that have been put in place are extremely comprehensive and seek to address the concerns that are raised about people who find themselves in particular circumstances. That, in the first instance, with our changes to the jobseeker payment and the corona supplement, was about dealing with people who did not have a job. I note that you raised the issue in relation to visas and those people who are in Australia who do not have direct access to benefits. A number of measures have been put in place, but a particular one that I would draw your attention to is the ability for those that are in Australia who have work rights as part of their visas to be able to access their superannuation. If not, they are welcome to go home. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question? 15:01 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Have you sought or received advice about how to assist those who fall through the cracks? 15:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As I said, this is a very comprehensive package, and today is just one part of that package. But there are a number of measures that have been put in place. I've mentioned a few of them in the answer to the first question that was asked by Senator Sheldon. In addition to that, as part of my portfolio responsibility I am working with emergency relief providers, with food relief providers and with financial counsellors to make sure that when people find themselves in a position where they have no access to assistance, because they're chosen to stay in Australia, we have a very comprehensive emergency relief response. I would be more than delighted to run through the components. There is a $200 million package which is focused almost entirely on the provision of day-to-day emergency relief—things like food, the payment of bills and access to cash—to make sure that those people in Australia who require this emergency relief will be able to get access to it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question? 15:02 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The parliament has voted to provide the minister with expansive powers to vary thresholds for welfare payments to ensure that all those who will need support during this unprecedented crisis will receive it. When will the minister use those powers? 15:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As you rightly point out—and I think Senator Wong raised the matter in her remarks on Senator Cormann's ministerial statement—yes, I do have the power to make changes to various cohorts, and this includes visa categories, should the need arise. At the moment we are obviously monitoring very closely the impact of the coronavirus as it continues to have an impact across the whole of the Australian economy. We are responding, and I think we are responding very quickly and appropriately. As I mentioned in response to the concerns that were raised about visa holders in Australia who have work rights, the ability for them to access their superannuation gives them the immediate opportunity to get access to finance to support themselves. So in response to your direct question: I do have those powers; I will continue to monitor the situation, along with my colleagues; and, should the need arise, those powers will be enacted. COVID-19 14 15:03 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. Can you please update the Senate on how the Morrison government is supporting Australian primary producers to get their high-value products overseas despite the decrease in flights due to the coronavirus pandemic? 15:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Brockman for his question and his ever-vigilant determined advocacy on behalf of Australia's exporters. The decisions that the Morrison government has been taking to protect lives, sadly, do threaten in many of their applications not just livelihoods but also the very viability of some businesses. Those threats place at risk jobs today and, indeed, jobs in the future even when the recovery comes. That's why we've been taking extraordinary decisions to seek to support Australian businesses and their employees through these tough times—the JobKeeper allowance and a number of other measures. In my portfolio we took the extraordinary decision last week to support a new international freight mechanism. This $110 million mechanism is going to support our primary producers—our farmers and our fishers—to be able to continue to access the markets where their goods so often head to. Australia produces enough food to support more than 70 million people—close to three times our population. Our export markets are crucial destinations for that. There is still demand in those markets. There is still production from our farmers and fishers, but they have been crippled by the collapse of international aviation, in terms of their capacity to get to those markets. Our $110 million freight mechanism is going to help them to reach those markets once again. We're standing this up incredibly quickly thanks to the appointment of the coordinator general for freight, Michael Byrne, one of Australia's most experienced logistics professionals. Indeed, in the next couple of days I expect the first flight to depart Hobart packed full of Tasmanian salmon, produced by the Tassal company, heading into Asian markets. Similarly, I expect that shortly thereafter we'll see from Senator Brockman's home state a flight heading out of Perth, again carrying premium seafood, ensuring that we protect those Australian businesses and, most importantly, the jobs of the Australians who rely on them. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a supplementary question? 15:06 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Can the minister advise the Senate how industry has reacted to the International Freight Assistance Mechanism package? 15:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia This isn't a free ride for industry. They still have to pay traditional commercial rates. Indeed, they will pay those rates at a premium. But they have warmly welcomed the fact that the government has stepped up with a solution to ensure that freight access is both reliable and affordable for them. Indeed, the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative—no doubt something that Senator Brockman is familiar with—said: 'If we couldn't find a solution, we would have been stopping our boats and standing down our entire workforce. This action is helping to save many of those jobs.' The Red Meat Advisory Council acknowledged that the continuity and affordability of air export capacity to our valued and high-end export markets is critical. Seafood Industry Australia said that this marks the beginning of a return to normal. Perhaps mostly appropriately, they acknowledged and said, 'There's no better stimulus than getting back to work.' That's what this is all about: ensuring that we support Australians who can to stay in their jobs and businesses who can to stay afloat. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question? 15:07 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Minister, how is the government also boosting cash flow for exporters through the Export Market Development Grants scheme? 15:07 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Our internationally exposed businesses were some of the first to feel the impacts of COVID-19, as many of our large international export destinations shut down parts of their economies before the domestic impact was felt here in Australia. So, knowing they were the first to feel the pain, we put in place additional measures to support them. The government has injected an additional $49.8 million into the Export Market Development Grants program, recognising that businesses who have invested in good faith in seeking to grow export markets are unlikely to yield dividends from those export markets this year. Since making that announcement just last week, we have ensured that $44 million has already flowed to almost 1,000 exporters—another example of the government using existing mechanisms where we can to deliver quick, effective support to those who need it. This will help not just our goods exporters but many across the services sector, in arts, education and tourism. In the tourism space I particularly acknowledge those many regional tourism businesses who are doing such a good job as well of sending out a clear message, telling Australians to stay home this Easter. (Time expired) COVID-19: Parliament 15 15:08 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and it relates to oversight. The British parliament is sitting. Both the British government and parliamentary authorities have been clear that they have no plans to shut parliament and would prefer to avoid this course of action. Speaking in the Commons on 16 March, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, stated: … I think the whole House will be sure, in our collective decision, that although Parliament may have to operate differently, it must remain open. The US Congress is sitting. The Italian Senate and the Spanish Cortes are sitting. Despite its coronavirus committee, the New Zealand parliament resumes on 28 April with modified processes and procedures. The only parliaments I am aware of that have adjourned in the manner that the government is proposing tonight are those of the legislatures of Mexico, South Africa and San Marino. Why is the government seeking to suspend our parliament? 15:09 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I have addressed this in my ministerial statement. What I would say—I'm trying to be as diplomatic as I possibly can be here—is we are taking an Australian path to protect and save Australian lives by taking very drastic measures to slow down the spread of this virus. We imposed border restrictions on return travellers from mainland China, and Wuhan, in Hubei province, in particular. A number of European and other countries that the senator has referenced did not take that course of action, and it took much longer in an Australian context for the spread to accelerate somewhat than it did in places like Italy, Spain, Germany, France and the UK. I believe that the actions that we are taking in Australia are being successful in saving lives by slowing the spread. All Australians are being given very strict instructions imposing restrictions on their travel, and encouragements to stay at home and work from home where it is possible. Yes, we do have a job to do. Where we must and where we need to, we should come together, and we can; there is a mechanism in place to help ensure that that happens. But, to the greatest extent possible, we should also comply with the restrictions imposed on Australians. We are a large continent. The logistics involved in bringing the parliament together are very significant, with lots of people coming from all corners of Australia. In fact, you will find that health and police authorities around Australia actually regard federal politicians as one of the comparatively higher-risk categories when it comes to the spread of the coronavirus. We have a job to do. State laws can't interfere with the exercise of federal parliamentary privilege, but nevertheless we should, to the greatest extent possible, comply with the public health advice and instructions that are imposed on all other Australians. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Patrick, a supplementary question? 15:11 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Minister, truck, bus and train drivers are doing their job. Journalists are doing their job. Factory workers are doing their job. Despite the risks, teachers, nurses and doctors are doing their job. Chefs, supermarket workers, public servants, police, aged-care workers and ADF personnel are doing their job, some of them on ships. Miners are doing their job. Everyone who can is doing their job. Why is the government proposing that senators don't do their job? 15:12 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia That is not what the government is proposing. I believe that every single senator in this chamber is doing their job. Whether the Senate meets in Canberra and whether we bring every single senator from around the country to Canberra, in the context of state border closures in most states and, indeed, in the Northern Territory, we will of course continue to do our job serving the Australian people. Senators will continue to have the opportunity to hold the government to account not only through our normal mechanisms but also, of course, through the Senate select committee that we are about to establish later this afternoon. So I completely reject the premise of the question, which suggests that somehow members of the federal parliament, and senators in particular, are not going to continue to do their job. The government continues to do its job. All senators will continue to do their job. In fact, I would suggest that many of us are working much harder than we ever have during this period. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question? 15:13 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia A Senate select committee can be obstructed by comity principles that mean that it can't call the Minister for Health, the Attorney-General in his capacity as industrial relations minister or the Treasurer. Will the government commit to requiring these ministers to appear before the select committee should such a request be made? 15:13 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I think that the senator has just asked me a hypothetical question, because I don't believe that the committee has even been constituted yet. It certainly hasn't made a decision yet on who it may or may not want to appear. What I would say is that my expectation would be that that committee would operate in the usual way, in the way that Senate committees and Senate select committees have operated since Federation. The government will of course support the work of the committee, and all of the agencies, departments and officials that are involved in the government's response will make themselves available in the usual way to support the work of the committee. COVID-19: Travel 16 15:14 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate what the Australian government is doing to help Australians overseas to return home? 15:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Smith for his question. Australian officials continue to work around the clock—literally—to help Australians overseas to return. This has been particularly challenging in areas where there are travel restrictions and where scheduled commercial flights have abruptly ended. Today I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of those diplomatic and DFAT officials here and overseas. We're establishing a backbone, if you like, for international travel for Australians by working with both Qantas and Virgin to ensure that they can continue regular flights to four key transport hubs: to London, to Los Angeles, to Hong Kong and to Auckland. This is important for passengers and also important for freight. The government is providing direct support to ensure our two major international airlines can continue these services. We're also coordinating closely with other governments to identify commercial means that continue to exist for Australians to return. In Cambodia, for example, our embassy is currently finalising negotiations for a special commercial flight from Phnom Penh to Australia. We have had a very good response from Australians registered for this flight. All things going well—and I say that in the context of current events—that flight should occur this weekend. We're talking to Qantas about other special flights to assist Australians who have found themselves in countries that have declared sudden border closures. I'd like to emphasise that we are working constantly with other governments, cruise companies and airlines and harnessing those key relationships to get the most out of the existing global transport network. We know that many Australians need assistance right now, both overseas and at home, and this approach that the government is taking fits with our broader responsibilities as a government to support Australians. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a supplementary question? 15:16 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister advise what steps the government has taken to both support and arrange flights to return Australians from international locations? 15:16 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Again, I thank Senator Smith for the question. The government has already supported and facilitated commercial flights for hundreds of Australians to return home safely, including from Uruguay, from Nepal and from Peru. In the case of Peru and Uruguay, most recently we have supported the travel company Chimu Adventures, through underwriting and indemnity, to ensure that the flights could go ahead. We're supporting a further commercial flight by LATAM from Peru tomorrow for passengers out of Lima, Cusco and Iquitos, and also joining up other Australians who were in more remote parts of Peru in terms of arranging transport to assist them to reach that flight. We have had a very good outcome in Nepal where our ambassador Peter Budd worked closely with authorities in Kathmandu and Nepal Airlines to facilitate a commercial flight that brought over 260 Australians and New Zealanders into Brisbane last week. I thanked my Nepali counterpart personally on Monday for that effort, which included bringing passengers to Kathmandu from places like Bukhara, Pokhara and Chitwan. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a final supplementary question? 15:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister update the Senate on the progress in helping Australians who are on cruise ships to disembark and return home to Australia? 15:17 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank the senator very much for the question in relation to cruise ships. Since the 14th of last month, the government has assisted in more than 6,400 Australians disembarking and returning to Australia from 45 cruise ships across the world with multiple charter and commercial flights. I want to thank the cruise industry and acknowledge their cooperation and their work in that outcome. To give a few examples, more than 200 Australians arrived from the United States yesterday after disembarking from the Zaandam, the Rotterdam and the Coral Princess cruise ships. More than 260 Australians from the Costa Luminosa and the Costa Victoria arrived in Perth from Italy on 30 March. And today 288 Australians who had been on the Norwegian Jewel have now finished their 14-day quarantine after returning to Australia. These outcomes have required significant amounts of patient diplomacy from DFAT, and again I thank those officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for managing the highly complex operations. (Time expired) COVID-19 17 15:19 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Cormann, representing the Prime Minister, about some of the people left behind in the government's COVID support packages. The government have bent over backwards to ensure that commercial tenancies can be renegotiated to continue, but why have you continually pushed residential tenants to the bottom of the national cabinet agenda? Where is the action on the earlier commitment to prevent residential evictions, and with half a million young casual workers getting no support from JobKeeper how do you expect them to cover rent? 15:19 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia We are providing a significantly enhanced social safety net through the jobseeker program, and we are about to legislate a $130 billion JobKeeper program. Beyond that, of course we do recognise the challenges that many tenants in residential tenancies face. The issue of tenancy is fairly and squarely a matter for state and territory governments, which they recognise. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a supplementary question? 15:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The industries that have been most affected are the same industries that have the highest numbers of casuals employed for less than 12 months: hospitality, retail, accommodation, tourism, and the arts and entertainment industries. We are talking here about one million people, with half a million of those under the age of 24. Why did you exclude them? Was it just budget-saving reasons, or because young people don't vote for your party? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I'll ask for silence so that the minister can commence his answer. 15:20 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Thank you very much, Mr President. Let me just, firstly, utterly reject the offensive suggestion that any partisan or electoral considerations are involved in any of this. That is just objectionable. It's very disappointing that you would choose to lower the tone of the national conversation in this context to that extent. You've raised some legitimate issues of inquiry, and you've let yourself down, quite frankly, by adding that snarky little bit at the end. You should reflect on that. We are providing JobKeeper support to six million Australians. We will be providing jobseeker support to well over one million Australians. More than half the Australian working population will be on some form of government payment to support them through this crisis. And, yes, we did use the long-term casual worker definition under the Fair Work Act. The whole objective is to keep workers connected to the businesses that they have been in employment relationships with, and the definition of an employment relationship for casual workers is that they have worked for that business for at least 12 months. But it's not as if casual workers who have worked for that business for less time can't get assistance. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I didn't think I would need the standing orders today, but can I remind senators of standing orders 73, which says that questions shall not contain imputations, amongst other things. I would say that was getting a bit too specific, Senator Waters. A final supplementary question? 15:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The increased costs for disabled people and carers as a result of needing to self-isolate are greater than for the general population. Private transport, food deliveries, health care and personal protective equipment are all basic needs now. Will you extend the coronavirus supplement to DSP and carer payment recipients to acknowledge their higher living costs and not leave them behind? 15:22 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The Minister for Families and Social Services just confirmed for me that pensioners are already on the highest income support payment. On top of that, of course, we are making two $750 additional contributions. The first has gone out from the end of March to the middle of April, and the second will go out in July. We are recognising that there are additional challenges, of course, which is why we've made these additional contributions. COVID-19 18 15:23 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal and Nationals government is protecting and supporting rural and regional Australians through the coronavirus pandemic? 15:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator McKenzie for the question and acknowledge her deep commitment to those in rural and regional Australia. Senator McKenzie, as you would know, we are supporting our rural and regional Australians affected by the COVID-19 crisis with a $1 billion recovery and relief fund. Senator McKenzie, to confirm the words you have used: 'We are in this together. Regional Australia is not immune.' The Liberal-National government will provide fast, targeted support through our recovery and relief fund to address emerging needs of specifically affected sectors, industries and communities and to immediately reduce pressures in regional Australia. This includes further support under the Regional Air Network Assistance Package, to maintain the air network across regional Australia, and support for the agricultural and fisheries sector to continue export of their high-quality produce into overseas markets, complemented by the waiving of fishery levies for Commonwealth fishers. We also know that disruption to labour supply and the agricultural food supply chain have been key issues for the agricultural sector in managing the effects of COVID-19. We're committed to ensuring agriculture is well supported so Australia remains in a position to produce the food we need and continue to provide food for the world. We're also responding to calls from farmers across the country. As Senator McKenzie has already referred to, we've made temporary visa changes to allow those in the Pacific Labour Scheme, the Seasonal Worker Program and the Working Holiday Maker program to continue working in agriculture and food processing. We're also keeping regional Australians connected, with changes to how schooling and work are being carried out during this crisis. We have new initiatives from NBN Co that will provide more broadband data for Sky Muster satellite customers living in rural and remote Australia. And we also have, as you know, Senator McKenzie, a $2.4 billion health package. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question? 15:26 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Can the minister advise how these measures add to our government's other support initiatives to regional communities affected by bushfire and drought? 15:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes, I can. Despite the current crisis, our government stands with drought and bushfire affected regional communities. Again, Senator McKenzie, as you know, we have not forgotten them. There are a range of programs available to immediately support those affected by the drought conditions, including the Farm Household Allowance, which gives farming families the assistance they need to put food on the table and has recently been given a boost due to the government's COVID-19 supplement. We also have the recently expanded Rural Financial Counselling Service and the Drought Community Support Initiative. The mental health and wellbeing support has been boosted. Concessional loans and generous taxation measures continue to be available. We also know that drought just doesn't stop at the farm gate, which is why there are also a range of programs for communities doing it tough. The Drought Communities Program gives $1 million stimulus to councils, which allows them to boost tourism or provide additional employment through infrastructure projects. There is also additional funding for road infrastructure and more support available for schools and childcare centres that have taken a financial— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question? 15:27 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, what advice is there on how we can best support rural and regional Australians during the pandemic, including in relation to travel this coming Easter? 15:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator McKenzie, you actually raise a very good point, and you've already referred to it in your ministerial statement. It has been sent out via Australia.gov.au and many of us will have received it on our mobile telephones—that is, this Easter over the holiday break the message is to stay at home. Don't travel to the coast. Don't travel to the country over Easter. Don't go and visit family and friends in the region. Don't go and visit your favourite holiday destination this season. You may think you are doing the right thing, but you will not be. Continue doing what you have been doing for the past few weeks. Stay at home. That is what is going to see us all collectively as a nation through this crisis. At this time, as Senator McKenzie acknowledged, regional Australia need our support, but the support we can give them over the Easter long weekend is to stay at home. The message is clear: stay at home; don't travel. (Time expired) COVID-19 19 15:28 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought, and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. The Biosecurity Act 2015 requires cruise vessels to report any passengers who show symptoms of infectious diseases to the Department of Agriculture's biosecurity officers before arrival in Australia. According to a COVID-19 fact sheet entitled 'Information for the cruise industry' released by the Australian government on 6 March, if an ill traveller is reported 'a biosecurity officer will liaise with the vessel to screen for COVID-19'. The Ruby Princess reported 158 ill passengers, including 17 with high fevers. How many federal biosecurity officers met the Ruby Princess's 2,700 passengers when it docked in Sydney on 17 March? What actions did these officers take to screen for COVID-19? 15:29 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Keneally for her question. In relation to the specific questions that you've asked, I will take those on notice and will get you an answer from the minister for agriculture. But can I absolutely assure the chamber that the Australian government is totally committed to protecting Australians from COVID-19, including through its biosecurity measures that operate through the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, and that it is working very closely with the Department of Health, which is obviously leading the national health response to COVID-19. As you rightly point out, biosecurity plays an extraordinarily critical role, particularly at our borders, in making sure we continue to protect Australian citizens, because, as we all know, much of the identified transmission of COVID-19 has come from overseas. As of 1 February 2020, all travellers arriving from, or who have been in, mainland China, regardless of nationality, have been subject to control measures. Subsequent to that time, other countries have also been subject to control measures, as we've seen in recent days when those who have been brought home by the extraordinary work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, through the work of Minister Payne to bring Australians home to Australia. So, I thank the senator for her question, and I will get the details of her question on notice. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a supplementary question? 15:30 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales The same COVID-19 fact sheet states that disembarking cruise ship passengers with no signs or symptoms of COVID-19 'must wear a surgical mask' when travelling domestically or on public transport or in taxis in Australia to reach their home. Did federal biosecurity officers direct the 2,700 disembarking passengers from the Ruby Princessto wear a surgical mask to travel home? 15:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Once again, I thank Senator Keneally for her question and continued interest. I will take the specific nature of your question on notice and I will make sure that I provide you with a very timely response. But there is absolutely no doubt that cruise ships have posed a very unique issue to manage during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it be cruise ships in Australia or Australians on cruise ships that have been around the world. Obviously, we took very strong action to ban international cruise vessels from docking in Australia some weeks ago. However, we have had some vessels that were already on their way here. That ban is to make sure that Australians who were on board many of these vessels are protected and also to make sure that we can continue to protect Australians from this disease that is ravaging the world. Australia has been working extremely hard to make sure that our transmission levels have been kept at the absolute lowest through the very strong management of the— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question? 15:32 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales The Prime Minister said on 15 March, 'The Australian government will also ban cruise ships from foreign ports from arriving at Australian ports.' On 19 March, the Ruby Princessarrived and disembarked 2,700 passengers. That ship is now linked to 600 COVID-19 cases, 13 deaths and 19 cases of community transmission in Australia. Does the government take any responsibility for failing to stop the one ship that mattered? 15:33 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Keneally for her follow-up question. Can I say that, first of all, there is an investigation, obviously, being undertaken around this particular ship that you referred to, and it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment. I have already undertaken to take on notice any specifics of the questions you have asked. But could I also take the opportunity to acknowledge that there are a number of people who had some very tragic circumstances on the Ruby Princess and express our condolences to the families of those people. COVID-19 20 15:33 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Morrison government is protecting and supporting individual Australians who are being impacted by the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic? 15:33 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much, Senator Scarr, for the opportunity to be able to inform this place of some of the most important legislation and changes to our work environment and our social services system and also the impact of the changes that will hopefully pass through today in this place. I acknowledge the acknowledgement of those in this place that these measures will pass with the $130 billion JobKeeper payment, which is a support to businesses and to workers to make sure that they remain connected through what is an absolutely unprecedented situation that we find ourselves in in Australia. But, equally, people who are not eligible for the JobKeeper payment—Australians who are unable to access the payment—will in many instances, and in most instances, be able to access the jobseeker payment. We've moved very quickly to supercharge our social security system to make sure that Australians who have lost their jobs as a result of the coronavirus will be able to get quick and easy access to support to get them through. This very, very quick but time limited response is supported by the coronavirus supplement, which is a $550-per-fortnight increase in the amount of money that people are able to receive when they are on the jobseeker payment. This has also been extended to the youth allowance, parenting payments, the farm household allowance, special benefits and also students. Anybody who is eligible for the base payment will receive the $550-per-fortnight supplement. But, in addition to that, there are a number of things that have changed, including the waiving of many of the conditions for access to make sure that many people who would not otherwise be able to get access to this payment will be able to. This includes changing eligibility, waiving waiting periods and asset testing, both liquid and other assets. I want to ensure that everyone— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Scarr, a supplementary question? 15:36 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I thank the minister. What is the government doing to support the most vulnerable people outside of the welfare system, including in my home state of Queensland? 15:36 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The government has made a commitment in recent days of an additional $200 million to go towards emergency relief. This urgent funding will be distributed through a very complex and comprehensive charities network that works around Australia. I say a huge thank you to our emergency relief providers, to our food relief providers, to our financial counsellors and to those people who have taken on this enormous role: the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, Uniting Care, and Wesley Mission. I could go on all day about the number of amazing organisations that are out there supporting vulnerable Australians and, at the same time, administering the additional $200 million that we have made available to support them. Emergency relief and food relief remain an absolute priority for this government to make sure that people have access to the absolutely basic things that they need for everyday life— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question? 15:37 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland How is the government helping age pensioners and other vulnerable cohorts through these challenging times? 15:37 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As has been mentioned, this is a very comprehensive group of packages that has been put through this place to assist Australians as they face the consequences of the catastrophic impact of the coronavirus. One of those measures is an additional $750 payment. Most of the 6.5 million Australians who were eligible for the first payment would have already received that. In fact, my understanding is that nearly $5 billion has already gone out the door in the last week to people who are eligible for the $750 payment. In addition to that, there will be another $750 payment made to the same group of people, with the exclusion of those that will now be able to access the COVID supplement. This will include age pensioners, carers, people on family tax benefits, disability pensioners, veterans and the like. COVID-19 21 15:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Through no fault of their own, many Australians are stranded overseas, unable to follow the advice of the government to return home, because governments abroad have implemented lockdowns and commercial options for flights have dried up. Germany has arranged some 170 flights, the UK has partnered with airlines to repatriate its citizens, and Canada has organised well over a dozen flights from different locations. The Australian government's communications to Australians on the ground say: 'The Australian government's policy precludes assisted departures.' Why is the government ruling out assisted departures to get Australians home to safety? 15:39 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Wong for her question. I think it is very important to be quite clear about this, because the government has made our position very clear. We are considering, on a case-by-case basis, supporting our airlines to operate non-scheduled services to less-central locations to bring Australians home. We will do that, where it is feasible, where all other commercial options have been exhausted and where local authorities will permit such flights. That last point is particularly relevant. We don't have plans for assisted departures in the same way that we, for example, conducted flights to what was then the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak, Wuhan—and secondly to Japan—because those flights were unique; those were complex medical exercises to the epicentres of the virus at the beginning of this crisis in Wuhan. The situation of Australians at the moment is quite different from that. I have been through that context in the chamber today and on many other occasions. We are considering, on a case-by-case basis, supporting our airlines to operate non-scheduled services to less-central locations to bring Australians home. Some of those decision-making processes in parts of South America and in other countries are well underway. As I explained to the Senate, in response to Senator Smith's excellent question, in places like Nepal, where we have been able to work with a commercial operator, we have brought Australians from very remote parts of Nepal—from Pokhara, Chitwan and Lukla, for example—to Kathmandu to make sure that we could put as many Australians as possible on that flight, and New Zealanders, to bring them to Australia. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, a supplementary question? 15:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia While the UK government ensured their citizens could come home from Peru for some 250 pounds, Australians in Peru were forced to pay $5,000 for a privately arranged charter option, and Australians are being surveyed by this government about how much they would be willing to pay to be repatriated to safety. Does the government agree that cost should not be a barrier to Australians getting home safely? 15:41 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Every single one of these cases is different. Every single country has different circumstances. Every single flight is different. In some cases, there are able to be commercial flights on scheduled arrangements. In some cases, they are charters. In other cases, they are a commercial venture—which was the one that Senator Wong referred to, organised by Chimu Travel, not by the government—supported by the government so that it could occur. We provided important indemnity and underwriting for that flight and for the flight of Australians from the Ocean Atlantic in Montevideo, which was also organised by Chimu Travel. But every single one of those is the same. We have not been involved in setting up those prices. So, although there are Australians literally everywhere, we are endeavouring to work with those— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, a final supplementary question? 15:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As more time passes, health systems overseas are becoming more stretched and the situation in some locations is deteriorating. There are reports to my office that locals are arming themselves in some locations to prevent foreigners leaving their accommodation. Will the minister commit to providing assisted departures where this is necessary to get Australians to safety? 15:43 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I think it is perhaps a question of nomenclature more than anything else that Senator Wong is raising. We are talking about doing flights on a case-by-case basis—as I have clearly outlined to the Senate—as will support Australians to return home. Indeed, I have also outlined the many Australians who have been able to return home in recent weeks. The government has been explicitly clear in relation to our travel advice. I think that is also a very important aspect of the information we have consistently provided to Australians. On 9 March, for example, we advised Australians to reconsider taking a cruise. On 13 March, we advised all Australians to reconsider the need to travel overseas. On 17 March, we advised Australians overseas who wanted to return home to do so as soon as possible. On 18 March, we raised our travel advice to level 4: 'Do not travel'. COVID-19 22 15:44 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to Senator Cash, the minister representing the Minister for Health. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Liberals and Nationals in government are protecting Australians in responding to the coronavirus pandemic? 15:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Davey for the question. In Australia, as at 10.30 am this morning there are 5,977 confirmed cases of coronavirus and, sadly, as at 6.30 am this morning there have now been 49 deaths. Globally we have seen over 1.4 million confirmed cases, and over 81,865 lives have now been lost. Our priority as a government is to flatten the curve and to reduce the number of cases. Australia's health emergency responses are flexible and scalable so that we can respond effectively to the evolving situation. We are well placed to respond to ill travellers and those at risk of contracting infection, with border isolation, surveillance and contact-tracing mechanisms already in place. We have one of the world's leading testing programs, with just over 313,000 tests conducted in Australia—one of the highest per capita rates of testing in the world. The national cabinet, on receipt of the expert medical advice, is continuing to coordinate a national response, working with the states and territories. We have taken further steps to enforce social-distancing measures, we have implemented further travel restrictions to prevent the spread of the virus and we have more than 220 fever clinics up and running around the country. The rates of new cases in Australia have been declining over the past few weeks, which is an encouraging sign. However, as we all know, now is not the time for complacency, and Australians must continue to practise social-distancing measures. Again, as we approach the Easter long weekend, the message to all of us is clear: stay at home this Easter and help save lives. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Davey, a supplementary question? 15:46 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales What additional investment is the government making to ensure that Australia has access to all the health care needed to continue to manage the containment of the virus? 15:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As we are all aware, Australia isn't immune to COVID-19, but we're as well prepared as any country in the world. The government recently announced $1.1 billion worth of initiatives, including $669 million to expand Medicare subsidised telehealth services for all Australians, with extra incentives for GPs and other health practitioners also delivered. An initial $150 million will be provided—and I commend the Minister for Women and the Minister for Families and Social Services—to support Australians experiencing domestic, family and sexual violence due to the fallout of coronavirus. An extra $74 million will be provided to support the mental health and wellbeing of all Australians. An additional $200 million will be provided to support charities and other community organisations which provide emergency and food relief as demand surges as a result of coronavirus. This, of course, builds on the $2.4 billion of measures we've already announced. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Cash! Senator Davey, a final supplementary question? 15:48 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Finally, how should Australians respond to the increasing measures that are being implemented to contain the virus? 15:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As the spread of coronavirus increases in the community, it's important that Australians know the practical things that they can do to protect their own health, the health of their families and the health of the community as a whole. The Chief Medical Officer advises—as we all know—of these five simple actions that we should practise on a daily basis: be at least 1.5 metres away from everyone, wherever this is possible; wash your hands—do it often and do it properly—for at least 20 seconds; cough or sneeze into your elbow, not your hands; do not touch your face at all, even if it itches; and if you're sick, of course the very obvious advice is to stay at home. The reason we are undertaking all of these very simple actions is that we need to work together. We need to work together to protect the elderly, to protect the vulnerable and to protect those who have lung conditions. All of our advice is that this will be for around a six-month period. (Time expired) Senator Cormann HDA I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 23 15:49 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions asked by Labor senators. It was only a fortnight ago that we witnessed scenes no one thought imaginable in modern First World Australia. The images beamed to us from Centrelink offices across the nation, where lines of people snaked around the block, evenly distanced at 1.5 metres apart, were more reminiscent of wartime bread lines or depression job queues than what we would expect to see in the major cities of one of the richest countries in the world. We have been blessed with almost three decades of uninterrupted economic growth. But for Labor's swift and decisive go-hard, go-early and go-households response to the GFC, this uninterrupted economic growth would have ended a decade ago. But here we are. In just a few weeks, a localised coronavirus outbreak in China has morphed into a global pandemic that threatens not only the lives of potentially thousands of Australians but also the social and political order that is the bedrock of our proud democracy. Economists are positing a question that is no longer about whether there will be a surplus, the size of a surplus or whether the surplus will be wafer thin, but rather: will we avoid a depression? To avoid that worst-case scenario is why we are here today. Like many governments around the world, we have had to act quickly and decisively to stop the spread of the virus and protect our health systems from collapse. But, in tandem with this, we've also had to scramble together plans to save the economy, and with it the nation's workforce, from falling off a cliff. Just like the GFC, that response has been to implement some good old-fashioned Keynesian economics—get the money to households and get the money to businesses, and get it done quickly. If we allowed a sustained break between employees and their employer, once the job is lost it may never exist again. This is the theory underpinning the JobKeeper package we are here to consider. Labor supports the government on this, because Labor supports the Australian worker. We are the party of the Australian worker. It is in our DNA. Indeed, it is in our very name. The Prime Minister has said that everyone who has a job in this economy is an essential worker, and of course that is true; there is no hierarchy of importance of how we pay to put food on the table. This is why we on this side have been dismayed by, firstly, the Minister for Government Services and member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, claiming a distributed denial-of-service attack on the myGov website and then having to reverse it and admit that the system had been overwhelmed, only to actually worsen that by saying, 'My bad.' Secondly, of course, we have been dismayed by the government's unwillingness to include various groups in the JobKeeper package: casuals who have been employed for under a year, workers in industries where short contracts are the norm, local government workers, and various other groups, including teachers, one of the most precious cohorts in this country. Across the country, casual teachers are being told that they don't have any shifts for the foreseeable future. If you're a casual teacher, you may well miss out on the JobKeeper package. Those teachers have been here for us throughout the spread of this virus, so we should be there for them at this time. The government have the discretion to include these Australian workers in today's package—and we heard in some of the answers given by government senators today that that is the case. The government have the discretion to offer these workers the support needed to get over this unprecedented health and economic emergency. We hope that they use this discretion and put into practice a plan to uphold the words of the Prime Minister on 24 March: Everyone who has a job in this economy is an essential worker. Another group at the coalface of vulnerability are our older Australians, and this horrible virus has shown us that they are disproportionately affected. We will also need to have a conversation about why our native capability to manufacture equipment such as PPE in this country has been so severely diminished, but perhaps that is a conversation for tomorrow. We are, of course, a country before we are an economy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Thank you, Senator Kitching, your time has expired. Senator Paterson. 15:54 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I'm very pleased to be able to make a contribution to this take note debate. Like a lot of simple pleasures that we previously took for granted, I have a new appreciation for the opportunity to take note of answers to questions without notice. I do so as the government's nominee as deputy chair for the new Senate select committee to be established to scrutinise the response to COVID-19. I want to take the opportunity of the take note debate today to reflect on the task of that committee, and on the task of all of us as parliamentarians in the months ahead. I am honoured to be joining this committee, because I'm a big believer in parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions of executive government. I particularly have great faith in the unique capacity of this chamber to provide that scrutiny. I congratulate the chair and deputy chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Carr, for their initiative to continue the important work of their committee at this time. In times of crisis, parliamentary scrutiny remains important. It is even more important, given the extraordinary measures governments have been forced to put in place to respond to the coronavirus; measures this parliament would normally never agree to but that have been put into place—for good reason—very rapidly. Normal parliamentary oversight—like Senate committee inquiries into proposed legislation—has not been possible in this environment, where responding quickly is essential. That's why I'm pleased the Senate is establishing a Senate select committee, to be led by Senator Gallagher, to help fill that scrutiny gap, given the parliament may not have a regular sitting schedule for some time. The committee and all of us as parliamentarians have a significant task on our hands in the months ahead. The most obvious and immediate task is to examine the health measures put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus and how effective they have been. The first duty of any government is to protect the health and safety of its citizens, and this will undoubtedly be the major focus of the committee. Many of these public health measures, implemented in conjunction with the states, have also had severe economic consequences which we are only seeing the beginning of. It will be important for the committee to carefully consider the economic costs of these measures on the lives of ordinary Australians. And, of course, that cost is not just measured in terms of dollars. We know from recessions past that lost jobs and failed businesses leave behind many human tragedies and a significant personal toll of their own. Those economic consequences have necessitated a strong fiscal response from the government. While the need for these fiscal measures is obvious, they represent some of the largest-ever peacetime Commonwealth outlays. Meeting the cost of those outlays will be a shared national task for many years ahead and, depending on the extent and the length of the economic downturn we are all anticipating, it will potentially be an intergenerational one. As a younger member of this place, I'm particularly conscious of this. The interests of taxpayers must be carefully considered by the committee, given the burden the parliament is asking them to bear, today and in the years ahead. The path out of this public health crisis is, understandably, of great interest to all Australians. It will be appropriate to question decision-makers in government, and the experts who advise them, about alternative pathways from here. Australians will also look to all of us for the reconstruction project ahead. Putting the economy into hibernation and starting it up again on the other side has never been tried before. The closest historical analogies we can draw are the transitions we've made in the past from a wartime economy to a peacetime one. Once the immediate danger of the virus has passed, rebuilding our economy and public services to a degree of normalcy will be our challenge. In the longer term, we'll also have to consider questions about our national resilience and self-sufficiency. In response to the crisis so far, we have seen the suspension of the partisanship which normally defines our politics. My sense is that this has been warmly welcomed by the Australian people. Inevitably, though, there will be things on which we disagree, and that is normal and healthy in a liberal democracy. We come here informed by different values, and that is reflected in our policy preferences. In this crisis, we have all been required to set aside, to some degree, our political philosophy. When the conversation returns to the post-coronavirus world, it is likely that those differences will re-emerge, although perhaps not in the exact form that they took in the pre-coronavirus world. The challenge for us will be to set aside the gratuitous partisanship, and to explore those differences constructively in the spirit of national unity that has defined this crisis so far. That is what the Australian people expect of us. 15:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We are in this chamber today as expectations of us as elected representatives have changed. The politics-as-usual approach that I've seen in my short time as a senator over the last four years can no longer cope or deal with the issues that people are confronting today. I think it's important to note the role the opposition has been playing in responding to this and in being constructive. As Senator Kitching said in her contribution to this, I think that, obviously, for those people directly impacted by them and also for those people who observe them, seeing those queues outside Centrelink offices really brought home to people how devastating the changes that people are confronting are going to be. People of my generation have been in the workforce since school, for 20 or 25 years, and have basically been employed that whole time. I know that finding themselves now out of work and relying on government subsidies for the first time in their lives is having a dramatic impact on those people. It's really important that the role that the opposition plays continues to be constructive. I'd like to acknowledge the work of the opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, the senior shadow ministers, particularly those in health and Treasury, Tony Burke and others. They have held the government to account, but have done so in a way that has been constructive, which we saw through the first part of this year with the bushfires and we've seen in dealing with the COVID-19 emergency as well. It's often the case that the government have got to the right decision after insistence from Labor, and I think that is an important role for us to play. Labor has identified gaps in the health and economic response, but, instead of just identifying those gaps and trying to charge at the government to say there have been shortcomings, we have been constructive. We have been constructive in the health area and we have been constructive in the economic response, which is the substance of why the parliament is back here today. The Australian people are no doubt looking for outcomes, so they don't want to see unnecessary political debate. They don't want to see unnecessary political arguments and game playing; they want to see a constructive approach. They can look to this parliament for guidance and hope that there is going to be support for them when they need it, both from a health point of view and from an economic point of view. But they also want to see hope for the future; they want to see that the country is going to get through this come out the other side in a stronger position. There's no better example of the way that the Labor Party, as the opposition, have behaved during this than when we talk about the JobKeeper package that we are here to debate today. The government initially rejected the Labor idea of a wage subsidy, which, from a Labor point of view, was designed to help keep people in work. We welcome the package. We acknowledge the fact that the government has been working constructively with the union movement as well, which I think has been an important development for workers in Australia. But what is disappointing is that the government can't bring themselves to bring forward a package that supports more workers. I'll focus on the requirement that the government have insisted on with regard to a casual employee needing to be in a workplace for 12 months. If one looks at ACTU data, which is based on ABS modelling, there are 215,000 Queenslanders who do casual work but have been with their current employer for less than 12 months. This includes 11,000 people in Central Queensland, 8,300 people in Wide Bay, almost 11,000 people in the Moreton Bay region north of Brisbane, 3,400 people in Toowoomba and 82,000 people in Brisbane. These are just some of the areas that I look after in Brisbane that are going to be adversely impacted because the government couldn't quite bring themselves to have that 'team Australia' moment that they like to talk about. They like to talk about it when they are setting the agenda, but they can't quite bring themselves to talk about it when there are going to be people who are adversely affected because of the decision-making of this government. We will continue to pressure the government over this issue. There are a lot of people who will be adversely affected, and we need to be on their side. (Time expired) 16:04 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to participate in this take note debate. I appreciate the contributions that have been made thus far. I, like Senator Kitching, acknowledge the images that we saw of the queues outside the Centrelink offices. I think we were all aware of the impact of the decisions that were being made and of what would occur, but those images really brought home that this is very real and is being felt very much by all of our constituents right across the country. It has made us all even more aware of the importance of what we do in this place and the fact that the decisions we make here have a very real impact on people in their day-to-day lives. That's why what we're doing today in passing the JobKeeper package is so fundamentally important; it does extend support to people who would otherwise be joining those queues and exacerbating the problem. I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by the opposition regarding those who seemingly miss out on the JobKeeper package. But, as was stated by Senator Cash in her response to some of the questions during question time, we have to draw the line somewhere. We don't have a magic pudding of money and we have to be as responsible as we can be, fiscally and economically, as we try and address this health crisis. In saying that, it is really important to note that those who do miss out on the JobKeeper package do get access to the other packages that we have put out there. The jobseeker payment and its increased capacity is in place because we knew that there would be those who would ultimately not be eligible for other measures we consider, including the JobKeeper package. For those casual employees who have an ongoing relationship with their employer and those permanently employed who have that ongoing relationship of 12 months or more, what we've done with the JobKeeper package is extend a status that's already recognised under Australia's taxation system. In putting together the $130 billion package, that is where we ultimately drew the line, because when you put these lifelines in place you have to draw a line somewhere. As heartbreaking as it is that some people will miss out, we have to be responsible. We have to remember what we are in this place to do. We are in this place to do the best we can do for the whole of the Australian community, not individual sectors and not individual circumstances. It is impossible to individualise, as much as we all may want to. I also really want to note the opportunity that we may face at the other end of this outbreak. I truly believe our regions will emerge stronger at the end of this. What we are seeing is that our key regional industries are essential. Our agricultural industries are essential. We need to get behind those industries to ensure they're strong at the other end. But our regions are also very well-placed to welcome back manufacturing opportunities that we once thought were lost to this nation. As was mentioned before, we can manufacturer right here at home things like personal protective equipment, and we can do that in our regions. I think that now is an opportunity for us to recognise that regional Australia and agriculture are the life blood of this nation. We've been through a lot. We've been through drought and we've been through bushfire, and we've had flooding in certain regions. Our regional and remote communities also rely on tourism, which has been absolutely slammed at this point. But if we get behind those industries, and if we support those industries and our regions, on the other side of this outbreak we will be stronger and we will be stronger together. 16:09 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Can I just begin my contribution by thanking those on the frontline: our medical people, our paramedics, those working in workplaces that are staying open to ensure that we get the supplies we need, and those delivering services at this time. There are many people out there working without the necessary personal protective equipment to keep them safe while they're doing their job to try and keep us safe. I want to say thank you to all of those people and recognise the contribution that they're making. Senator Kitching and Senator Chisholm, in their contributions, both talked about the way in which Labor has worked constructively with the government to put forward, certainly from our point of view, improvements to the legislation to ensure that not as many people fall through the cracks—or that no-one, hopefully, would fall through the cracks. But there still are many thousands of Australians who will miss out. I think it was earlier today, or it may have been yesterday, that I heard the Prime Minister talk about cooperatively working with businesses and unions. For us on this side, that's not a new process at all. It's something that we've done for years. Unions are representatives of those workers who are out there on the frontline. They're representatives of the workers who are dealing with the difficulty of a very worried public at the moment, and they should be consulted. So for us it's not a new concept, and I hope that in the future discussions around all sorts of different things occur continually with business but are also inclusive of the union movement through the ACTU. I want to talk a little bit about some of the responses that we got from the government today, particularly about those thousands of people who aren't eligible. I think it's over a million. There are casuals and labour hire, and there is the nature of industries. We understand that this legislation needs to get through, and I think Senator Wong, in her contribution to the ministerial statement that Senator Cormann put forward earlier, talked about the fact that we will not hold this up. But there are amendments that will help people. I heard Mr Porter the other day talk about this being our 'Dunkirk moment', that it was 'get the lifeboats out'. I guess one of the areas of concern that I have is that there are many Australians who are not going to get access to those lifeboats. That's why I urge the government to consider the amendments put forward by Labor. We need as many people in those lifeboats as possible. Minister Cash talked about those being included, and that the government had to draw a line somewhere. I've been getting, as I'm sure everyone on this side has, and probably all of us have, lots of emails. We've seen the images of Centrelink; we've seen all that. We really need to think about the difficulties that some of those workers are going to face into the future. And not just the workers but the employers as well, when they lose employees who they may not get back—employees who they have trained and who understand their industry. There are a lot of workers in the labour hire sector. I know from my background with the AWU that there are a lot of concerns around some areas and some workplaces. Shipbuilding in Tasmania is a good example that I can give you, where there are some employees who have worked in a workplace for over 10 years, some for 13 years. They have worked at the same workplace for that period of time. They've been moved on to labour hire, then the employer employs them back, and they then go back to labour hire. They have been in and out of that same work site at the same address. The only thing that's changed is their employer—the name of the person who employs them—not their workplace, not their work address and not their pay rate or their classification. They come in one day employed by X employer, the next day they're employed by Y employer. Yet, they're not eligible. That doesn't seem to make sense to me, and there's no logic in this. I urge the government to look at these areas. Senator Ruston in particular has the ability to look at these areas. I urge her to do that, for those long-term employees who would be considered casual employees in excess of 12 months work, bar the fact that their employer has decided to change the method of employment, the name of the employer or the process of how they're actually employed. Question agreed to. COVID-19 27 16:14 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to COVID-19. We asked about the people that are left behind in the government's COVID support package, and why decisions were made to leave those particular cohorts of people behind. I don't feel like we got satisfactory answers, and we will be moving amendments, once we come to this legislation, to fill those gaps, to make sure that no-one is left behind—which seems to be a phrase that's been bandied around a lot, but actually a lot of people are being left behind. I asked firstly about renters. We've seen the government take action on commercial leases, but, despite some early commitments a week or so ago, we've seen no actual action to protect residential tenancies. I asked why and was told that it was a state issue. Commercial tenancies are technically also a state issue. So that still doesn't explain why you're leaving renters behind. It's also not clear whether or not renters might be subject to a rent increase next week or whether their landlords might be able to evict them once this pandemic is over. We need a national, coordinated response on residential tenancies to protect renters. We need a national rent holiday. We need a national mortgage holiday. We need a national response on housing. Surely that is the most fundamental task of government—to ensure that people have a roof over their heads. There's some discretionary power that will be granted to various ministers, and we will continue to urge that those powers to be used to protect people, to keep them safe at home, and to ensure that landlords can't increase rent or boot people out onto the streets. I also asked about why casuals have been left behind if they've not been employed for that one-year time frame. I asked why the one year; why this arbitrary distinction between people in precarious and casual work; why draw that line; and what's the justification? It's very telling that, of the one million people who are casuals and will miss out on JobKeeper because they haven't been an employee for one year, half of those are young people. Half of them are under 24. So they're also facing those other precarious rental and insecure income situations. They're already struggling with the realities of everyday life that has left young people behind for so long, and now they're facing this added insult of being left out of the JobKeeper package. I'm afraid I didn't feel like I really received a response as to why that line was drawn. Reference was made to the Fair Work Act. Well, you're still leaving a million people behind, and half of them—half a million people—are young people. So we will continue to campaign for casual workers, all casual workers, to be eligible to receive the JobKeeper allowance. Lastly, I asked about the increased costs for disabled people and their carers and why they haven't been topped up to the rate of the jobseeker payment, and we were told, 'Well, this is because they used to get paid more than the old rate of Newstart and they've had a few increases.' I think there have been two that we were informed of. But, sadly, those increases still don't see disabled people or those on carer payments receiving the same amount as the new jobseeker amount; yet these folk are facing increased costs. The burden of self-isolation is increasing their costs. We've had stories shared with us about people who used to be able to catch public transport now not being able to take the risk as they're immune-suppressed or for a whole variety of other reasons. So the cost of transport has increased for them, and yet they're now getting less than others in a comparable situation. Again, we don't want to see anybody left behind, and we want those words to mean something when they're used by the big parties in this parliament. We will be moving amendments so that renters are not left behind, people with disabilities and their carers are not left behind, and casual workers, irrespective of how long they've worked, are not left behind. We'll also be moving amendments to protect people and residents who are temporary workers, who are migrant workers or who are visa workers who are being left out of this support system, for no good reason. We'll also be moving to protect international students and, crucially, people in the arts and entertainment sector that are providing us with such joy and reflection in these times of self-isolation. They do not deserve to be left behind. Nobody does. We can fix these things later today, and we will be moving to ensure that this parliament does just that. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 28 COMMITTEES Select Committee on COVID-19 28 Appointment 28 16:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on COVID-19, be established to inquire into and report on: a) the Australian Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and b) any related matters. (2) That the committee present its final report on or before 30 June 2022. (3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows: a) 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; b) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; c) 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and d) Senator Jacqui Lambie (4) That: a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee. c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present. (5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (10) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President. (12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. In the interests of time, I won't read through all the aspects of the motion. It's been circulated to senators for their consideration. However, I would like to just say a few things. Senators, the establishment of this committee is very important and it will have an important role going forward, as Australia deals with the immediate challenges presented by the COVID-19 outbreak, and, indeed, for what happens after. I would like to thank the government, particularly the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, Minister Cormann, for working with us to put these arrangements in place. This committee, in its early stages particularly, will provide the country with the scrutiny that's needed on the government's response, in the absence of the parliament not sitting. Of course, it remains Labor's view that the parliament should be able to sit, but, with the government not willing to agree to that, this select committee will be an important vehicle for examining the government's response and providing the transparency, accountability and scrutiny that the people of Australia deserve. Indeed, this is the role that this Senate importantly plays across the political system. We have tried to represent a broad make-up of the Senate in the select committee of seven senators, so that the crossbench, the Greens political party, the opposition and the government are represented. It does have a long reporting date, and the terms of reference are very broad, to allow us to inquire into any aspect related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's response to it. Of course, that covers areas we know already but also, importantly, it gives us scope through this committee to examine and inquire into areas that may not be known to us at this point in time. As we know, we are learning things all the time about this pandemic and how governments are responding to it. I hope I get the support of the Senate for this motion. I thank the government for working with us. In terms of the approach that Labor senators will bring, you'll see the same approach that you have been seeing in terms of our dealing with the legislation that's come to this place; it will be cooperative, working in the national interest. That is our first point. But if there are gaps, if there are problems, we will be raising those and pursuing them vigorously. I urge the Senate to support this motion, as it's the only option and it's the only vehicle that we will be able to put in place to provide the appropriate scrutiny that's needed not just over the next few months but, indeed, over the next 18 months or so. 16:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move the amendment as circulated: Omit all words after "That", substitute: (1) Joint select committees be established, to be known as:    (a) the Joint Select Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic Health Response; and    (b) the Joint Select Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic Economic Response. (2) The Joint Select Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic Health Response inquire into and report on:    (a) the measures taken by the Government to address the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic;    (b) the operation and administration of:       (i) the National Cabinet;       (ii) the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee;       (iii) the Office of the Chief Medical Officer;       (iv) other entities and individuals advising the above;    (c) such other matters in relation to the Government's response to the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament; and    (d) any related matters. (3) The Joint Select Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic Economic Response inquire into and report on:    (a) the measures taken by the Government to address the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic;    (b) the operation and administration of:       (i) the National Cabinet;       (ii) the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission;       (iii) other entities and individuals advising the above;    (c) such other matters in relation to the Government's response to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament; and    (d) any related matters. (4) Each committee present an interim report by 31 May 2021. (5) Each committee present its final report by the last sitting day in May 2022. (6) Each committee consist of 11 members as follows:    (a) 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;    (b) 2 Senators to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;    (c) 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;    (d) 1 Senator to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;    (e) 1 Member of the House of Representatives or Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens;    (f) 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent; and    (g) 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent. (7) In relation to the Joint Select Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic Health Response, members and senators appointed to the committee must be those with backgrounds in the following fields:    (a) medicine;    (b) nursing;    (c) mental health;    (d) health policy;    (e) health administration;    (f) public health;    (g) allied health;    (h) aged care;    (i) disability services; and    (j) science and research. (8) If the House of the respective member to be appointed is not sitting and that House is not expected to meet for at least one week:    (a) members may be appointed to or discharged from either committee by nomination in writing to the President and the Speaker, with such change in membership to take effect from the time either presiding officer receives the written notification; and    (b) at the next sitting, the President and the Speaker shall report the change to their respective House. (9) If the House of the respective member to be appointed is sitting, every nomination of a member of either committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (10) The members of each committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (11) Each committee elect as chair an Opposition, minority group or independent member of either House. (12) Each committee elect as deputy chair a Government member of either House. (13) In relation to each committee, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote. (14) In relation to each committee, the deputy chair shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (15) In relation to each committee, three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House. (16) Each committee:    (a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and    (b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only. (17) A subcommittee of either committee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House. (18) At any time when the chair of a subcommittee of either committee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (19) Two members of a subcommittee of either committee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House; (20) Members of a committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (21) Each committee or any subcommittee of that committee have power to:    (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;    (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;    (c) sit in public or in private;    (d) report from time to time; and    (e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate; (22) The provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and (23) A message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution. Oversight and transparency are crucial. The fact that people are still being left behind by this government's package shows precisely why we need genuine and independent oversight. The amendment that the Greens have circulated builds on work done by the House crossbench, including Leader of the Australian Greens, Adam Bandt. It's to establish two joint select committees. The reasons we believe we need joint committees rather than Senate committees are numerous. We need to be able to call the Prime Minister and ministers who sit in the House; there is otherwise no forum to properly hold those decision-makers to account. The Senate select committee that we will shortly be voting upon will not have the power to call those ministers or the Prime Minister, significantly hampering that committee's ability to perform an accountability and oversight role. Likewise, there's a lot of expertise in the other place. They've got 151 members and we should use their expertise in public, health and economic matters—including the expertise of those on the crossbench. Likewise, we need to ensure that local areas are represented where they're hardest hit. A joint committee would show a collective approach to a collective challenge, and it would show that the government and the opposition are serious about accountability. Under the model that was agreed to by the crossbench in the House and that was put in the public domain a week or so ago, which we've now circulated in this chamber, one committee would scrutinise the economic programs being developed and rolled out and a second would scrutinise the measures being taken to protect the nation's health. In normal times we rely on the parliamentary committee system to ensure that our laws are considered, are robust, are scrutinised and are amended where need be. In times of crisis, and with the parliament potentially suspended until August—unless we're otherwise called back, and we'll speak to that issue later—this is more important than ever. We need to be able to act fast. We need it to be done right. Those committees are a powerful way of ensuring that we can get it right. It's disappointing that the two large parties have not agreed to the approach of two joint select committees, to separate those economic and health issues. But we don't intend to stand in the way of this motion. We flag that we will be nominating the excellent and exceedingly competent Senator Rachel Siewert, our whip, as our representative on this committee. 16:26 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to indicate that Centre Alliance will support the amendment moved by the Greens. I hope that helps, in terms of whether or not we need to call a division. We support the joint committees on the basis of the statement made by Senator Waters. I would add that we, of course, as senators, tend to look at things in a different way, from a state perspective, and often more from a strategic perspective, rather than dealing necessarily with individual constituents in the way that members of the House of Representatives deal with constituents in their electorates. So it is important. There is expertise in the House that is different to this place. The reality is that if this amendment is not supported, we will truly have the other place in holiday mode. They will be away for the entire period between now and August. So I indicate that Centre Alliance will be supporting the Greens' amendment. 16:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Labor won't be supporting the amendment, for a couple of reasons. We don't think a joint select committee is the best vehicle. We think the expertise for scrutiny lies in the Senate. When you look at the work that's been done, the information that's been gleaned and the reports that have been written over time, they've been written by Senate committees. So we don't accept that. We also understand how the numbers work. The government has the numbers in the House, and it's not going to support the establishment of a joint select committee. So it wouldn't get up. That's my point: the only vehicle available to senators today to put in place proper, independent scrutiny is this Senate select committee. That is the only option available. A joint select committee will not get up. Aside from that, we don't think it is the best vehicle. We think the expertise is found in this chamber, with the processes available to the Senate. In terms of the expertise senators bring, I think we bring varied experiences. I deal with constituent matters all the time, and I imagine many of us in this place do. So we don't just come at this from a state point of view. People in the House and other senators who are not on this committee—and any senator can be a participating member—will be working very hard. My experience is that all of us have been extremely busy since this outbreak occurred, because we have been dealing with a very distressed community that is knocking on all of our doors. We have a role to play as civic leaders in providing the community with the support they need, albeit probably in a different way to what we would normally have done in the past. My expectation is that members of parliament are going to be extremely busy. The motion that I have moved is the only way that we will get scrutiny arrangements put in place, and the Senate should support that motion. 16:29 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I will contribute to this debate on the Greens amendment and indicate that the government will not be supporting the Greens amendment for very much the reasons outlined by Senator Gallagher. We welcome the scrutiny. We do believe there is a need for scrutiny. We understand and appreciate that, in these extraordinary times, the government has been required to make very significant decisions, and, as one of the senators mentioned earlier, there is no manual on how to deal with this crisis in the best possible way. We're making judgements every single day to the best of our ability, but it is appropriate that those judgements that we make are scrutinised and challenged to help us make even better decisions as we go along. So it is very important to have in place a committee of the type that is being proposed by Senator Gallagher to do this job. And let me say that it is entirely appropriate for this to be a Senate select committee. It is the Senate that has the tradition and the expertise in scrutinising the activities of government. It's the Senate that runs the Senate estimates committee process. It is the Senate that has got the committee scrutinising delegated legislation. The House doesn't have an estimates committee process. The House doesn't have a committee process scrutinising delegated legislation. I see this as being very much in the fine tradition of the Senate as it has developed over 120 years since Federation. It is, of course, appropriately open to all senators to participate. The Labor mover has ensured that every single senator is able to participate as a participating member of this committee. The Senate select committee to be known as the Select Committee on COVID-19, which will inquire into the Australian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and any related matters, has got an extremely broad-ranging brief. It has got all of the usual powers of Senate committees which are in full display during Senate estimates hearings or, indeed, during Senate committee inquiries more generally. Senator Patrick, our good friend and valued colleague from the great state of South Australia, is concerned about who he may or may not be able to call as witnesses. Let me tell you that you will have access to the full breadth of government, departmental and agency officials in the usual way that happens during the Senate estimates committee hearings, and we will continue to make ourselves available in the appropriate fashion. And, of course, you will continue to be able to ask questions on notice. You talk about responding flexibly to this situation that we find ourselves in. That is what we're doing. You will continue to be able to ask questions of ministers. We do have a longstanding process under our standing orders where you are able to ask questions and we are required, within fixed deadlines, to provide answers to these questions. I won't hold up the Senate much longer. I had hoped that, during my contribution, the bills in relation to the coronavirus economic response package might have made it to this chamber, but I thought I would just make a succinct contribution to the debate on this amendment for the interest of senators and those listening. The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm keeping an eagle eye out through the chamber, Senator Cormann. There being no other contributions, I will first put the amendment moved by Senator Waters. The motion is that the amendment moved by Senator Waters to the motion moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Question negatived. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Siewert, would you like to avail yourself of the— Senator Siewert e5z You obviously read my mind. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will then ask that the Journals and the Hansard record that the Australian Greens votes registered in favour of the amendment. Senator Patrick, you would like the same? Senator Patrick 144292 Yes, please. The PRESIDENT I0Q So recorded. I now put the motion as originally moved by Senator Gallagher. Question agreed to. Sitting suspended from 16:34 to 17:11 BILLS 33 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 33

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 33 17:12 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 33 17:12 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— CORONAVIRUS ECONOMIC RESPONSE PACKAGE OMNIBUS (MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2020 CORONAVIRUS ECONOMIC RESPONSE PACKAGE (PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS) BILL 2020 APPROPRIATIONS BILL (NO.5) 2019-20 APPROPRIATIONS BILL (NO.6) 2019-20 Today I introduce the Government's third tranche of measures responding to the economic impacts of the Coronavirus. As with the previous package of measures, this legislation adheres to the principles announced by the Prime Minister. They are targeted, temporary, scalable, and utilise our existing tax and transfer system. This package includes the $130 billion JobKeeper payment, which will support significantly affected businesses, not-for-profits and sole traders to help keep Australians in jobs. This historic wage subsidy will be available to around 6 million workers who will receive a flat payment of $1,500 per fortnight through their employer before tax, or approximately 70 per cent of the national median wage. This will help ensure the connections between employers and employees is maintained even through a period of hibernation. These Bills also make amendments to existing laws to give the Government flexibility to respond quickly to challenges posed by the Coronavirus outbreak and to extend existing support to those Australians who are most in need. Combined with the Government's previous actions, this totals $320 billion of economic support to Australian businesses, households and individuals affected by the Coronavirus outbreak to get them through to the other side and to put Australia in the best position possible to bounce back. 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, we can 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, whose that really need this flexibility right now. In order to manage a downturn in business caused by COVID-19, 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 COVIDD-19 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 businesses' operations. It further 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 COVIDD-19 crisis on the business. An employer will also be able 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 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 and serious penalties will apply to employers who misuse the provisions. The JobKeeper Payment The Government will provide financial support to businesses, not-for-profits and sole traders affected by the Coronavirus outbreak. Under this framework, the Government intends to 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 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 commenced 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 1999 to 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 Guarantee of Lending Act 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 child care sector The Government will assist families who are already struggling with the financial impact of the Coronavirus by updating the calculation method used at Child Care Subsidy Balancing for individuals who have changed their relationship status during the financial year. We will ensure that this cohort of families' Child Care Subsidy entitlements more closely reflects 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 program and the Additional Child Care 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, 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 Veterans We will ensure that payments and assistance for veterans and their dependents 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 dependents 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 Sharing This legislation will ensure the Government is equipped to respond to this unprecedented challenge with the best available information. Under this schedule, the ATO will temporarily be 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 currently is 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. Full details of these measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. This package of legislation also includes Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-20 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-20. The details of these Bills are set out in their accompanying explanatory memoranda. I commend these bills. 17:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important legislation today. This package of bills forming the government's third economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic is largely built around the $130 billion JobKeeper payment. To begin with, I'd like to acknowledge those workers who are keeping the place going—frontline workers providing the health response, workers in our supermarkets, tradies, cleaners, garbage collectors, truckies and public servants right around the country in both state and territory and federal governments who are all turning up to work every day to keep the rest of us at home or at home as much as we can be. It's very clear that in just four short months COVID-19 has really changed the world as we knew it and as we all understood it and how it operated. I don't think anyone could have predicted the virus, the extent of the virus, the challenges presented by the virus, or, indeed, the impacts it's having on the global economy, on individual countries, on individual cities and on all of us and our families. It's changed the way we live, the way we work, the way we communicate, the way we shop and the way we educate our children. So many of the things we thought were fixed and immovable have been upended and thrown into a world of uncertainty, and for some—way too many—with devastating consequences. The lines outside Centrelink, the calls to our offices, the emails and letters coming in outlining individual circumstances for individual businesses, local businesses, long-term businesses, all tell the stories of the economic reality of what happens when a busy, thriving economy is changed in just a few days. It is for these people that we are here today. COVID-19 touches all of us, not only in our jobs but personally—talking to the children about why they can't go to school and why they can't see their friends and family, and not being able to answer the questions that children most need us to, which are: 'When is it going to be back to normal?' and 'When will things get better?' None of us can answer those questions at this point in time other than to reassure that we know it will be one day. My sister, who I'm very proud of every day anyway, rises every morning to her job as the senior nurse on the ward that cares for COVID-19 patients. For 30 years she has tirelessly cared for people, often in the background but with dedication and professionalism, and today she finds herself right on the front line. You really can't get any closer than she is, providing care and compassion to those who fall sick and are hospitalised from this awful virus. She won't see her adult children or her grandchild or really any of us for some time, as she keeps herself away to ensure that the rest of us are safe. She and her colleagues are the bravest of the brave, and their fearlessness and dedication to their profession provides instruction to all of us. It is for my sister and her colleagues all around the country that we are here today. Compared to those on the front line, we have a relatively straightforward job to do here. We must pass these bills to support the economic response to COVID-19, just as we have with the previous packages. We will raise our concerns with aspects of the government's response, and we will move second reading amendments about those issues which we have raised publicly and on which the government, at this stage, has refused to budge. But we will not block these bills—despite them not being perfect and not being exactly as we would have designed them in government—because six million workers and their families are relying on us doing the right thing today. This third response brings the total financial support provided as part of the economic response to COVID-19 to over $300 billion. Throughout this time, over the last couple of months, Labor's priority has been to ensure we support the economy; protect jobs; help Australian workers, businesses, families and communities through this difficult time; and ensure that vulnerable Australians are supported. We have been supportive of the government measures and we have been working constructively in a bipartisan manner. This is the same when it comes to the JobKeeper payment before us today. We'll be ensuring that it passes through the parliament today, because a wage subsidy was something that Labor had called for the government to introduce. In fact, I think last time we were here, when we were debating the second economic response package, we were calling on the government to consider a wage subsidy to make sure that employers were in a position to retain workers. The JobKeeper payment will provide $1,500 per fortnight for every eligible employee. These employees have to be full time, part time or casuals employed on a regular and systemic basis for more than 12 months as at 1 March 2020 and be at least 16 years old. They also have to be an Australian citizen, a holder of a permanent visa or a special category subclass 444 visa holder as at 1 March 2020. Employers, including not-for-profits, will be eligible for the subsidy if their turnover has fallen, or will likely fall, by 30 per cent or more, for businesses with an annual turnover of less than $1 billion, or by 50 per cent for those with a turnover of over $1 billion and not subject to the bank levy. There's a carve-out for charities where they only have to show a turnover reduction of 15 per cent. The legislation before us sets out the mechanism by which the Australian Taxation Office can administer the JobKeeper payment program. Rules will be made by the Treasurer, setting out eligibility details and details of the administration of the program. The fact that these details are in rules means that there is significant flexibility regarding how the program will operate into the future, and the Treasurer is able to widen eligibility as required. The tax commissioner will also have significant discretion in the administration of the program and will publish detailed guidance for businesses, including how to self-assess a reduction in turnover, how alternative tests may be applied to assess eligibility and how consolidated groups of companies can independently assess isolated entities. It must be made clear that our support for the JobKeeper payment does not change the fact that Labor has concerns with the measures—namely with the groups of people who will miss out on the valuable support offered through this program. And we're not talking about a small cohort either. One point one million casual workers will be left out because they've worked for their current employer for less than a year. This includes a large number of casual teachers, many of whom have been reaching out to their MPs over the last couple of weeks; temporary migrant workers who are not eligible for JobKeeper, jobseeker payment or the coronavirus supplement; local government workers who have been stood down; and charities, who, while the government did act recently to lower the turnover reduction threshold to 15 per cent, may still miss out because of the grants they receive. Disability service providers may miss out, as may universities and non-government schools, as my colleague the member for Sydney outlined in the other place today. Many of my colleagues in this place and the other place have been inundated with correspondence from people concerned about how their individual circumstance may mean that they miss out on the JobKeeper payment. Whilst we will be raising these issues in our second reading amendments—and they have, of course, been raised in the other place prior to this debate—we do acknowledge that there is significant flexibility provided to the Treasurer to widen eligibility for the JobKeeper payment, and indeed the Treasurer himself acknowledged that in question time today. We know—and all of those out there who are doing it really tough and falling between the gaps know—that there is nothing preventing the Treasurer and government from providing JobKeeper to these groups other than their current refusal to do so. They could act and ensure that more jobs are protected. We know the Prime Minister has said that all jobs are essential jobs. This gives them the opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, because this would ensure that more people are brought into a scheme that protects more jobs. These concerns that I have raised, and that my colleagues will raise in the second reading debate, add to the issues that we have about the government's economic response in general, which include the issue of residential renters; the early release of funds from superannuation accounts, which we believe risks undermining retirement incomes and should have only been used as a last resort, not the first stop; and the speed and urgency with which the economic support is going out. But as our leader, Mr Albanese, has said today in the other place, despite our concerns, we will deal with this legislation today. We will not engage in a situation where the legislation could get blocked between chambers. That is not an option. The six million people who are waiting for this wage subsidy and the businesses that employ them require us to pass this legislation today. Unfortunately, our amendments did not succeed in the House, and the government have shown in a very clear and concrete way that they are not prepared to support the reasonable amendments that we put forward. As such, it's very clear that, if we were to pass amendments in this chamber, they would return to the House and we would get ourselves in a situation which I don't think the Australian people looking on us today would expect us to engage in. They want their parliament to act in their interests and the interests of all of those people who have been affected. We've done that with the first and second package, and we will do that with the third. I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that this legislation gives the Treasurer extraordinary powers to include those not currently eligible for the JobKeeper Payment; and (b) 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". This amendment goes to the extraordinary powers that the Treasurer has been given to essentially set the rules on eligibility for the JobKeeper payment and calls on the Treasurer to use this power under the legislation to ensure more jobs are protected and that struggling but otherwise viable businesses and organisations are able to access the JobKeeper payment. The power is there; the capacity is there. At the moment the will is not there, but we urge the Treasurer and the government to use this power and to ensure that more people are offered the support that they are after. I would just like to make a couple of comments around the appropriation bills, which we support as part of this package. We do think it's important that the supplementation is provided for agencies that have been inundated and those that have lost revenue and are providing a high level of quality service to the people of Australia through the departments. Today the bills seek to appropriate about $650-odd million across a range of departments that are being affected one way or another by the coronavirus and indeed other important payments to the non-government sector to respond to issues of increased demand around domestic violence and food bank programs. We do support those. Also, with the $40 billion advance to the finance minister provision, we accept the government's point that it may need access to those funds earlier than what would normally be available through the financial year and that this access to those funds should be made available from an earlier date—I think from April. We believe that is a sensible approach, and we support the government's amendment to allow that to happen with the conditions that have been placed on that from the last debate, which are working well. In conclusion, I think the job for us today is very clear. Whilst this scheme is not perfect, it is a big deal. It is something that we had called for, and we are pleased that the government has responded in this way. There are too many people with uncertain futures. There are too many businesses worried about how to get through the next few months. And this parliament, through the passage of this legislation today, can offer them a bit of light in what has been a very difficult and challenging time. Perhaps this is the most important job we'll do for a little while. It is important, and we need to stand up to the challenge, because workers right around this country are doing that every day. As the world has changed, our lives have changed. Restrictions have come in, and we need to play our bit there too. The sooner we can deal with this, the sooner we can get back to our constituents and start dealing with the very real day-to-day problems that many people are having and encourage everyone to stay home, to stay safe, and to keep other people safe. 17:27 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak to the package of coronavirus bills that have come before us today. This is not an easy time for anyone. I'd again like to acknowledge and commend the immense efforts of our nurses, our doctors, our paramedics, our cleaners, our pharmacists, our aged-care workers and our supermarket staff—all of those who are helping us get through this most challenging time. We recognise the immense risk that healthcare workers in particular are taking to save others, and we will be pushing to make sure that they've got the personal protective equipment and the ICU beds that they need to tackle this crisis. We'll be proposing changes to allow healthcare workers to access workers compensation if they test positive for coronavirus, without having to prove that they contracted it at work. Our hearts go out to all those who have lost loved ones, to people who have the virus and to those who have family members or friends who are unwell. To families and friends who are separated by isolation and those who are struggling without the social interactions that usually sustain them—again, we are thinking of you and we are you. In these uncertain times, the financial difficulties and anxiety continue to put a strain on support services. So I'd like to acknowledge the social workers, the mental health support teams, the frontline domestic and family violence workers, the child support agencies and others who are working tirelessly to keep people safe in this pressure-cooker environment. Experience in other countries shows that these services, sadly, can expect to be stretched for many months to come. And whilst I welcome the announcements made to date for increased family violence crisis accommodation, support for referral services and a funding reprieve for the crucial WESNET safe phones program, it's still not enough to meet increased demand and keep everybody safe from family and domestic violence. I urge the government to provide the significant extra funding that's needed to allow frontline family violence services to actually keep up with demand and make sure no-one is turned away. The Greens also acknowledge teachers, who've borne the brunt of policy uncertainty for weeks and who'll spend their Easter break working on ways to deliver classes remotely in term 2, often whilst homeschooling their own children at the same time. We acknowledge the early childhood education workers, who have been at the forefront of our collective response to this pandemic. This crisis has highlighted the essential link between accessible and free child care and workforce participation, and the Greens will push for child care to remain free once this pandemic has concluded. But we also recognise that the risks to those workers are immense, and we will continue to insist that early childhood teachers have options to protect their health and have access to appropriate personal protective equipment. The Greens would also like to acknowledge the millions of parents who are struggling to work from home whilst homeschooling their kids and mediating between warring siblings trapped indoors, caring for elderly relatives and negotiating changes to shared care arrangements whilst maintaining their own mental health. As the Greens spokesperson on women and a proud feminist, I would also like to reiterate my colleague Senator Faruqi's observation at the last parliamentary sitting that this is also a gendered crisis. Women are disproportionately represented in the frontline roles needed to respond to this crisis. Eighty per cent of our healthcare workers are women, 70 per cent of pathology services are provided by women, and the majority of teachers, carers, cleaners and social service providers are women. Women are disproportionately represented in the short-term casual roles that are currently ineligible for the JobKeeper support, especially those in the hospitality, healthcare and retail sectors. They are also disproportionately at risk of domestic and family violence whilst in isolation with an abusive partner, and women will, sadly, also bear a disproportionate load of the caring required to see us through this crisis. We will be proposing amendments today that address some of those issues, but as a society we have a lot to do to address this gender imbalance in the future. After a summer of bushfires and now a pandemic, it's clearer than ever that Australians are all in this together, and we need to support each other. On transparency, I want to touch on the importance of democratic institutions in a crisis. Some decisions need to be made efficiently, and decisive actions need to be taken in an emergency, but the scale of this crisis and the response that's required means we need more transparency and not less. We need more oversight and more debate to make sure that we're making public health decisions that are informed by the best expert health advice and to make sure that we're targeting funds to those who need them the most. This can make sure we come out the other side of this crisis in the strongest, fairest and most equitable and sustainable position possible. The Greens support the oversight committee that was established earlier today, although we are disappointed that our amendments, which would have allowed the Prime Minister and ministers in the other place to be called, were not supported. But we also believe that parliament should continue to sit during this crisis, and we've called on the government to find ways to make that happen. Critically, given the limited oversight that's available outside of parliament, we must make sure that any regulatory actions enabled by these bills are strictly confined, and I'll be moving an amendment to restrict the rule-making powers given to relevant ministers. The country's response to this crisis will be judged on how well we managed the health risks but also on how well we helped those who needed help to survive in this difficult period. Whilst we welcome the increase in Newstart, now called jobseeker allowance—something which my colleague Senator Siewert has been championing for 10 years and which we probably wouldn't have seen happen without the efforts of her and the sector—we will be fighting to make that increase permanent once this pandemic is over. From the outset of this pandemic, we have said that a wage subsidy was the most equitable way to offer security to the people who are most affected, and we're pleased that the government has finally come around and supported this intent behind the JobKeeper scheme. But we are concerned that those schemes still fail to cover a number of critical and vulnerable sectors of our society: casual workers, migrant workers and international students, and people receiving the disability support payment and the carer payment. So my colleagues and I will be proposing a number of amendments to plug those holes in the safety net and make sure that no-one is left behind. On casual workers, every job that we're able to keep through this crisis is a job we don't have to re-create when we get through the other side. When large-scale events were first being shut down, the arts and hospitality industries were the first to ring the alarm bells. They warned that this crisis wouldn't put just their jobs in jeopardy but would risk the stability of their entire industry. Festivals, concerts, music halls and theatre productions have been shut for weeks. These closures have pushed arts workers to the brink, but, despite being some of the worst off, they're getting nothing from today's package. We've heard from a flood of people that have been working in the service industry for years but have been shut out of the support because they've recently moved jobs. By limiting the jobseeker and JobKeeper payments to people who've worked for their current employer for more than a year, the government has shown they don't understand the modern workforce. If they'd spoken to young people or people who work in hospitality or arts or the tourism industry, they'd know that many industries rely on seasonal and irregular work. Bartenders, tour guides and even teachers are now expected to move through several workplaces and are just as important to the success of a workplace whether they've been there for two months or two years. The arts, hospitality and tourism sectors have high levels of seasonal unemployment, and this package has done nothing for them. My colleague will be moving an amendment to address that and we hope to receive support, although sadly we are not expecting that to occur. Last time we were here, the government made a mistake by refusing to accept the Greens amendments to include wage and job guarantees in their stimulus legislation. We acknowledge that they have now redressed that, but today they are making a mistake by leaving over one million casual workers behind. On temporary visas, over a million people have chosen to make Australia home, helping make our country stronger by contributing their skills and paying taxes here. They've been contributing like any other person here, but, when they've needed help, this government has turned its back on them. Many work in sectors that are essential to our survival during this time: health, aged and disability care, agriculture and child care. The government has made changes to visa arrangements in order to gather a workforce to help our farmers, acknowledging that these visa holders fill a critical workforce gap. Despite this, the government refuses to extend eligibility for JobKeeper to them. Many of these folk are also ineligible for Medicare, and that is a very scary thought during a global pandemic. How does the government think these people will get by? They aren't eligible for any support for being out of work, they can't get any support to stay in work, they've got bills piling up and, with international flights being cancelled across the board, many will find it difficult or impossible to go back home. This isn't just a betrayal of the workers who put their faith in Australia; it's a betrayal of the businesses that choose to employ them. If an employer has chosen to employ migrant workers, today the government is punishing them for that decision. This will particularly harm the service and hospitality industries. Universities have also been left out in the cold. Many universities these days rely on a casualised workforce. They are trying their best to get through this crisis but they've been hit for years by declining government funding. They've had their enrolment numbers hit hard through bans on international travel and they're now being told by the government that their employees aren't worth keeping on. What an insult. Universities are incredibly important and should be protected. They taught the scientists who are working around the clock to find a vaccine and save people's lives. And they're not only places of learning but also play a massive role in our communities. Think of the important community radio stations that are run out of universities, of the fact-checking units that keep us all accountable, and the contributions that they make to local business and community programs. These institutions will provide vital recovery opportunities from this crisis. We're going to need highly skilled workers to pull us out of this recession, and without universities we're going to find it a lot tougher to find them. Under the JobKeeper scheme, charities are only eligible for the subsidy if they estimate that their turnover has fallen by 15 per cent relative to a comparable period. And while this helps some charities, those that rely on large government grants won't be able to demonstrate the 15 per cent decline in revenue if tied grants are included. That's why my colleague will be moving an amendment to address that. Now, on to disability support payments and carers. The COVID-19 supplement has been a welcome relief for many recipients of income support, but two key groups continue to miss out—carers and those on disability support pensions—and yet the living costs that they face are higher in these self-isolation days. Instead of the extra $550 a fortnight that has allowed so many Australians to be pulled from poverty, many carers and DSP recipients are still living with the threat of eviction, hunger and worrying about keeping the lights on. The Minister for Families and Social Services was given extraordinary powers in the last sitting of parliament to extend the supplement to other categories of income support recipients. With the stroke of a pen she could help DSP recipients and carers survive this crisis, and the Greens urge her to do just that. On renters, housing is a human right. Keeping a roof over people's heads during this crisis is surely the most fundamental thing that we could do. The government can't tell people to stay at home, but it looks the other way when this crisis puts people in a financial situation so tenuous that they don't know if they can pay the rent. The Greens have heard from so many people who've been threatened with eviction by their landlord in the same week that they've also lost their job. We've also heard stories of landlords who've reduced or waived rents, and we commend that, but leaving it to the goodwill of individual landlords is not enough. National cabinet met yesterday and again failed to come up with a national plan to support tenants. We've had broad aspirational statements but no legislation from this government. We need a solution. Our Greens' colleagues in several state parliaments have secured temporary bans on eviction to give tenants security during this crisis. That's fantastic, but we need a national eviction ban and we need rent holidays for tenants who are struggling to meet payments during this crisis. This crisis has highlighted the extent to which Australia's safety net has been picked away at for 30 years. We've decimated the public health system and the social security system, we've become over-reliant on so-called corporate responsibility, and we've hollowed out the manufacturing sector. That means we weren't as well set up to face this crisis as we could and should have been. In just a few short weeks we've seen the beginnings of a stimulus that could set us up for better things and play to our collective strengths. We've seen the importance of a strong social safety net, and it's my hope that the structures that we are rapidly rebuilding in this crisis will be retained. It's a chance to think how we want this country to go forward, and hope to dream for a better future. We are all in this together, so let's not leave anyone behind. I will be moving the Australian Greens second reading amendment on sheet 8950, which has been circulated in the chamber in my name. This amendment would ensure that all casuals, people on temporary visas, those in the gig economy and those in universities and charities can fully access JobKeeper. I want to flag that we've heard some statements by the government that they won't be countenancing any amendments. Well, shame on them. That is the job of this parliament: to scrutinise this legislation, to seek to improve it, to make sure that no-one is left behind. That is precisely what the Greens' amendments will be doing today, and we urge folk in the chamber to give them serious consideration and to act on them—if not today, then at least to use those discretionary powers which various ministers have been granted under these laws to close those gaps, to genuinely not leave anyone behind. If we are indeed all in this together, then that's the least we can do. 17:42 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales We're here today to help save Australian jobs, to save Australian households and families, to save the Australian economy and the Australian community. Today is not about catchy names or slogans; it's not about political pointscoring or personal backslapping. Today, just like nurses and police, childcare workers and supermarket workers, we're just doing our jobs so that Australians can keep theirs. Labor supports this JobKeeper legislation because it is the right thing to do. JobKeeper is a wage subsidy. It's a policy that Labor, the union movement, the business sector and many groups in our society argued for long before the government took action. If it weren't for those who called for a wage subsidy for Australian workers, we would not be here today. When asked about a wage subsidy on Sky News on 27 March, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, ruled it out. Now, just 12 days later, we are legislating a wage subsidy to keep Australians employed. We are pleased that the government have listened. They have worked co-operatively with the trade union movement. They have listened to the business community. They have listened to the pleas of millions of Australians who are losing their jobs. Our intention throughout this crisis has always been to work constructively with the government, to highlight emerging issues and, where possible, suggest solutions. The JobKeeper payment will see a flat wage subsidy of $1,500 a fortnight for six months for employees of businesses that have had a significant revenue downturn. Labor's priority is to protect jobs; to help Australian workers, businesses and families through this difficult time; and to ensure that vulnerable Australians are supported. That's why we will support this legislation and facilitate its passage through the parliament today. We say to Australians: we are on your side because we are all in this fight together. Now, Labor will continue to be supportive, constructive and responsible throughout this crisis when it comes to addressing both the health and the economic responses. Where Labor have had concerns we have raised them. We have raised them today about charities, about local government workers, about university workers, about casual workers who have been with their employer for less than 12 months and about temporary visa holders. Indeed, Labor in the other place, in the House of Representatives, moved a substantive motion seeking to have these workers incorporated in the JobKeeper program. The government voted against that amendment. The government deliberately voted against our amendment to keep those workers in the JobKeeper program. I say to those on the crossbench who are going to move amendments later: I understand your desire to do so, but understand this: you are engaging in an exercise in futility with a government that has already made its position crystal clear. It will not support those amendments. We want to see the JobKeeper legislation, which will see some six million Australian workers get the direct wage subsidy that they desperately need, the certainty that they need, delivered as soon as possible. We cannot risk engaging in some kind of repetitive bounce-back around the chambers with a government that has already made clear that it will not support these amendments. I want to turn in my capacity as shadow minister for home affairs, immigration and citizenship to the issue of temporary visa holders. Let me say up-front that I actually agree with the Prime Minister when he says that temporary visa holders in Australia should go home during this health crisis. He is right. I'm sure many of those temporary visa holders would like to go home during this crisis. The reality is that many of the 1.6 million visa holders in Australia—I dare say most of them—are not able to go home right now. They are not able to go home because borders have been closed. They are not able to go home because international airlines have been shut down. So the reality is most temporary visa holders are now stuck here in Australia. No matter how often the Prime Minister says they should go home, the reality is most of them simply cannot. That means that they are here in Australia for the duration of this health crisis. Yesterday I had a Zoom call with migrants living in Australia on temporary visas. These are people who have jobs or who have recently lost jobs because of the coronavirus crisis. One of them said to me that they feel like they are currently living through the certainty of the uncertainty. Well, that's what we're all living through right now. We are all facing this crisis together. I want to acknowledge that, of the 1.6 million visa holders—that figure includes New Zealanders—the government has, through this package, given 444 visa holders, people from New Zealand, access to JobKeeper. I thank them for that. It is a position Labor has been advocating. But, regardless of where visa holders come from or what visa they might be on, these people are members of our community. They're our neighbours, our co-workers, our friends. These people are like you and I. They work hard, they pay taxes, they are building lives and relationships here in Australia, but 1.1 million of them are not eligible for JobKeeper payments. Many of these people will have been in Australia for years. Some of them will have built their own businesses. The reality is this virus is not going to check anyone's visa status before it infects them. All of us in the country are vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus. A survey undertaken by Unions NSW of over 5,000 respondents showed that 70 per cent of temporary migrants in Australia are now unemployed as a direct impact of COVID-19. One in two temporary migrants are currently living off savings but expect these to run out within a matter of weeks. A staggering 43 per cent of temporary migrants are already skipping meals on a regular basis, while 98.7 per cent of temporary migrants receive no form of government support, and only 1.5 per cent had accessed support from a charity. We acknowledge the government has also listened to another of Labor's requests—that is, to give temporary visa holders early access to their superannuation. I acknowledge in the chamber here that Senator Hume, the assistant minister for superannuation, has made this change. It's a position that Stephen Jones, my colleague in the other place, had been advocating. This is not a position Labor would normally advocate for—early access to super—but, given the large number of people on temporary visas in Australia and the absence of other support, this is a fair and equitable proposition. But, despite these small steps, this is not enough. If the 1.1 million visa holders in Australia who don't have access to JobKeeper—who don't have access to jobseeker either—are not able to access any form of income support, they're going to be forced to keep working or keep seeking work. They risk homelessness. They risk impoverishment. If they cannot self-isolate, that puts every public health measure we are currently enacting at risk. It is no good for the Australian community to be practising self-isolation if we have over a million people living in the country who cannot self-isolate because they lack income support or access to medical testing or treatment. We risk prolonging this crisis if we ignore what is happening to over a million people currently living in this community. Today's legislation does give the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, broad discretion to expand JobKeeper to other classes of workers by regulation. And I would say this to the Treasurer: it is in our national interest for you to do this. It is in our public health interest for you to expand JobKeeper to temporary migrant workers. The Treasurer will be able to, with a stroke of his pen, make this change. We don't have to recall parliament; we don't have to have another piece of legislation passed. This discretionary power is similar to the one that was given to the minister for social services, Anne Ruston, at the last sitting of parliament when it came to jobseeker payments. She is able, with a stroke of her pen, to incorporate temporary visa holders into the social services system. Following the passage of this legislation today, the only two people standing in the way of temporary visa holders being able to access income support and social services support are the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and the minister for social services, Anne Ruston. They have been given extraordinary powers by this parliament in this extraordinary and unprecedented crisis, and we encourage them for the sake of Australia's national interest to use those powers. Migrants, both newly arrived and permanently settled, have stepped up to support the broader Australian community during this crisis. Colombo Social, a Sri Lankan restaurant in Newtown in my state of New South Wales, provides employment for asylum seekers and supports their integration into Australia. The restaurant, of course, is now closed, but they're keeping the kitchen open to help feed vulnerable communities in Sydney, providing up to 2,000 meals a day free of charge. I've seen the Sikh community—Turbans 4 Australia they call themselves—on the streets of our capital, delivering hot meals and hampers. As the immigration minister himself said on the weekend, there are 8,000 skilled medical professionals on temporary visas, helping fight the coronavirus on the frontline. This includes thousands of international student nurses on visas, as well as nurses on working holiday-maker visas, who've had their visa requirements relaxed by the government so they can work as nurses after Labor called for this to happen. The irony here is almost grotesque, though. We have thousands of temporary migrants working on the front line of our health system to keep Australians as safe and well as possible during this COVID-19 crisis. But if those very same temporary migrant workers fell sick themselves, what kind of support would they get from Australia? Would they get income support to self-isolate? Would they get access to Medicare, medical assessment and treatment? It is grotesque to consider the fact that we are relying on temporary migrant workers to help us through this crisis but we are not giving them the support that they need to be part of our community and to be included in the measures we are all taking—the extraordinary measures—to keep our community and our economy safe. Like so many actions by this government, we have been frustrated that they failed to have a comprehensive plan to manage the return to this country of those Australians who are stranded overseas, as well as to assist temporary migrants to depart. My colleague Senator Wong has been encouraging the government to deploy Qantas and Virgin to bring Australians stuck overseas back home. I wrote to the minister for immigration on 20 March to say: 'What a good idea. Why don't you use the outbound legs of those flights to help temporary migrants have affordable options to depart Australia before the brunt of this crisis hits us?' Regrettably, the government has chosen to bury its head in the sand. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs and indeed the minister for social services in this chamber today can cry out all they like that temporary visa migrants can go home but, when international borders are closed and there are no international airline flights, to tell them to go home is simply futile. The reality is many of the 1.6 million temporary visa holders in Australia are trapped here. Putting in place a plan to help temporary migrants depart Australia should not be beyond the government. Rescuing Australian citizens trapped overseas should not either. And supporting those people who are trapped here to keep Australia's public health as safe as possible should be a sensible measure this government takes up. I'll conclude on this point: just as Labor is committing to helping all Australians, we're committed to scrutinising the government's response to the COVID-19 crisis. We will do that in the newly established Senate select committee chaired by Senator Gallagher to ensure that all Australians are being protected during this crisis—indeed, that all people in Australia are being protected during this crisis. I look forward to being a member of the committee and working with my colleagues, the crossbench and the members opposite alike. We're here today because this crisis has ground our economy, our community and our way of life to a halt. Australians are resilient, but at times they look to their government, they look to their parliament, for help. This is exactly what this package does. The measure of a society is how it treats the most vulnerable in its community. This package, while it is flawed, will help millions of Australians who are incredibly vulnerable right now. Labor is very pleased that the government has taken up the recommendation to have a direct wage subsidy. This is a significant moment in Australian history. It's a significant move by this government, and we acknowledge it. It comes after significant lobbying by the Australian trade union movement, the Labor Party, the business community and civil society, and we're pleased the government have listened. We will continue to work together to fight through this health and economic crisis as Australians, because the livelihood and the lives of all Australians depend upon it. As I conclude, I foreshadow I will be moving the second reading amendment circulated in my name. 17:57 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss our people's health and safety, the security of our national economy and our national economic recovery in the near future and the long term, because no-one is discussing the key issue, and One Nation has solutions. I remind people of government's three primary roles: to protect life, protect property and protect freedom. Importantly, in democracies, those governing do so only with the permission of the people governed, and those governing are responsible to the people. I will in this speech discuss a former prime minister who I had respected until I did my research. I want to thank everyone who is caring for us and keeping us safe, including healthcare workers, police, defence, emergency workers and everyone serving others, including helping to supply and feed us, provide electricity generation, cleaners, garbage collection, water supply and many more. Many of us feel gutted that this year will be the first time Anzac Day public commemorations have been called off. This illustrates the seriousness of the threat we face. Firstly, health and safety: this must be every government's primary focus. There is no manual on dealing with COVID-19, so while I empathise with government's challenge, people want answers. People are feeling confused, afraid and concerned. Some feel lost, grieving for those dying and there is grief for our country. Some people are angry. Many are still living in disbelief. Why? It is because people want to know what has to be done, why it has to be done, how long before it's over and what it will cost—financial, social, personal, mental and emotional. Remember, we have to pay these bills. People have a right to know the fair dinkum facts, and right now many people are, like me, in the dark or plagued with uncertainty. Two and a half weeks ago in this place I praised the success of East Asian nations in combatting COVID-19, particularly Taiwan and South Korea. Their focus is on people's health and safety. Both are democracies, and their governments provide strong, clear leadership. The people trust those governments because they used facts; instituted rigorous widespread testing of body temperature and virus infection; relied on data; and had solid processes and systems with medical supplies and facilities. Both those nations quickly arrested the virus and, instead of isolating everyone, they quickly and rigorously isolated the infected and vulnerable, allowing the majority of healthy people to continue working. This is their lesson to us; they acted decisively to make health their first priority, minimising disturbance to their economies. Western nations, though, have tried to balance health and the economy, and as a result both have been compromised. Australians are asking serious questions: Why did it take so long for the government to publicly discuss modelling, as it pretended to do yesterday, yet not release the modelling? Why did the modellers release the draft version separately yet not release the model? Why did the government not discuss the underlying assumptions, including infection, transmission and mortality rates? Why did the government not discuss the variables modelled? Without knowing that, we can make no conclusions. Why did the government not disclose the modellers' results? Did the government gather data and facts from successful nations like Taiwan and South Korea? If so, what did it learn? Modelling is often flawed, yet, in this case, doesn't failure to get the data or failure to model mean acceptance of needless deaths? When did state and federal health ministers last get together to scenario-plan the effects and management of a virus pandemic? Have they ever? Have they considered their interaction with border security and who to allow into our country from planes and ships? Did they involve the hospitals and medical colleges? Data suggests Australia's testing for the virus is narrow and well below the world's best per capita. Why is the government's data on the number of cases continually revised, with dramatic changes to its graph? Are casualties and deaths from flu and pneumonia, here and overseas, being reported as being from COVID-19? How many people will die with the virus compared with how many people will die from the virus? In some nations, are deaths inflated? What is the government's plan for treatment using hydroxychloroquine, which is showing amazing results in New York and elsewhere, or ivermectin, which has been 100 per cent effective in Monash University's in vitro test? What is the plan for mental health issues? Everyday Australians want to know: How long will I be working from home? When can we get back to work and school? When will we be safe from this virus? I now turn to the Chinese communist government, which harmed the Chinese people and people worldwide. It hid the outbreak, suppressed the news of the virus, and punished the doctors who wanted to inform and prepare the world. That meant the virus spread rapidly around the world. What will it do now to people in poorer countries—Africa, India? Instead of protecting its people, the Chinese communist government neglected, controlled and punished them. Worse, in January the United Nations World Health Organization spread the communist government's lies that there is no human-to-human transmission of the virus. Then, in March, the UN World Health Organization said the time to act had been two months earlier, in January. The World Health Organization: gutless, bumbling, incompetent, hopeless, dishonest and inherently corrupt, just like the whole UN. This virus needs to be renamed 'the Chinese Communist Party-UN virus'. The Chinese Communist Party and the UN need to be held accountable. Compare the Chinese communist government with Taiwan's democratic government. Taiwan's 24 million people responded freely, and, as of today, Taiwan has had just five deaths. Freedom works, providing the government serves the people. With freedom come responsibility and self-control—always far superior to imposed control. The communists gave us the virus; democratic Taiwan gave us medical equipment. Now let's turn to our fragile economy. People expect governments to lead and they expect leaders to have a plan based on solid data and facts. Economies are living organisms comprised of families. Economies depend on human interaction. Isolate people, and economies wither. So what is the plan for bringing back our economy? What are the government's trigger points for changing the strategy from isolating everyone to wider testing and then isolating only the sick and vulnerable so the healthy majority can return to interacting, producing, exchanging and getting back to work, like they have done in Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore? The government's shutdown is a ticking time bomb. It is necessary but it is a ticking time bomb. Humanity needs security, connection, family and friends. The worst thing we can do to a person, after all, is to take their job from them. I note for now that this bill needs to be structured as an open cheque to the government to ensure the flexibility to support people. This crisis has highlighted a huge gap in our country's security: shortages of critical equipment, like basic medical supplies, and, worse, an inability to manufacture medical equipment. Cars and many other goods that we once made ourselves are now imported. Why? Because the Whitlam Labor government signed the UN's Lima declaration in 1975, and the Fraser Liberal-National government ratified it the very next year to transfer manufacturing to Third World countries. Worse still, we have an inability in Australia to grow our own food. We were exporters of basic food commodities, like rice and wheat; now we cannot get enough rice, and, due to the virus, Vietnam has blocked exports to us to ensure supplies for its own people. There is a shortage of durum wheat for pasta. Why? Because the Howard government, under the guidance of Liberal senator Robert Hill, Nationals Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, in 1996 stole farmers' inalienable right to use the land they bought. And to avoid paying compensation they colluded with Queensland Nationals Premier Rob Borbidge and, later, Labor Premier Peter Beattie and New South Wales Labor state minister Bob Carr. Why? For the Howard government to comply with the UN's Kyoto protocol. The UN: let's get out! Who buys our farms? The Chinese communist government does, despite banning Australians from buying Chinese properties. What about water? Farmers lost their water as a result of the Turnbull-Howard Water Act 2007, which, according to world-renowned John Briscoe, took the world's best national water policy, under the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, and made it the worst, under the Turnbull-Howard Murray-Darling Basin Authority. How? By infecting it with politics, UN rules and regulations. The UN? Exit! This week yet another farmer in New South Wales, Tanya Ginns, asked us to please help her against the government, the global corporates and the UN—our own farmers asking for help against the government!—so she and her family can produce food for our people. Then there's energy. Never before have humans materially advanced so quickly as in the last 170 years, and it has been due to the ever-decreasing real price of energy—electricity, oil and gas. It's the miracle that raised living standards, gave us independence from weather and eliminated famine. It gave us longer, healthier, safer, easier, more productive, more comfortable and more secure lifestyles. We are the world's second-largest exporter of coal and the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. Yet we now have high domestic energy costs. In just a few decades we went from the world's cheapest electricity, thanks to our clean, high-energy coal, to the world's most expensive electricity, thanks to the Howard government's policies based on the UN lies and fraud. Eight years after John Howard was booted from office he admitted in Britain that on climate science he was agnostic. He had no science, yet he destroyed all these industries. We now export our coal to China so it can produce cheap electricity, because China, sensibly, uses hydro, coal and nuclear, the cheapest forms of electricity generation. The Chinese already produce about eight times more coal than Australia, and they're rapidly increasing their production. India is furiously increasing its production. Why? Because they know that cheap energy is the key to productivity, productivity is the key to wealth generation and wealth generation is the key to raising everyone's living standards. At the same time, China exports wind turbines and solar panels to us, which wreck our environment and steal our precious farmland. We subsidise Chinese companies to install these inefficient monstrosities which raise our electricity costs, destroy reliability of supply and drive our manufacturers and jobs overseas. Why? In our renewal plans this must be reviewed and dumped. Mind you, it provides entertainment, with Barnaby Joyce and Senator Canavan first speaking clearly as climate sceptics, then contorting and converting to speaking for the UN's climate rort, and now backflipping to copy One Nation's stance. Although they now speak like us, they still vote like Trent Zimmerman, Zali Steggall and the Greens. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Roberts, may I remind you to refer to others in the other place by their correct titles. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Despite the recent drought, farmers with water could not afford to pay for electricity to pump irrigation water to grow fodder—in a drought—because of our electricity prices. China and the UN are doing this. Exit the UN. Let's look at seafood: we have the world's largest continental shelf fishing zone, yet we import almost three-quarters of the seafood we consume. Why? Because we have 36 per cent of the world's marine parks, which previous ministers, like Labor's Mr Tony Burke and Liberal Senator Robert Hill handed to the UN as World Heritage areas, all now managed under UN rules. And who is our largest supplier of imported seafood? China, with its tiny coast line and 56 times more mouths to feed compared with us. China and the UN. Exit the UN. In Queensland we have 31 major federal and state polices gutting farming. As Charleville farmer Dan McDonald says, with every farm input now completely under regulatory control, farming is nationalised. We have lost our food security, our manufacturing, our farmers' land use, our water, our energy security. We have lost our productive capacity, our ability to produce. We have lost our economic resilience, our ability to rebound, all through globalism, in the name of interdependency—the corporate elite benefiting from our bureaucrats' gift of farming land and water and benefiting from owning Chinese manufacturing. Interdependency is a con. It means we are dependent on others. We are dependent. This virus crisis is exposing a huge gap in our security, from face masks to food to loss of our independence. We voters have allowed our governments, since the formation of the UN—especially since 1996—to sacrifice our country's productive capacity, our economic resilience and our economic independence and security. Did you elect UN bureaucrats to be in charge? I didn't. Our national debt is now around $600 billion—in Queensland around $90 billion—before this package. Members of parliament and senior federal public servants need to share the burden: stop the perks like flying business class, cut our superannuation rates and reject or defer salary increases. Let's look to the future. What will the world look like after the Prime Minister's quaintly named six-month hibernation? In just three to four months, what will people be doing? When we emerge from hibernation and look around, will we as a nation feel supported and excited, or depleted, hungry and angry? We need two plans: one for now and one for bringing back our productive capacity and economic resilience. One Nation will return with a detailed analysis. When this is over, though, everyday Australians of all backgrounds expect to see—and deserve to be—a healthy and secure people—a proud, independent Australia that reflects our lifestyle, culture, values, freedom, democracy and potential. All people want is a fair go and governments we can trust to work for our country. 18:12 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I want to explain what today means for casual workers—casual workers in sectors like hospitality, where around 80 per cent of the workforce is casual. Last month, as we all know, the hospitality sector in this country essentially shut down overnight. This is a sector that employs a huge number of Australians—nearly a million workers. It employs permanents as well as casuals: women and men, young and old, people just starting out and people with families to support. It employs Australians and it employs people who've come from overseas to work and study for a few years in the hope of making a better life. For so many hospo workers, the JobKeeper package is great news. It is because of the work of the union movement and Labor working together and lobbying for this wage subsidy that hundreds of thousands of workers can have their jobs and incomes protected in this sector, along with many millions more workers around the country. This bill offers hope. Because of unions and Labor, hundreds of thousands of permanent hospo workers will feel safer in coming months than they feel right now, today. And for casual workers who have been with the same employer for 12 months, today's bill offers real hope too. But let's face it: sectors like hospitality have been built on the backs of casual workers and migrant workers for years. Hospo is a sector where people move from casual job to casual job to make ends meet. There are casual workers in hospitality who have been working in the sector for five, 10 or 15 years, working 30, 40, 50 hours a week and more. They've been supporting themselves and their families on this work, but right now, today, they've been employed with their current employer for less than 12 months. Those workers are excluded from this wage subsidy package. That is a real shame. With no amendment to this bill to include them, these workers will be left behind. I'm talking about people like Madison, a casual supervisor in hospitality, who says: 'As a casual hospo worker I live week to week. I have no long-term financial stability. I don't know when I'll be able to get a job again.' I'm talking about casual hospo workers like Peter, who says: 'I'm now in the position where I can either pay another week of rent or buy food and other supplies.' So not only were casuals the first workers to be laid off in this crisis, and not only were they then told by the government that they should have saved enough on their minimum-wage jobs to prepare for this pandemic, but now over a million casual workers across Australia won't qualify for the government's wage subsidy. If we want to save jobs in this country through this crisis, we need to accept the reality that one in four Australians are casuals. Casual workers need to put food on the table too, they need to pay the rent too, they need to support themselves and their families too, and they need to stay with their employers through this crisis just as much as the next person. The same goes for hundreds of thousands of temporary migrant workers. Think about the thousands of chefs in Australia who have come here on skilled working visas. Their jobs have been shut down overnight. They don't qualify for the JobKeeper payment, and they also don't qualify for a Centrelink jobseeker payment. How are they meant to survive? How are the hundreds of thousands of international students who came here to work and study in Australia meant to survive? What about the refugees on bridging visas who have lost their jobs, or people on working holiday visas who have lost their jobs? Many of these workers have absolutely no way of getting home. They have no way to travel back to their home country. They are trapped in Australia. They are here with us in this global pandemic. These are the people who pick our food on farms across the country. These are the people who make food in our restaurants. These are the people who wash dishes, back of house, in restaurants and cafes. These are the people who deliver food around our cities. These are the people who are the backbone of life in this country today. Now the government is confirming that they're not eligible for this wage subsidy, and they're not eligible for unemployment benefits either. According to this government, they should just go home. This is the message from Scott Morrison to migrant workers in Australia today: 'We invited you here. We wanted you here to pay your tuition fees. We wanted you here to wash our dishes, to cook our food and to deliver our food. We wanted you here to pay taxes, but now we want you to go home. Go home when you can't get a flight. Go home when borders are closed. Go home when it's not safe to do so.' This is not right. It is just not right. I'm talking about people like Santiago, a hospo worker who has been in Australia for three years. He said: 'I've lost my job. This is real. I have to pay rent. I can't go back to my own country.' I'm talking about people like Neil, an international student, who said: 'I am so stressed, and I am so scared. I feel I've got nowhere to go to ask for help. I just want to be treated like other citizens since I have been paying tax and enormous school fees in Australia for over two years.' Their situation, like that of so many other workers around Australia, is dire, and they need support now. Let's be clear: workers who are in desperate need today are going to miss out on this wage subsidy. As the Prime Minister often likes to remind us, Australia is the country of the fair go. Well, these workers are calling on the government to give them a fair go. We're all in this together, so let's stand with them and give them the support that they need. Let's make sure that no worker is left behind. I foreshadow that I'll be moving the second reading amendment circulated in my name. 18:18 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I want to make some opening statements about how we collectively, both as a parliament and as a community, should respond together to tackle this crisis. It is critical that we are able to act swiftly, clearly and decisively to do what needs to be done to contain this epidemic and to ensure support is available to our Australian community, particularly those who need it most. But we also need to act well. We have to be both swift and smart, both quick and careful. We do not want to be cutting the wrong corners or rushing critical measures in ways that make them less effective or less inclusive. To be very clear: this is a $130 billion package to keep around six million workers connected to employment and to make sure that those who have to be stood down are looked after and are better able to bounce back. To ensure that that happens is a very good and very important thing. Our job today is to review this legislation to make it better where necessary, to make sure that it is as effective and as inclusive as possible, and to do everything we can in the short time available to us today to improve this package to make sure that its major benefits are delivered for the health and resilience of Australians and our economy. Anything that we do to make it better is likely to have long-lasting and even lifelong impacts on the prosperity and wellbeing of Australian workers, businesses and families. We know that this is a huge effort, and it has been pulled together in a short space of time. I think that even the government must surely admit that it is unlikely that it is perfect at this point. In fact, the Australian Greens argue that it's not. Our task tonight is to identify the issues and try, please, to fix them. We need to be asking the right questions and thinking about the big picture so that we can fill in the gaps and include those currently at risk of missing out, because this package does miss out people, just as the previous package missed out people. We want to deliver the best possible support to Australians and those noncitizens that are here in Australia during this crisis to ensure that our community is healthy and resilient and to make sure no-one is left behind, particularly those that need the support the most. I'm deeply concerned about large sections of our population who are being left behind, who are being disproportionately affected by this health and economic crisis. Disability support pensioners and those on carers allowance are facing significant extra costs at this time, driven by the crisis and their need to self-isolate. They include costs of food delivery; health care; medical supplies; personal protective equipment, PPE; transport; and utility bills. Many services that disabled people rely on are being closed or withdrawn, including access to allied health and informal supports, and the options to replace these services are extremely expensive. I have been inundated in my office with messages from people who are trying to exist on the disability support pension and carers allowance. I'll quote a couple of the things that I have heard from people: 'I'm unable to access any PPE and am struggling to find the essentials, meaning more energy-sapping running around online. It seems all groceries are full price, with barely any specials, which is great for supermarket shareholders but not for us. Having to try and stock up one month in advance for medications, with no disposable income, is near impossible. It's demoralising not being included in the conversation about COVID-19.' 'I still have two kids to care for on my DSP payment. It's not just about me getting more money; I'm raising a family, just like those on parenting payment. Why are our children's needs different?' 'I'm paying $15 per delivery and can only purchase one or two of each item. That means no more bulk buying to save on delivery costs.' 'Treat disabled people and carers with the same level of dignity as everyone else. I am a carer with two adult sons with disabilities. We need the extra help as much as others.' That's just a few of the hundreds of comments that we have received in my office, and I'm sure people around this chamber have received similar messages. The higher rate of jobseeker payment compared to DSP is leading to perverse outcomes where people have been asking my office whether they should drop off DSP and apply for the jobseeker payment instead. Of course we say it's not a good idea, but I can totally understand why it is tempting for people to try and do that. Today I will be moving an amendment to provide the coronavirus supplement for DSP and carer payment recipients, in recognition of the higher costs and significant barriers to entering the workforce that they face. I'm also particularly worried about age pensioners who are renting during this crisis. The evidence shows that older Australians who are renting experience high rates of poverty and increased risks of homelessness. The current rate of the Commonwealth rent assistance is woefully inadequate at the best of times, let alone during this crisis. We must urgently work together to come up with a solution to support older Australians experiencing rental stress and homelessness. I now turn to the significant problems that people have been experiencing with Centrelink. We have been witnessing very significant problems over the last month. What we have been seeing is not just a product of more people needing support, although I admit that is part of it. The cause is years and years of staffing cuts, funding cuts, IT cuts, bungles, not investing when we needed to, outsourcing and privatisation. When you take money out of the service delivery, you are left with a broken system that can't support Australians in their time of need. When the myGov system constantly crashes, it causes stress to those applying for income support and hurts people who are already on income support payments. Over the last two weeks, my office has received countless messages, both by phone and online, from people who have been unable to report their income to Centrelink. A lot of people ended up receiving the whole rate of jobseeker because they were unable to report their income, and these people are very worried that they're now going to be hit with debts. I understand they won't be pursued by Centrelink, but I asked the minister for social services to guarantee these people won't receive debts. The government has extended the suspension of mutual obligation requirements until 27 April, and people are very pleased about this, but we need to make sure that they are, in fact, suspended for the whole of the duration of this crisis. The government must prioritise the health and safety of all people on income support payments and employment service providers. It's not safe for people to be attending meetings and appointments, and I don't expect this to change over the next three weeks. At this time of great uncertainty and anxiety, people on income support deserve clarity around their responsibilities. There are thousands of asylum seekers and refugees with no income safety net. They don't have access to Medicare, Centrelink or other critical care services. Without support, they will be exposed to the worst economic and health impacts of this crisis. In recognising this, I will be moving an amendment today to extend eligibility for the jobseeker payment to temporary visa holders within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958. I also seek leave—which I understand both the government and opposition agree to—to table a petition from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, which has 20,528 signatures, asking for the government to include emergency measures to protect people seeking asylum and refugees. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z I table the petition. I also foreshadow that I'll be moving a second reading amendment calling for support for access to the supplement. I'll be moving a second reading amendment to address the issue of people who are being left behind. I want to address the issue of employment services, because I've just addressed the issue of mutual obligations and I want to extend that. I think there's still a critical role for employment service providers. They will play an important role during this crisis. While the JobKeeper package is an important step forward, it is likely that there will still be millions of Australians who face unemployment. Now is the time for a new approach to helping people to find and maintain connection to work. We want to see the compliance process removed from the system. Employment providers need to start providing individualised, responsive and tailored supports to people. It is time for providers to play that connecting role to support and identify emerging opportunities and to connect people, to support people through outreach and other community supports. So they still have a very important role to play. Casuals employed for less than 12 months and part-timers are missing out through this package. They are another group that's being left behind. The rules requiring casuals to be employed for longer than 12 months will unfairly penalise people across a large cross-section of our society. Yesterday I heard from a part-pensioner who was undertaking casual work in hospitality to help pay the bills. He was recently stood down from his job, and he's not eligible for JobKeeper because he was employed for less than 12 months. Short-term casuals make up an important part of our workforce and should not be excluded from this package. I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the COVID-19 data insight series produced by the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. They've done a series of reports, and part of the work they've done highlights that short-term casuals contribute on average over 50 per cent of total earned household income in the households which those casuals are part of. The majority of short-term casuals are employed in key industries, including food services, retail trade, health care and social assistance. They deserve our help. It is a concern that we have to date been unable to find out whether part-time workers who are on the flat rate of $750 could be forced to work additional hours by their employers. We have been seeking that information, and to date that information has not been forthcoming. I will be moving an amendment in committee of the whole on that particular issue. I want to go to the critical role that charities play in our community, particularly during the crisis we are facing. Under the JobKeeper scheme, charities are only eligible for the subsidy if they estimate their turnover has fallen by 15 per cent or more relative to a comparable period. Many charities largely rely on government grants and contracts, which means they don't meet this threshold. This is grossly unfair, as charities are suffering major losses of income from a decline in fundraising donations and volunteer capacity. At the same time, our charities are supporting us through this crisis and experiencing an increase in demand for their services. Businesses that are made up of sub-entities are having their revenue measured at the sub-entity level. Why can't charities also be assessed at a discrete service level—for example, child care, disability support and op shops, where they are seeing huge downturns in income? This is why I will be moving an amendment, again in committee of the whole, to ensure that the revenue test for charities excludes government grants and includes income from donations, investments and other areas. I'm also asking for charities' revenue to be assessed at the discrete service level instead of the level of the whole entity. This is absolutely critical. I acknowledge that some improvements have been made for charities in terms of the 15 per cent. But, as I said at the beginning, let's not rush this through without actually looking at the fact that you could improve this to get a much better outcome for charities. This is a crisis that we all face. We don't want to be leaving people behind. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that over the last couple of weeks, whenever I have reached out to the government and to ministers, they have been responsive. I do appreciate that collaboration and cooperation to solve the problems that people are facing. But right here and now we are facing the fact that we are leaving so many people behind—those with disabilities; carers; age pensioners who are renting; age pensioners who are part-pensioners; and so many casuals. A million casuals are being left behind because they don't make up the 12 months. They are playing a critical role in delivering services or could be playing such a role. I would like to end by encouraging every Australian to make sure that where they can—because I know our health workers, who are doing such an amazing job, will be out there working—if they don't have to work, if they are not working supporting people in our community, they stay home this Easter. I know it will be tempting to go out and try to see your families, but stay home. Think of your families. Skype them, Zoom them and save up your hugs, because we will get through this. That is why we want to see these amendments made: so we get through it taking everybody with us. 18:33 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I have been a proud member of the trade union movement for over 40 years. Time after time, this movement has backed the working men and women of this country. The work that has been done over the last few weeks by unions and the Labor Party to fight for every working person and their family in our country has been nothing short of phenomenal. Sally McManus, Michele O'Neill and the leaders of the unions across the country have joined with the Labor leadership, including Anthony Albanese, Kristina Keneally, Tony Burke, Linda Burney and others, to stand up for all Australians. My message to the working people of Australia, especially to younger workers, is that you're not on your own and you do not have to be at the mercy of the market and of whatever the market will bear. When you are a union member, you will never be alone, come war, economic downturn, global crisis or pandemic. The members of unions and the entire community are going to see the benefits from this hard struggle to make sure this proposal for extra support for our communities goes ahead. I would also like to congratulate the government for buckling under the logic and finally seeing what Labor and the trade union movement, civil society and corporations have been saying now for many weeks. The support that is being delivered in this proposal is because of so many Australians standing up. As a proud member of the Labor caucus, I've come to this place with the same aim as many of us in here, whether Labor or anywhere else. In the case of Labor, we've also come here with the desire to make sure that working people in Australia maintain their connection to their employer so that they are in the best place to support themselves and their families until the global health crisis is over. The coronavirus pandemic does not discriminate based on who you are. It does not discriminate on whether your employer is big or small. It does not care if you work for the government, the private sector or the not-for-profit sector. It does not care if you are full time or casual, or if you have had one employer for the last year or more than one. It does not care if you are an Australian citizen, permanent resident or visa holder working here in Australia. To be a victim of the economic crisis brought on by COVID-19, you just have to be a worker—full stop. And, if you are a worker, you deserve not to be sent to the Centrelink queues, made worse by the underfunding of this vital service and the cutting of Centrelink staff by this government. If you are a worker, you deserve to have a wage subsidy whereby you stay connected to your employer, and together you can ride out this crisis. When Scott Morrison says we are all in this together, what he really means is this: except if you're a casual worker with less than 12 months; except if you're a worker for a local council; except if you're a worker in the arts and entertainment sector; except if you're a worker in the disability support services; and except if you're a worker for a charity that is not covered by the current JobKeeper package. This includes private schools and universities. They were initially told they would be included with other not-for-profits at the 15 per cent threshold for loss of revenue, only to be told that they would be treated like other businesses, even though they are clearly not like other businesses. Hundreds of thousands of skilled university staff, including casual workers, are facing job losses, but they will not be eligible for this JobKeeper payment. Finally, the Prime Minister seems to think that we are 'all in this together'—and we are, because we're all victims—but are we all in it together? If you're a worker who's a visa holder, you're not included. Hundreds of thousands of visa holders, including international students who have paid fees to our universities, have been left out of this rescue package altogether. I also want to foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment circulated in my name. In that, I'll be calling on the government to ensure the JobKeeper wage subsidy is only used by employers to pay their employees' wages and not to subsidise their company's balance sheet, noting there will be no provision for business to force employees to pay for their annual leave and entitlements with the JobKeeper wage subsidy. For example, Qantas have told tens of thousands of workers that they will have to take their entitlements, and the company will still receive the $1,500 that was intended for the workers. But don't worry, Qantas has got it covered; they've made the decision to pay dividends to their shareholders in September. Not only will we see hundreds of millions of dollars less in taxes being paid for aviation costs, but we will also see the $1,500 that is supposed to be going to their workforce used to line their own pockets, and the pockets of their shareholders. We need to recognise that the Australian arts and entertainment sector needs a specific, tailored fiscal response package to ensure its ongoing viability, given that the structure of the JobKeeper payment has been designed in a way that leaves many workers in this sector ineligible. It is a multibillion dollar industry at the heart of our culture within Australia. It's an important rebound not only for the mental health of this country but also for the economic health of this country; yet the government has left them swinging. They won't get support. It's important that we extend the 15 per cent reduction in the turnover threshold to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, NDIS, and employment service providers, DES, and deliver a retention and support package for the disability sector workforce. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our community and some of the most vulnerable organisations that deliver services that are so critical to our civil society. We call for more support for staff in schools, TAFE and universities affected by the crisis, noting that hundreds of thousands of school and university staff, including casual workers, are facing job losses but will not be eligible for the JobKeeper payment. The government should be saving jobs and making sure that Australia has a strong and sustainable education and training sector on the other side of this crisis. We need to have that bump when we move out. We need to have that capacity to rebuild economically. We need to have the foundations; yet the government has deserted these people. Casual employees working from school to school are not included. They're educating our children. It's critical that they are connected to our schools and connected to our education system. We also call on the government to recognise the importance of the local government, acknowledging that the closure of council facilities has resulted in significant revenue loss and workers being stood down without support. Up to 45,000 local government workers could lose their jobs, demonstrating the need for the government to work together with state governments to address these important issues. In the Prime Minister's own electorate—the Sutherland Shire, where I spent my childhood—330 people have lost their jobs because they're working as casuals for the local council in the Sutherland Shire. What is he doing for his residents? Those 330 families and individuals need the support of the government. They need not to be exceptions; they need to be part of the rule. We've seen examples on the reach outs of what could be done with local councils. I make this plea. The councils in a number of my duty electorates in New South Wales, such as Calare, Lyne, Bathurst, Blayney, Lithgow, Oberon, Orange, the MidCoast, Port Macquarie, Hastings, Dungog and Port Stephens, do not have the capacity to survive the jobs and keep them as critical major employment hubs within those communities. It's essential that the government acts for regional Australia, which has been hit by bushfires and drought, and now by the coronavirus and a lack of government action. Congratulations to civil society and corporations for joining the union movement, and to the government for finally coming to the table, but millions and millions of people have been left out. Millions and millions of people have been deserted in our local councils, in our arts and entertainment industry, in the important areas of the NDIS, in charities, and in the area of visa holders. Many people have been affected as a result of these circumstances that we now find ourselves in. There are three particular examples. I gave this example in Sutherland Shire, and I plead to the Prime Minister to reconsider his and his party's position on local government. In the Prime Minister's electorate of Cook, in the Sutherland Shire, for more than five years, Sally—not her real name—has worked at the council leisure centres. She was sacked last week and is one of 330 workers, some of whom have worked in the Sutherland Shire for five or 10 years. She is not eligible for the JobKeeper payment, and nor are any council workers in Australia. Gig economy sole traders are an important question to be raised with the government. I would be keen to hear the minister's comments on this. The government's options for self-employed businesspeople also leave a lot to be desired. For example, it is not clear how family partnerships, like those used in small trucking companies, would work. Right now, partnerships where multiple partners are active business participants are limited to a single JobKeeper payment; they cannot claim two, for example, in the case of a husband-and-wife trucking company. Then there are visa holders and international students. I had the joy of my office speaking to Suhail, a 23-year-old international student visa holder in Sydney. He has paid nearly $100,000 in fees to an Australian university and is in the final year of his degree. He has supported himself, his wife and baby as a rideshare and food delivery worker for nearly three years, delivering food and people during this critical time, putting himself out, exposed, to make sure he can support his family. Well, rideshare is certainly drying up. He had been working 20 hours a week. He has paid for his own health insurance, as required by his visa, and he has never asked any money from anyone, certainly not the Australian taxpayer. Now, through no fault of his own, Suhail is sick and has been advised by his GP to self-isolate. He now must choose between feeding his family and paying his rent and trying to work when there is a massive drop-off in work. Suhail says he does not want to ask for help, but his parents in Bangladesh have also lost their jobs and cannot afford for him to get home safely. He just wants his family to be safe and for him to be able to finish the degree he paid for. He is not eligible for the jobseeker payment or the JobKeeper payment. It's critically important that we remember that the welfare minister, Minister Ruston, has the capacity to make changes. It is very important to know that the Treasurer has the power to make further changes beyond the propositions being put today. I say this to every Australian, I say this to every working person and the two million that have been left out, and I say this to the millions of others that care so much about a fair go: make sure that the two million other people living in this country, working hard and paying their taxes, also get a fair go. 18:48 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia It is a great truism, as a great British Prime Minister once said, that a week is a long time in politics, but—my!—how time flies when are you in the midst of a pandemic. Everyone was a bit punch-drunk by the speed with which this COVID-19 outbreak has spanned the globe and by the appalling human toll the disease has already had. It was only over 2½ months ago that the Australian government was beginning to react to the news of a coronavirus epidemic in China. On 23 January, some weeks after the first report of the virus outbreak, the government moved to apply biosecurity screening to direct flights to Australia from Wuhan, the epicentre of the disease. However, those flights immediately ceased because the Chinese government imposed a blanket quarantine on Wuhan and the Hubei province, with no flights in or out. Although the epidemic had already spread across China, flights from other parts of the People's Republic of China continued—some 40 flights a day to Australia at that time, including flights from Hong Kong. A week later, from 1 February, the Australian government banned the entry of foreign nationals who had been in China for two weeks prior to arrival in Australia. Australian citizens arriving from China were also asked to self-quarantine. At that point, the Prime Minister was insistent that Australia was well ahead of the game. He expressed confidence that the consequence here would be modest, saying 'we're a big country' and that people should 'go about their business in the normal way'. In talking points issued to coalition MPs and senators on 4 February, the government focused on its desire to further lower taxes, expand trade and keep the budget strong. It was business as normal. With regard to the coronavirus, the government declared Australia was ready. How ready were we? I think the answer to that question is that we weren't very ready at all. I don't make that observation as a partisan point. We do now have the benefit of some hindsight, but it is the case that the pandemic risk really hadn't received the attention it deserved. Governments didn't properly manage the risk, nor adequately plan for something that numerous health experts and even the likes of Bill Gates warned was inevitable. Successive Australian governments were well aware of the risk of pandemic, whether a new form of influenza or another disease, such as is the case with COVID-19, and broad plans had been drawn up following the SARS outbreak of 2002-04, but we failed to flesh out those plans. They were left as very high-level frameworks. We failed repeatedly to test them and we failed to develop our understanding of the likely economic impacts of the measures that would be required to slow and reduce the human toll of a pandemic. The only full-scale national pandemic exercise was Cumpston 06, which tested a short-term government response to a novel influenza virus pandemic, and Sustain 08, which explored maintaining a whole-of-government response over an extended period. These two exercises, which were conducted on a whole-of-government basis and fully involved states and territories, were held 14 and 16 years ago. That's right; a decade and a half ago. Although some smaller tabletop exercises have been carried out since within the Health and Home Affairs portfolios, and some response capabilities were tested with the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak, pandemic planning and preparation faded. It was well and truly relegated to the backburner. If anyone doubts this, they only need to look at the government's response to the one recent parliamentary committee report on these issues. In March 2013, a House of Representatives committee tabled a report entitled Diseases have no borders, a detailed examination of health issues across international borders. The terms of reference for that inquiry noted: Growing global interconnectedness and close proximity to regional neighbours increases Australia's exposure to imported infectious diseases and to the risk of epidemic or pandemic disease outbreaks. The committee made a number of recommendations aimed at improving Australia's ability to respond to international disease outbreaks, including that the Australian government undertake a large-scale pandemic exercise across relevant Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies. Senators will be familiar with the long delays before government responses to committee reports—we've all seen that—and in this case it was no different. There was a federal election and a change of government in 2013. That said, it is a disgraceful fact that it took the current government one month short of five years—that is, until August 2018—to respond to that committee report. The government's response did eventually come and included some useful information, but a five-year delay was inexcusable and demonstrated a clear failure to properly prioritise a vital public health issue. Had the government engaged properly, had the government planned in greater depth an exercise to explore all aspects of potential scenarios, then we might not have been forced into the extraordinary improvisation of the past two months. Back in early February, by its own admission, the government had no idea what the economic impact would be. The Treasurer said it was impossible to say what the economic consequences would be, but it should have been possible, even then, to model the likely impacts of border closures, quarantine, the shutdown of many industries and social distancing. Some people, including me, have compared the current challenges to those of a war. The problem is that, if this is the equivalent of a war, then the government had no real mobilisation plan. It's all been improvisation—vast improvisation certainly, but improvisation nonetheless. Had government engaged in proper preparation and planning, it would not be scrambling now, as it is, to gather information on the ability of Australian companies to supply personal protective equipment and the ingredients for a COVID-19 testing kit. In saying that, I don't wish to be overly critical or take unfair advantage of hindsight. The government does deserve credit for its response to the pandemic and for the extraordinary budget measures it has brought to the parliament, but it should not have been flying quite so blind and it should certainly not be unmoored from parliamentary oversight and accountability. Before the Senate today, we have the framework for the government's $130 billion JobKeeper wage rescue plan to support some six million Australians. This is an enormous commitment over the next six months. It is an extraordinary measure to deal with an unprecedented shutdown of a large portion of our economy—something that will inevitably lead to a recession. It is likely to be a severe recession; perhaps even a depression. Among specific measures before us is the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020, the framework for the creation and implementation of the JobKeeper payment. The payment is a sensible response to assist employers to retain staff and assist employees to retain a job as part of the economy is forced into hibernation. However, the framework removes the ability for the parliament to really make sure this economic response package is fully inclusive. It spectacularly fails at being fully inclusive. It misses support for fundamentally important industries and workers. I will go to a few examples. The Australian agricultural industry relies heavily on migrant workers to pick our seasonal fruit for both export and local markets. With the picking season commencing in autumn and continuing to summer, it is a long season of steady work. Migrant workers on temporary visas are not included, so at the moment they are in limbo. They can't work, they can't go home and their finances are quickly running low. Also locked out from the financial support are those people who have come here seeking a fair go. In the true spirit of the Prime Minister's mantra, he says, 'If you're having a go, you'll get a go.' There's a local cafe owner in Adelaide. His cafe is a family affair that has been highly successful for almost five years. As a law-abiding person, he tried to alter his dine-in cafe to a takeaway cafe, but it just wasn't doing well and he had to close the doors and lay off his staff. Because he's on a temporary visa, he doesn't meet the requirements for the JobKeeper program. He wants to, and intends to, reopen the cafe; he just can't keep it open for now. Where's the fair go for him? What about casual workers with less than 12 months of employment? Where's their fair go? Central Alliance's amendments—and I foreshadow moving two amendments—will extend the JobKeeper payment to the temporary workforce, whether they are migrants or casuals, with three months employment. The Prime Minister says his aim is to get as many people and businesses over the bridge to the other side. He should ensure no-one is left behind to fend for themselves. Right now, we are in this struggle together and we need to get through to the recovery phase together. Those concerns aside, these are, without doubt, vital measures. They are the economic equivalent of an oxygen tent. The big questions to come are how sustainable such measures will be and what will follow them. The pandemic modelling released by the government yesterday leaves no doubt that, in the absence of a vaccine or effective therapeutic treatment, we are in this for the long haul. It's not just the peak of the epidemic curve that counts; also, the breadth of the curve plays a critical part in this. Continued border controls, quarantine, isolation and a significant level of social distancing, with the consequent restrictions on our economy and on many people's livelihoods, are likely to be of lengthy duration. They will likely extend well beyond the six month time frame the government is presently working to. The Prime Minister acknowledged this issue at his press conference yesterday, but the government is only just starting to come to grips with this wicked problem. In the months to come, the Senate, through the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, will need to keep a very close eye on the evolution of the government's response. We will need to conduct that scrutiny in a fair, open-minded and non-partisan way. But we will also need to pursue that oversight duty with absolute rigour and a preparedness to test the fundamentals of government policy in action. We will need to look very closely at all aspects of the government's response so far, with the benefit of hindsight—because that's how lessons are learned. We will need to pay very close attention to future steps, especially those critical decisions about how to move our economy out of hibernation without sparking new epidemic flare-ups. Rigorous oversight will be absolutely critical in relation to what may be very controversial government decisions. In the meantime, I conclude my remarks by again reminding the Senate and other listeners how time flies in these extraordinary circumstances. Only four weeks ago, the Prime Minister was still actively encouraging people to go to the footy; now, social-distancing rules ban non-essential gatherings of more than two people. Where we will be in another month's time? In six months time? In a year's time? No-one can be sure. But all Australians listening to this debate should be assured: one way or another, the Senate will be here and we will be doing our duty to help out. 19:01 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia First of all, I would like to acknowledge all of those Australians who are currently going out to work, whether it's in this place or elsewhere across the country: thank you for the service that you are providing. It's very hard, with the 'stay home' messages, but I do want to acknowledge and thank those workers leaving their homes each day and going to work. I'd also like to acknowledge that many of those workers are members of my union, United Workers Union, and I say a special thank you to them. I then want to congratulate the government on this bill—for taking the advice of Labor and for implementing what's become known as the JobKeeper package. For many workers, we know it will be a lifeline. It will enable them to keep vital connections with their employer and to be ready to play a part in getting Australia working again once we're through this COVID-19 pandemic. But this legislation does not go far enough. Most working people were already doing it tough. Before the pandemic, they had not seen their wages rise. Wages were stagnating or they had no wage increases at all. Many were part-time workers working second or third jobs to make ends meet. Many Australians were experiencing mortgage and rent stress. These issues haven't gone away. They're still there. For some Australians, this JobKeeper package will be a lifeline. But for the many millions who will miss out, the government has deserted them in their moment of need. And I just want to talk about them. We've heard Labor senators in this place talk about the million casual workers who will miss out on this package. We can't allow that. Some of those workers are labour hire staff. Many of those workers are women and young people. We've also got visa workers, international students and local government employees who are not eligible for the JobKeeper scheme. And, as we move through the next week, more and more workers will be identified. WA's largest employer, Crown Casino, directed by the government, closed its doors overnight. It threw out its many casuals, many of whom will not be eligible for JobKeeper and many of whom are international students. Those are the people we need to be looking after into the future. They've been left totally without an income. We don't want to create a situation in this country where casual workers go to work sick because they have no other alternative. That's dangerous and it's irresponsible. I want to talk about aged-care workers, who have also been hit. They're low-income, they're part-time and they're predominantly women. Many work second jobs to make ends meet. They're in a double jeopardy, because, for many of those women, their second job is with an agency commonly referred to as a labour hire company. Well, guess what? They're not eligible for JobKeeper either. And not only that: because they're working in a vulnerable sector, these workers have been directed by their employer that they can only have one job, and that's the aged-care work that they're currently doing as their first job—and I'm glad the minister's in here at the moment, because that's what employers are being told in Western Australia. I'm sure we can get you examples if you're interested, Minister. And so we see that these workers have now had their income halved overnight. These are the workers the Prime Minister has thanked for their service, and yet he has not looked after them, and they now are without their second job because their employers see that second job as too risky. Their employers have said to them, 'If you want to continue working here in aged care, you have to give up that second job.'—and that second job is with a labour hire company, so they will be excluded from the JobKeeper package. These are the very workers that the Prime Minister has stood up and thanked for their service. Well, he's not taking care of them. They're taking care of the most vulnerable in our community, but the Prime Minister has clearly let them down. This could be fixed overnight. This could be fixed with a flick of a pen by the Treasurer, Mr Josh Frydenberg. We know many workers are making sacrifices. Security guards at the airport in Western Australia have lost 80 per cent of their hours. Imagine what that does to—again—low-income workers. And they are probably not going to qualify for JobKeeper because they work for very large multinational companies who won't be able to demonstrate that they've made the required loss to enable them to get in line for the JobKeeper payment. Again, these are workers who are on the front line, and who are at work right now, but they have lost 80 per cent of their hours. To try and keep workers employed, employers are also asking full-time workers to share out their hours. So someone who was full time is now being asked to go part time, with unending contracts, for who knows how long. This is clearly not fair. Last week I spoke to many councils in WA. I've got to tell you: councils are absolutely pulling their weight. They are checking on the most vulnerable in our community. They're redirecting staff to go and work for Red Cross. They're offering staff to the WA government to put on COVID helplines. And yet councils are not eligible for this scheme. They're freezing their rates. I spoke to one of our largest councils in WA, who were more than happy to pull their weight and more than happy to freeze their rates—$89 million in lost revenue for that council. It's not only the rate losses; they've also closed their revenue raisers—their gyms and their pools. So they're already losing more money on top of that, and yet they are not eligible. WALGA, the WA Local Government Association, says that, in WA, it represents about 6,000 workers being stood down—6,000 workers with no access to JobKeeper. The government really does need to fix this. Mr Frydenberg needs to fix it for aged-care workers—the workers who get thanked almost daily by the Prime Minister and who are putting themselves at risk. Mr Frydenberg needs to fix it for long day care. He needs to fix it for family day care. He needs to fix it for local government. He needs to fix it for security. And the list goes on. Yes, it's a good start, but it's not good enough, because too many Australians are being left vulnerable, left with no money and forced to work when they're sick. This is not fair. It's a risk to all of us to have workers who are clearly unwell out there working, and I urge Mr Frydenberg, tonight or tomorrow, to fix this for those millions of workers who are currently not eligible for JobKeeper. 19:09 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'm glad to be here tonight, doing my job. We should be doing this regularly through this crisis. My party feels this deeply. The Greens have been on the record consistently raising the issue that parliament should continue to sit through to August. We heard today from the government that this economic package is the biggest, most important piece of legislation since the Second World War. While we find ourselves in dangerous uncharted waters that require all political parties to work together for the good of the nation, the powers and discretion given to this government over the period of this pandemic are also unparalleled in recent history and need to be watched closely. Decisions need to be questioned constantly, if not respectfully and professionally. That is our job as senators. All governments, including state governments, need to answer reasonable questions and requests for information and provide full transparency. I'd like to note upfront the hardworking public servants here in Canberra and abroad who have worked tirelessly around the clock to bring this legislation before us tonight. To those workers—staffers in Treasury, the Attorney-General's Department and so many other portfolio areas of government—a big thanks and shout-out to you all. In my books, you're as much of a hero as anyone else in this country. I'm also glad to be here tonight at this historical emergency sitting because, over recent weeks—indeed, the past month—I have lived and breathed stimulus packages, especially in relation to helping small businesses and their workers, and one is finally happening tonight. It's far from perfect, but we're all in a much better place than we were even a few weeks ago. I've literally lived it and breathed it, because I've mostly been staying at home, like so many other Tasmanians and Australians. I've watched my wife and her business partners spend hour after hour, day after day on Zoom and on the phone working through this pandemic and talking to their dozens of employees, agonising over shutting down or staying open, having lengthy landlord discussions, having exchanges with the banks on interest rates and loans and, lastly, seeking advice on eligibility on how to use both the jobseeker and the JobKeeper packages. Day in, day out, I've watched it unfold in real life and in real time, and I know just how hard it's been for many small-business owners. The Greens called for a job wage guarantee from the start. We worked out very early that the first two small-business packages were not going to be anywhere near enough. Indeed, they were the wrong approach—I said this nearly three weeks ago. I've seen and worked through a number of crises in my life, as I'm sure many other senators in this chamber have. There was the GFC and stock market crashes, and my family and I lived through SARS up in Hong Kong. I understood early that this crisis required everything to be on the table—a whatever-it-takes approach to see us all through, and I mean all of us, not just the lucky few. We said this was mostly a crisis of confidence that required solutions immediately to restore trust because, ultimately, if you want a pandemic to not be a panic, you need to provide certainty and restore trust in government, in community, in our laws, in our economy and, most importantly, in people's futures. Of course, this can only be done by governments. At first, your government didn't listen to calls for a wage guarantee, but I'm glad that ultimately you did. To the small-business groups, to the unions and to the opposition—including, of course, the Greens—we finally got a UK-style wages guarantee. I've experienced at home, firsthand, what this crisis is like for many small-business owners and their workers. I've also reached out to small-business groups, organisations and communities themselves. I've talked to many, many employees who were uncertain about what this all meant for them. I've asked for input, for feedback. Consistent messages arose, which I promised to take to Canberra. I am deeply concerned today that, after fighting so hard to get a wages guarantee in this place, I've had so much feedback that too many small businesses aren't getting on board with JobKeeper. There's too much hesitancy: 'It's too hard. It's too complex. It carries too much risk.' The Greens have been inundated by small-business owners and their workers contacting us for help and guidance. I'm increasingly concerned that we're not going to see the huge uptake of this payment that we might expect. As a Tasmanian senator, this is of the utmost concern to me. Small business is literally the backbone of my state. Early survey results in a very hard-hit industry, tourism and hospitality, suggest that one-third of eligible businesses or perhaps more are not applying for, or had hesitancy in applying for, this scheme. The question is: why? And what can we do about it tonight? Many of the stories are the same: 'I've already laid off workers, stood them down and shut down. I've closed my doors. I've dealt with that grief and that frustration. I can't stay afloat any longer. This package carries too much risk for us.' Many businesses in a state like Tasmania rely on casual workers and visa holders, many of whom will not be eligible for the payment. The single biggest factor is that waiting for the payment to come through in May is not an option for many small businesses that have no revenue and no savings and have closed their doors. There simply isn't the money for them to pay their workers in the next month, and I will be introducing a substantive amendment in the committee stage to try and rectify that. According to the ABS, half of our businesses have already let go staff or cut hours due to COVID-19. A business confidence survey from the Tourism Industry Council Tasmania showed 75 per cent of respondents—that's three-quarters of Tasmanian tourism businesses—had to suspend business operations in Tasmania until restrictions ease and 80 per cent had to reduce staffing levels. My home state has been hit particularly hard by COVID-19, as it is highly leveraged to tourism and hospitality. I've heard numerous stories about businesses that have closed their doors, have no revenue, have no cash flow and have lost hope. This is a consistent criticism that we have received from small businesses around the country, and I look forward to moving that amendment in the committee stage to try and fix that. We've heard a lot of talk in here tonight, especially from the Labor Party and the Greens, about problems with this legislation that leaves out too many people. Unions Tasmania have said that nearly 24,000 casual workers in our state will not be eligible for JobKeeper payments because they have been with their employer for less than 12 months. How many of them will be let go and forced into Centrelink lines? It looks like it will be nearly all of them. The decision to exclude casuals with less than 12 months employment is not an economic decision, in my opinion; it is purely a political one and a foolish one. It's simply penny pinching at a time when everyone should be treated equally—all workers and all industries. Universities Australia warn that the universities sector could lose more than 21,000 jobs in the next six months. That's 21,000 Australians who don't know if they're going to have a job when we get through COVID-19. Why not give them certainty? We know that way too many people who work at universities are employed on a casual basis. This casualisation trend—which is a cancer, in many people's minds—has been occurring for far too long. And the sector is the second-biggest, if not the biggest, employer in my home state of Tasmania, particularly in places like Launceston, where I'm based. Then, of course, there are local government employees. We've heard a lot about them in here tonight. One of the challenges after this sitting and after this legislation is dealt with tonight is to come up with a package to help local government casual employees who have also been put on the scrap heap, and we've got some good ideas about how to do that. I also want to talk about temporary visa holders. I've been contacted by many temporary visa workers and their bosses in my state saying: 'Please take this to Canberra. We want our business to survive. We want continuity, like any other business in this package. We want to keep our jobs.' The Tourism Industry Council Tasmania tells me they are perplexed as to why temporary visa holders would be exempt, given how critical they are to our economy and our community. It would have a devastating impact on tourism in Tasmania if we were to lose these people and they weren't to return. They have told me this move is unfair and irresponsible and is likely to do long-term damage to the Australian tourism industry's international reputation. The TICT, the Tourism Industry Council Tasmania—and I want to give a quick shout-out to Luke Martin from the TICT, who I've been working with over the last week; we may not agree on many things, but, on these issues, we are certainly on a unity ticket—said in a statement today: 'As an industry, we're not comfortable with the message it sends to the world about our country and its tourism industry that we are not prepared to support our international workers in these most challenging of times. We would expect that, if our own children or family members were specifically recruited to work on the other side of the world in a remote visitor destination like Tasmania, their community and government would support and sustain them through such extraordinary times.' There are stories across my state of these workers being stood down with no income and, with global travel restrictions, with no chance of going home. They are completely in limbo and are being looked after by local communities and, may I say, by many employers. It's just not good enough. It's another political decision. It's cruel and it's miserly. The JobKeeper package we're debating tonight is far from perfect. It's very complex. It doesn't fill the cracks that many workers have fallen into, and it won't work for all small businesses, even those who are eligible. Whilst, of course, the intention of these measures is not to pit employers against employees, there still will be some business owners who choose to exploit workers through changes to the Fair Work Act, and the Greens have worked hard tonight to try and rectify this with our amendments. While jobs are important, so is having a roof over your head. I want to commend the work of my state colleagues in Tasmania Cassy O'Connor MP and Rosalie Woodruff MP for the work they've done on banning rental evictions in Tasmania. Many Tasmanians have fallen on hard times. They've lost their jobs and they're under financial hardship. This is what we should be doing all around the country. So there are many issues to be resolved, and we may well have to recall parliament again to get through additional measures. We need to get cracking on tailored support packages for those in acutely impacted industries, such as artists, small brewers and recyclers. I will be writing to the Treasurer myself to suggest ways forward for these industries. This is an opportunity for me to move a second reading amendment on behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, to support the arts and creative industries— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Whish-Wilson, you can foreshadow it. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I foreshadow that amendment. To these artists and to casual and foreign workers who have missed out on this package, I say don't despair if tonight's package passes without giving you access to JobKeeper. The fight is far from over. The finance minister still has discretion over billions of dollars of expenditure and can revisit these issues if the government is pushed. It beggars belief that they are throwing millions of workers to the wolves. Common sense tells you they should adopt this for all workers, just like they did for others. I believe that there is a reasonable chance that we may get there. Lastly, I urge—indeed, I plead with—all eligible small businesses to get on board and to do the right thing by your workers, your state and your country. This wage guarantee was hard-fought to get here, and it will be passed tonight. Please look into it. There are plenty of people to help you navigate the details. Sign up and get your workers on it. Get the certainty that they need to get them through the coming months, to put food on the table, to pay the rent. I would also like to say something, on behalf of Senator McKim, my fellow Tasmanian senator who's had a lot of people petition him about Australians abroad. I know it's been raised in the chamber here today that many Australians are currently stuck abroad and want to come home but are not getting adequate government support to return. It is imperative that the government do more to clarify what help is available and provide more direct assistance to people who want to return to our country. In the last minute that I've got left, I want to put out a special message for Julian Assange, an Australian citizen and a Walkley Award winning journalist, who's still in Belmarsh Prison in the United Kingdom on a show trial, an extradition trial to the US. We know that Mr Assange is critically ill, and he's highly vulnerable to COVID-19. Belmarsh Prison has had an outbreak of COVID-19 infections. Indeed, they recorded their first death of a prisoner on 7 April, just yesterday. Nearly 4,000 prisoners have been released from UK prisons because of the risk of COVID-19. Why isn't Julian Assange being released? He hasn't even been charged with anything. He has served his sentence. He just passed 12 months in prison. This is ridiculous, and your government—the government in this country, Senator Payne—needs to do more to get him out of prison and get him home to Australia, where he is safe. 19:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Well, we learn a lot about ourselves in times of crisis. Earlier this year, Australians responded with enormous generosity to the communities that were devastated by the summer's bushfires. Now we're faced with a new challenge, and Australians have responded once again. Across the country, there's been a recognition of the responsibilities that we owe one another, the collective responsibility we have as members of a community. There's been a willingness to make sacrifices, the necessary sacrifices, to get through this. We're seeing communities organise grassroots groups to ensure vulnerable people get the help that they need. Healthcare workers, cleaners and other essential service workers turn up to work every day, despite the possible risks to their health, to ensure that crucial services continue. Millions of Australians have put their lives and their livelihoods on hold in order to stay home. We have brought our best selves to bear. That is not just a responsibility for the Australian people; it is a clear responsibility for us here in this place. Parliament has a duty to bring the best version of itself to the challenges that lie ahead. This legislation represents that duty, with Labor, acting constructively, making suggestions about how we proceed and working with unions and with the labour movement, and with the government responding. I'm proud to support the legislation before us this evening. As we move into the next phase of our response to this pandemic, it is appropriate for us to think deeply about what comes next. How do we act, as a parliament, in a way that not only responds to the immediate health challenges and the immediate economic challenges, but leaves our society and our politics better off and better able to respond to future challenges? A core plank of the response must be a shared understanding of how we need to change our own behaviours, as individuals, as communities and in workplaces, to limit the spread of the virus and to save lives. Australians have responded to calls for social distancing. Movement tracking shows that in my hometown of Sydney, for example, movement has fallen from 121 per cent of normal in March to 17 per cent on 5 April. There will always be a role for police in responding to the minority of people who put their interests above everyone else's. However, policing and enforcement should not be the start and the end of our approach. We cannot arrest our way out of a pandemic. Australians deserve a response that recognises the capacity for people to make responsible decisions for themselves, for their families and for their communities. This demands openness and transparency from government. Government should not just communicate decisions and issue directions. Government needs to communicate the reason for decisions. The release of the modelling is a good start. It's a good step to build trust, but much more will be required over the long term. Governments should be thinking creatively about ways to draw on the community to lead local responses. It is particularly important for young people. We will do much better if we engage rather than scold and hector. Ultimately, restrictions can only be maintained with the ongoing support of Australians. This is not an argument in favour of simply adopting the lightest-touch approach. It is an argument for building and maintaining a sense of shared purpose and allocating the leadership responsibility to all sorts of people right across our community. People want to do the right thing. Young Australians want to do the right thing. We should help them. Parliament sat through the Spanish flu, and it sat through World War II. Our democratic traditions are not just a luxury for the good times; they are absolutely critical, and arguably all the more important, at a time like this. The contest of ideas produces better outcomes. There is no party, no individual, with a monopoly on good ideas, and we don't hold elections to anoint a dictator for a term. We hold elections to elect 227 people to represent us, and that task of representation is continual and ongoing. Different people in our community will have a very different experience of the pandemic. Our policy response needs to have a mechanism to capture that and respond to it. Scrutiny is essential for transparency, and transparency is essential to building the trust that is absolutely necessary when we are asking Australians to make real sacrifices, very considerable individual sacrifices, to deal with this pandemic. Now more than ever, we need the parliament to sit. I call on the government to reconsider their glib dismissal of calls for regular sittings of the parliament. It is hard to imagine but we will come out of this eventually, but we will not emerge into a world in which all of our old challenges have gone away. Many of them will have intensified, and we will have to manage those old challenges while also trying to manage our recovery from what looks to be the economic event of the century. If this crisis has taught us anything, it is that we are all in this together. But some people aren't getting the message. Like a broken record, these people are stuck on the old track. I'm thinking about right-wing think tanks that are calling now, already, for austerity and for spending cuts. I'm talking about Liberal ministers in state parliaments calling for cuts in environment protection. I'm talking about employers who are calling for wage cuts. I've got a very clear message in response: salvation does not lie in austerity. We cannot cut our way back to prosperity. We cannot ask the most vulnerable people in our community to bear the cost, because, aside from anything else, it turns out that these are some of the people who we rely on most to get us through a period of crisis. We shouldn't sow the seeds of a new disaster to pay off the debt of our current crisis. Environment protection is there for a reason, and the warming trends that drove our horror bushfire season will continue to punish our communities unless we can find an enduring and effective global solution. An enormous national and global challenge lies before us. We should meet it with all of the energy, creativity and goodwill that we can muster. 19:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I want to briefly talk this evening about the bills that are before us here in the Senate. As a number of my colleagues have already outlined in the Senate today, Labor stands ready to pass the bills enabling the legislation for the JobKeeper payment. Labor has taken a very constructive approach to this, and it is really good to see, in a time of crisis, the major parties coming together for the betterment of our community. We are living through an extraordinary crisis; there is no question about that. The coronavirus pandemic is unprecedented. It's clear that what we are doing as a parliament, the actions that we are all taking together as a community, is working to slow and, hopefully, stop the spread of the virus, and that is good news. But our community is not just impacted in terms of health; we are also impacted economically, as the steps that we must take to stop the spread force enormous change in the way that we work, where we go, what we do and how we interact with each other. Just as our community is working to keep as many people healthy and save as many lives as possible, we must work to protect as many livelihoods as possible as well. We are interested in getting a good outcome for the community, not engaging in political pointscoring with our opponents. Labor moved amendments in the House of Representatives today to make the JobKeeper payment work for more Australians, to try and keep as many people employed as possible and to make the JobKeeper payment available to many thousands of temporary migrant workers, who our economy relies so much on. Many of my colleagues in the other place have already raised concerns for the situation of more than a million casual workers who will not be eligible for the JobKeeper payment. Many of my colleagues have also raised concerns for the wellbeing of temporary migrant workers, for international students and for many other non-permanent residents who will also not be eligible for the JobKeeper payment, and I endorse those remarks. Part of the bills before the Senate this evening is so that the Treasurer will have the power to expand the payment to other workers. I really do urge the Treasurer to make the JobKeeper payment available to the many casuals and temporary migrant workers who fall through the cracks. Today I want to particularly focus on the plight of workers in agriculture. It's not hyperbole to say that without a strong and capable agriculture workforce we would be in a far trickier situation in relation to coronavirus than we currently find ourselves. In Australia we currently grow and produce enough food for our population three times over. Most Australians are only leaving their homes for essential reasons. For many of us, a quick stop at the supermarket or farmers market is the only outing we are taking. Our shopping lists are pretty simple: fresh fruit, vegies, a bit of meat, some pasta and, dare I say, hopefully some toilet paper as well. This new way of life, where an outing to buy some groceries is something of a highlight, has many of us reflecting on what we buy and where it comes from. As I said in an opinion piece that was published today by The Weekly Times, this crisis has many Australians thinking about what it takes to get produce into a supermarket or a farmers market. We are reflecting on who milks the cows in my home state of Victoria, down in Gippsland. Who planted the apple trees in Shepparton? Who tended the grapes in the Mallee? Who picked the tomatoes in Mildura? Who fed the lambs in Bendigo and who made the cheese in Milawa? We are extremely lucky to have the farmers and workers in agriculture, growing what we eat. It means that we can continue to shop without panic but with confidence, knowing that we'll be able to get what we need during these very testing times. There are approximately 40,000 temporary visa holders currently working in Australian agriculture. Some of those are skilled at undertaking complicated or scientific work on many Australian farms. However, many of them are doing low-skilled but absolutely critical work on farms across Australia. Whether that is picking and packing our fresh produce or not, all of it is essential, and I salute these workers for doing an absolutely wonderful job. These jobs are often filled by overseas seasonal workers or by backpackers who are travelling in Australia. Without these workers, we would face the possibility of produce being left to rot because there would be no-one else out there willing to pick the fruit or cut the vegetables. The fact is that we as a nation rely on temporary visa workers, whether we like it or not. They pick and pack the fresh fruit and vegetables that we just conveniently grab off the shelves in supermarkets. None of us can afford to support temporary visa workers in agriculture, but I'm pleased that the government has offered opportunities for visa extensions to some Australian farm workers. This is, in fact, a step in the right direction. I really do want to acknowledge the work by many ministers on this front—in particular, Alan Tudge. But we know that the coronavirus is not stopping to check someone's visa status, and this is a point that Labor has made through Senator Keneally time and time again. If a temporary visa holder can go home during this crisis, well, maybe they should. But the reality is that so many of them can't: 1.6 million temporary visa holders in Australia are not in a position to simply pack up and leave. There are many borders that have closed and, as we know, there just aren't any international flights leaving Australia or coming back here. They've simply shut down. What will happen if a temporary migrant can't afford to pay their rent? Or can't afford to get medical assistance? Or can't afford to pay for simple things, like groceries? Or can't afford to isolate themselves if they fall ill? We can, and we must, do more to support the situation that these temporary visa workers find themselves in. If a worker is here because we rely on them, and they cannot get home, then surely it is in our interest to support these workers. Surely it is in our interest to support them, be that financially. Surely it is in Australia's national interest to make sure that a temporary worker has access to financial support if they fall ill and are required to self-isolate. That is not to mention supporting the many farmers who will then have to ensure that there are provisions in place so that these workers themselves don't spread the virus to their workforce on site. Again, I urge the government to expand the JobKeeper program to include casuals and temporary migrants because, in the case of farming and agriculture, we rely on them. 19:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I rise to speak on the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and the related bills. As has been acknowledged by pretty much every speaker in this debate, Australia and the entire world currently face a massive crisis—a health crisis and an economic crisis, and, indeed, a social crisis—as more and more people are affected by COVID-19. As at today's date, over 6,000 Australians have been diagnosed with coronavirus, and sadly this has caused the death of 50 Australians. Try as we might, and despite what we might want to think, these numbers are likely to rise. I want to thank the essential workers who have played their role in fighting both this disease and the economic ramifications it has caused: the health workers; the aged-care workers; the retail and transport workers, who have kept our supermarkets stocked; the farm workers, who have continued producing produce for Australians to consume; and so many others on the front line, helping all of us through this. From the very beginning, Labor has adopted a bipartisan approach in the way it has approached this crisis. We haven't used this as an opportunity to pointscore and we won't do so in this debate again tonight. We have supported pretty much everything that the government has put up to deal with both the health and economic ramifications of coronavirus. That doesn't mean, though, that we will just agree to every single thing the government wants. That's not a democracy, and there is a role for the opposition and other parties here to put up constructive suggestions about how the government's approach can be improved. We have made, and we will continue to make, constructive suggestions to make sure that Australia comes through this in the best way possible. In fact, the bills that we are here debating tonight arise from one of the constructive suggestions that Labor has made. Labor supports the JobKeeper wage subsidy that these bills put into place. We have always supported it—in fact, we called for it, alongside working people, the union movement and many business groups. It's worth remembering that initially the Prime Minister opposed this idea when it was first called for by Labor. In fact, he and his colleagues said that Labor was playing politics. We weren't; we were just making constructive suggestions to ensure that Australians were cared for in these times. I and Labor are pleased that the Prime Minister did eventually agree that this was a good thing to do. We wouldn't be here today if he hadn't done so. I congratulate him for listening to Labor on this suggestion. Whatever happens here tonight, whatever amendments are moved, Labor will deliver this JobKeeper wage subsidy. But we do want it to be better. We think it can be better and we want it to be better. The reason is that millions of Australians are depending on us to make this JobKeeper wage subsidy better. I think pretty much every single senator and every House of Representatives member has had an incredible influx of calls, emails and inquiries to their offices over the last few weeks from Australians in incredible distress, whether because of the health consequences or the economic consequences of coronavirus. I will give you a couple of examples of people who my office and I have assisted. There is a mid-20s woman from North Queensland. Her husband is a tradie, and he earns just too much for the new income test applied to jobseeker payments. She's a casual health worker. She has now lost her job, and she misses out on meeting the government's requirement that a casual worker has worked for 12 months in that job. She has missed out by three days. She is three days short of working for 12 months and, as a result, under the government's rules, she won't qualify for the JobKeeper payment. She's recently married, and they're saving to start a family and to buy a house. She's genuinely worried. After this last pay cheque runs out she doesn't know what she and her partner are going to do. They have loans to pay. They're worried that, even when movement restrictions are lifted, business will take some time to start up again and employ her. Another example is a Gold Coast scaffolder who has worked crew to crew, company to company, many times in the industry for almost 13 years—and, sadly, we see that too much in the construction industry and many other industries where people are only engaged on a casual basis. He has been with his current employer as a casual since September, so again he doesn't meet the 12-month rule that the government has imposed for the JobKeeper payment. Now, admittedly, it looks like he will qualify for the jobseeker payment, the old Newstart, but he and his wife have five kids. They'll be getting $550 a week with five kids to feed and a rental cost of $425 per week. It's just not going to cut it. I could give example after example, but the bottom line is that the government's rules as they currently stand for this JobKeeper payment exclude short-term casuals, migrant workers who cannot return home—no matter what the government says about them needing to return home—council workers, workers in the arts and entertainment industries, university staff and casual teachers, and workers for many charities. We moved a number of amendments in the House to try to rectify these gaps, and I was very disappointed to see the government vote against every single one of those amendments. That's why we're taking the opportunity here in the Senate to again move amendments, and there still is an opportunity for the government to vote with us and fix these gaps to make sure that these casual workers, migrant workers, council workers, and arts and entertainment industry workers actually receive the JobKeeper payment that many other Australians will receive, because the bottom line is that no worker should be left behind. I don't want to take too much longer, but I do just want to also reject the suggestion from the government that people who miss out on JobKeeper payments will be fine because they'll qualify for the jobseeker allowance, what was called Newstart. In many cases that is just not true. It's not just a matter of people missing out on one form of payment and getting another. For starters, even if they do get the jobseeker allowance, that's significantly less income than what they would get under the JobKeeper payment. But there are many people who won't qualify for the jobseeker payment either because their partner earns a little bit more than $78,000 a year—the income test—or, when we're talking about places like the Gold Coast, with a large New Zealand population, they may not have lived in Australia long enough to be able to qualify for the jobseeker payment. Again, I'll give you one example of people we've heard from in our office over the last few days—a 35-year-old woman from the Gold Coast with two kids under six years of age. She has lost her casual job in a restaurant. Her husband earns just over the new income test of $78,000 a year, so she won't qualify for the jobseeker payment. As she says: 'After you pay rent of $450 a week, there's not much left. We pay our taxes and get nothing. Why do they think I go to work five nights a week after looking after the kids all day? Why would I do that if we didn't have to? We have no assets, no savings, nothing to fall back on. We have $50 until Saturday.' These are the people who are going to miss out from both the JobKeeper payment and, in this woman's case, the jobseeker payment. I am genuinely concerned about how these people are going to survive over the next few months until we see economic conditions recover. In conclusion, I support the amendments that have been moved by my colleagues to try to fix these gaps. These are gaps that will affect the real lives of real Australians and their families in this time. We have heard many politicians across all sides of politics talking about this as a time for us to pull together. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I encourage the government to think about that view of the world once we come out of this crisis. There are benefits in us sticking together. There are benefits in us thinking of ourselves as a community, as a collective, and not just as a series of individuals in some survival of the fittest. There is going to be a time for us to think about the economic structure of our community—about the spiralling rates of casualisation that we're now paying the price for, about this overemphasis on individuals getting ahead rather than thinking about how we work together as a collective. We've got to see an end to the demonisation of those on income support, because we now understand very well that income support is there for a reason. In good times and in bad, it is to support those who need our assistance. We've got to see an end to the disrespect that so many show to those in low-paid work. It is the very low-paid work that we are now depending on—the aged-care workers, the early childhood educators, the transport workers and the disability carers who are out there continuing to help people, no matter the risk to their own health. These people are paid far too little, and we've got to fix those kinds of things as we come out of this crisis. More than anything, we have to reject the idea that small government is always good government. If this crisis has highlighted anything in the way that governments operate, we are now seeing the consequences of too much emphasis on reducing government, on small government, and cutting back on services. We are rightly now seeing massive government spending—I might note, of the kind criticised after the GFC by those who are now legislating for it. We've seen in those incredible Centrelink queues, which we've all seen, the cost of cutting back on government services and continually outsourcing those services. We must take stock of these issues as we come out of recovery. But right now, tonight, is the time to get this legislation passed. We do hope that the government will back the amendments that Labor is putting forward to fix these gaps, but Labor is not going to hold up this legislation. There is too much riding on it. This is something that we called for for over six million Australian workers. We will be supporting it. We are not going to indulge in games where we make amendments that we know the government aren't going to agree to in the House of Representatives. This is not a time for ping-pong between the Senate and the House of Representatives. We need to get this done and we need to get the money out the door, but we do need to give it to as many people as we possibly can, those who really need it and those who are currently excluded by the government. Again, I encourage the government to think about the amendments that we put forward. 19:53 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, I would like to thank all those senators who have contributed to this important debate. I will take this opportunity to briefly address the various second reading amendments that have been circulated. Firstly, the government will oppose the second reading amendments on sheets 8939, 8945, 8949, 8950, 8951 and 8952. In relation to the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 8947, let me note the following. It essentially just notes a power available to the Treasurer in this legislation and encourages him to use this power. It doesn't mention any specific ways that the Senate feels the Treasurer should use this power other than to protect more jobs. The Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 establishes a framework for coronavirus economic response payments. Under this framework, the Treasurer will be able to make rules to provide for new payments administered by the commissioner. This is a deliberate feature of this legislation which allows for flexibility of the payment arrangements and ensures that the payments can be quickly introduced and revised to appropriately respond to the evolving impact of the coronavirus. And, in so doing, we will be protecting more jobs, as this second reading amendment encourages us to do. However, let us also make very clear the government's position in relation to temporary visa holders, local government employees and casual workers who have worked for businesses for less than 12 months and other groupings covered in those various second reading amendments that I have listed as being opposed by the government. We have no plans to extend the JobKeeper payments to those groups. Local council workers are the responsibility of state and territory governments, who understand that this is the case. Government schools and TAFEs are also the responsibility of state governments. The government has ensured that charities will be able to access a lower turnover decline test of 15 per cent for the JobKeeper payment. We will not extend the JobKeeper payment to temporary visa holders. Temporary visa holders are expected to support themselves while in Australia. The government has announced that it will allow temporary visa holders with work rights to access their superannuation funds to help them buffer the economic impacts of the coronavirus outbreak. Those unable to support themselves over the next six months, through work, savings or access to superannuation, are strongly encouraged to return home. The time to go is now and they should make arrangements as quickly as possible. The situation will be periodically reviewed and further changes may be made if and as required. The definition of casuals used for this legislation is taken directly from the Fair Work Act, which defines a long-term casual employee as an employee who has been employed by the employer on a regular and systemic basis for a period of at least 12 months. The government has provided clear and consistent advice to employers and employees regarding eligibility for JobKeeper. This will give certainty to those facing the uncertain period ahead. The proposed eligibility rules are appropriate for the conditions we face now, but the government acknowledges that there are likely to be currently unforeseeable issues which may be ahead of us and which will need to be dealt with. That is why the Treasurer has the discretion to amend JobKeeper eligibility in the future, to provide flexibility to deal with these issues as they arise. This power is not there to expand the eligibility of the JobKeeper program to local council workers, temporary visa holders, casuals who have worked for a business for less than 12 months or other categories covered by the second reading amendments in front of us. The Australians who find themselves out of work have the opportunity to apply for the significantly boosted jobseeker payment. The government has waived many of the usual eligibility requirements or waiting periods for those payments, but, yes, it is correct that some eligibility requirements do remain. In relation to leave arrangements, these are matters to be resolved by agreement and subject to relevant agreements between employers and employees. An employer can request an employee to take paid annual leave under the provisions of this legislation and the employee cannot unreasonably refuse. Where the employee is of the view that they are being treated unfairly, there is the capacity to consult the Fair Work Commission to review any such arrangement. Importantly, while on leave, the worker would be paid their full wage, subsidised by the $1,500 per fortnight payment; whereas, depending on the circumstances, it may well be that the worker would only be able to receive the $1,500 payment per fortnight. So it may well be in the employee's interest, and his or her choice, to draw down on their leave while they can before going onto the JobKeeper payment only—so not just in the interests of the business. I commend the legislation to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Gallagher on sheet 8497 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t We will move to the second reading amendment of Senator Waters. Senator Waters, you will need to move your amendment. 19:59 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move the second reading amendment on sheet 8950: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that the Government's proposed eligibility rules for the JobKeeper payment exclude millions of workers; and (b) calls on the Government to extend access to the JobKeeper payment to everyone who needs it, including:    (i) over 1 million casual workers who have worked for their current employer for less than 12 months,    (ii) everyone who relies on insecure, short-term, contract and gig-economy work,    (iii) people on temporary visas, including work, skilled, protection, student, and non-protected special category visas, many of whom are also ineligible for Medicare,    (iv) universities and their highly insecure and casualised workforces who are crucial to our recovery from this crisis and deserve full access to JobKeeper, and    (v) charities that largely rely on government grants and specific purpose funding and will not meet the 15 per cent threshold as a result". The PRESIDENT I0Q I would normally say, 'Lock the doors,' but I'll ask the attendants to prevent anyone else entering the chamber on this occasion. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Waters on sheet 8950 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 13 AYES Ciccone, R Gallagher, KR Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Patrick, RL Sheldon, A Siewert, R Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 21 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:06 The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, I will need you to formally move your amendment before I put it. 20:07 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I move the second reading amendment on sheet 8939: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate: (a) notes that:    (i) during the coronavirus crisis, if someone living in Australia needs support, they should be able to access it,    (ii) the Government has extended the jobkeeper payment to 444 visa holders on the basis that these visa holders have a long connection with their employers,    (iii) many other visa holders have equally long connections with their employers, but their employers will not be able to claim the jobkeeper payment for these employees,    (iv) the package of bills before the Senate will give the Treasurer the power to extend the jobkeeper payment to any visa holder,    (v) this is an important power given the current environment, and one that is supported by the Labor Party,    (vi) the Minister for Families and Social Services has similar powers to expand the jobseeker payment to other categories of people, including various types of visa holders, but the Minister has not exercised these powers in relation to temporary visa holders to date,    (vii) Labor supports the Government's position that if a temporary migrant worker can go home, they should. However, many temporary migrants are now trapped in Australia by border closures and the shutdown of international flights,    (viii) where migrants cannot go home, the Government must ensure temporary visa holders are not getting sick or falling through the cracks, and    (ix) the lack of support for temporary migrants trapped in Australia is a serious public health and economic issue for all Australians; and (b) calls on the Government to use these powers to provide appropriate support to everyone living in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic." The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Keneally, on sheet 8939, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:08]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 13 AYES Ciccone, R Gallagher, KR Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Patrick, RL Sheldon, A Siewert, R Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 21 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) 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 (b) 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". The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Walsh be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:12]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 13 AYES Ciccone, R Gallagher, KR Keneally, KK Kitching, K McAllister, J Patrick, RL Siewert, R Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 21 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:14 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) is of the opinion that the Government's response to COVID-19 continues to see large sections of our population left behind and disproportionately affected by this health and economic crisis; (b) calls on the Government to:    (i) provide proper support to at least the following groups:       (A) Disability Support Pension recipients, carers, and age pensioners who receive Commonwealth Rent Assistance, none of whom will be eligible for the $550 a fortnight COVID-19 supplement and will be trapped beneath the poverty line,       (B) First Nations peoples who are at severe risk of harm from COVID-19 and urgently need adequate personal protective equipment and access to safe housing,       (C) disabled people, who must have guaranteed continuity of essential disability supports, and have equal access to healthcare to ensure their human rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities are upheld,       (D) those for whom isolation presents a heightened risk of domestic and family violence,       (E) people in Australia who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, including asylum seekers on temporary protection visas, people who hold temporary work or skilled visas, international students, people who hold working holiday visas, tourists, New Zealand citizens on non-protected Special Category Visas, and permanent resident applicants backlogged in processing queues who do not all have access to work, income support, or Medicare,       (F) LGBTIQ+ people who experience poorer mental health outcomes, and experience discrimination in accessing crisis services,       (G) regional and remote communities who have poorer health outcomes and limited access to basic health services,       (H) people experiencing homelessness, and people facing rental and mortgage stress, who still are yet to see any solution to the homelessness, residential rent and mortgage crisis, and       (I) local government employees, who provide essential community services such as childcare, health facilities, and libraries, and have been left out of JobKeeper,    (ii) enable people to work from home and to maintain social connection by ensuring that no one is cut off from internet services including the NBN,    (iii) provide much needed extra financial support to specialist frontline domestic and family violence support services and crisis accommodation to meet additional demand during this crisis,    (iv) provide much needed extra financial support to those industries hardest hit, including tourism, hospitality, and the arts and entertainment sector,    (v) reverse funding cuts and lifts the freeze on indexation imposed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation so that it can deliver timely, accurate and reliable advice to the public during this period,    (vi) guarantee that mutual obligation requirements will continue to be suspended until the crisis is over to protect the health and safety of all people on income support payments and employment service providers,    (vii) permanently increase the Jobseeker Payment, Youth Allowance, AUSTUDY and ABSTUDY after the crisis is over to ensure people on income support payments are not dropped below the poverty line,    (viii) look to repay debts to robodebt victims once the crisis is over,    (ix) ensure Centrelink has adequate IT infrastructure and capacity and is appropriately staffed to guarantee Australians can get quick and efficient access to Centrelink, and    (x) immediately ensure eviction bans are enshrined in law right across the country so that renters have security, as well as giving rent holidays to those who need them; and (c) is of the opinion that given the gaps already identified in the Government response to COVID-19, some of which the Government has subsequently fixed in response to community and parliamentary pressure, that proper and comprehensive parliamentary oversight of the Government response to COVID-19 is necessary to ensure that no one is left behind". The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

Senate divided. [20:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 4 AYES Patrick, RL Siewert, R (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallagher, KR Hume, J Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:17 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I move the matter which I spoke to earlier: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) extend the 15 per cent reduction in turnover threshold to all National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and Disability Employment Services (DES) providers, and deliver a retention and support package for the disability sector workforce; (d) provide much more support for staff in schools, TAFEs, and universities affected by this crisis, noting that:    (i) 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    (ii) 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; (e) recognise the importance of local government, acknowledging that the closure of council facilities has resulted in significant revenue loss and workers being stood down and that without support, up to 45,000 local government workers could lose their jobs, demonstrating the need for the Government to work together with state governments to address these important issues; and (f) note 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". The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Sheldon on sheet 8949 be agreed to.

Senate divided. [20:19]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 13 AYES Ciccone, R Gallagher, KR Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Patrick, RL Sheldon, A Siewert, R Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 21 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania At the request of Senator Hanson-Young, I move the amendment to give artists and the arts community in Australia— The PRESIDENT I0Q Sorry, it's not an opportunity— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 access to the COVID-19 stimulus package: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) is of the opinion that the arts, entertainment, creative and events industries, and hospitality and tourism industries have been severely hit by this crisis and are not getting adequate support from this package; (b) calls on the Treasurer to ensure the following categories of businesses and workers are able to access the JobKeeper Program:    (i) casual workers who have not been with the same employer for 12 months,    (ii) freelance performers, content creators, and crew who are engaged as direct employees on short-term contracts on a project by project basis but are not registered as a business,    (iii) businesses that do not have a consistent stream of linear revenue across the year, such as those working on screen and stage productions, festivals and events, and therefore the revenue test is not applicable and should instead be for a comparable period not month, and    (iv) entities that are established as dedicated Special Purpose Vehicles which is common in the arts, entertainment and events sectors for individual projects, and are unlikely to meet the various tests and requirements therefore excluding many workers; and (c) is of the opinion that the arts, entertainment and creative industries need a tailored package to provide adequate support immediately and to assist recovery after the crisis, which should include:    (i) restoring and increasing Australia Council funding to expand access for individuals and organisations to access grants,    (ii) establish a Content Creator Fund for the production of local content to support high quality local content, our creative industries and, importantly, allow Australians to keep telling their own stories, and    (iii) local content requirements for broadcast, radio, subscription and streaming services, such as Netflix, Amazon, Stan, Apple and Spotify". The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson on behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, on sheet 8945 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:22]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 13 AYES Ciccone, R Gallagher, KR Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J Patrick, RL Sheldon, A Siewert, R Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 21 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 67 20:25 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I have a number of questions I would like to ask, which I will try and move through expeditiously, and then I would like to move my first amendment. Colleagues may have other questions, as does Senator Patrick, I'm told. I want to get some things clarified about the way that the jobseeker payment and the JobKeeper payment will operate together. Thank you for the briefing yesterday. It helped. Some of the questions were answered in writing, and it helped to clarify things enormously, so thank you to the government for that. I understand that, if somebody has already applied and done a notice of intent for the jobseeker payment, the process is aimed to make sure it's seamless. I must admit I do have some concerns around that in terms of the way it will work. But, if I have sought nomination to be part of JobKeeper, and the first employer that I nominate for doesn't decide to enter the scheme, do I have to wait for that or can I also indicate the second employer beforehand so there's no gap in that process? 20:27 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In relation to JobKeeper, there is no issue of second employer. There's only one employer. That is in relation to JobKeeper. If the employer is not eligible, and a particular employee finds himself or herself out of work, that former employee then would have the opportunity to apply for the jobseeker payment. We have waived many of the usual eligibility requirements and waiting periods, though not all, and so there are some tests that continue to apply. If an employee is not able to participate in JobKeeper and has lost his job, he or she would have the opportunity to apply for the jobseeker payment, and the waiting period would be waived. 20:28 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Minister, I apologise if I was not clear. Some casual employees, as you know, have a number of jobs. What I'm concerned about is the process of applying for the second—just say I've chosen my first employer for the job that I most want to work for or that I think is the best opportunity, but that employer decides not to opt into the process. How long a time frame do you envisage before I know that that employer hasn't opted in and I can then go to my second employer, because I've got a second job? 20:29 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia It's the employer that applies, and the employer nominates the employees under the arrangement. If I understand your question correctly, if a casual employee is working for two employers then that employee would have to nominate their preferred employer. And if that employer was ultimately not eligible—and this is the scenario I think you are getting at—then, yes, the employee would absolutely qualify to go into the JobKeeper program through the other employer. 20:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Thank you. What I'm after is the time frame to make sure that there is a continuous process. So I'll continue to get the jobseeker payment while I go through the first nomination process, and then keep it for the second one—is that correct? 20:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Assuming that both employers applied at the same time and that there is no time gap there then, yes, that is correct. 20:30 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Just along similar lines, Minister, I want to describe a scenario to you and understand whether or not this person would be eligible for JobKeeper. A typical scenario is a chef who works in restaurant A for nine months and then switches to restaurant B, where he has been for three months. Is that chef entitled to JobKeeper? He's clearly had tenure in the industry. It's quite common for a chef to go from one restaurant to another. Does that chef qualify for JobKeeper? 20:31 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I think this is a pretty black-and-white scenario. The tenure is consistent with the long-term casual definition in the Fair Work Act. The test is an association of 12 months or more with the same employer. Now, it could well be that the business is owned by a new owner, so the business transfer provisions would kick in. But if you're saying that this is an individual who has worked in the industry but across different employers over a period, then, no, they would not qualify; but, of course, they would be able to apply for the jobseeker payment. 20:32 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales Minister, there is a small business owned and run by people on safe haven enterprise visas in Minister Ruston's home state of South Australia. I visited them last year. They employ a range of Australian nationals in their business. Can the minister confirm if a business owned and run by SHEV holders would be eligible for JobKeeper funding for their Australian employees? They have safe haven enterprise visas; they are SHEV holders. They own and run a business and employ Australians. Would that business be eligible? The safe haven enterprise visa is a visa category created by this Liberal government. It is a form of temporary protection visa. 20:33 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In terms of eligibility for the JobKeeper payment, what is relevant is the citizenship of the employee. 20:33 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I want to confirm this. You are confirming that a business owned by someone who is on a safe haven enterprise visa, a temporary protection visa, is eligible to register for JobKeeper and provide it to their Australian citizen employees. Is that correct? 20:33 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I can't understand where you are getting confused. If an Australian business is employing Australian citizens who are eligible for the JobKeeper payment then those citizens would be able to receive the JobKeeper payment. 20:34 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales The confusion arises, Minister, because your government has said that safe haven enterprise visa holders and temporary protection visa holders are not eligible for JobKeeper payments as employees, so there does seem to be a very interesting inconsistency here. A person on a temporary protection visa, either a TPV or a SHEV, who has a business that employs Australians, as this one business I went to in Adelaide does, can register for JobKeeper and ensure that its Australian citizen employees are able to get JobKeeper payments, but if those same temporary visa holders are employees, they are not eligible to receive JobKeeper payments—is that correct? 20:35 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Again, it is entirely straightforward. The JobKeeper program is designed to keep Australian employees, and of course 444 visa holders from New Zealand, connected to their employing business when that business is in financial distress and might otherwise be unable to hold onto its employees. This is about providing support to employees through employing businesses. I think the situation is very clear. 20:35 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales What kind of support then can the temporary visa holders who own this business receive from the government to ensure that their business stays afloat and is able to continue to employ Australian citizens? 20:35 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In the context of this legislation, clearly the JobKeeper payment does not extend to temporary visa holders. I went through that in some detail during my second reading debate summing-up speech. But in terms of Australian businesses we have announced a whole series of measures to support, in particular, small- and medium-sized businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million—including the cash flow boost, the measure where Australian taxpaying businesses who are employing Australians, who are withholding tax for their employees, are able to get payments of up to $100,000, depending on what their payroll and withholding tax liabilities are. 20:36 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales This is my last question on this because I'm mindful that other senators may have questions. Minister, you keep using the term 'Australian businesses' but it's not run— Senator Cormann interjecting— Senator KENEALLY LNW You've just interjected that it is an Australian business, but it's not actually run by people you consider Australian. These are temporary protection visa holders. You have not given them permanent residency or any permanent status in Australia. So can you clarify that all of those supports that you have just outlined to the Senate are available to a business in Australia regardless of the visa status of the business owners. 20:37 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Again, I don't understand why Senator Keneally is in any way confused. It's very clear that Australian businesses with an Australian business number are able to participate in this JobKeeper program but that the JobKeeper payment is available only to Australian citizens and relevant others, not to temporary visa holders. 20:38 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Minister, the JobKeeper package currently, as we know, applies to sole traders, who are able to claim the $1,500-a-fortnight payment if they can demonstrate a 30 per cent decline in turnover. My question is about sole traders who operate as partnerships, typically owner-drivers. For example, in the trucking industry many small contractors operate as family partnerships, including husband-and-wife partnerships. Is it the case that these kinds of partnerships will individually be eligible for a single JobKeeper payment, regardless of the fact that there are two workers actively operating the business? 20:38 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The business participation requirements are that at any time in the fortnight the individual is actively engaged in the business carried on by the entity. The individual must be actively engaged in the operations and activities of the body. This engagement in the business must occur in Australia. Further, depending on the type of entity the business is, the individual must have a particular role within the business. In the case of an entity that is a sole trader, the individual must be the entity. In relation to a partnership, the individual must be a partner in the partnership, and it can only apply to one individual. 20:39 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria What was the reason that the government provided New Zealanders with access to the JobKeeper program? 20:39 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Well, we do have a special relationship with our friends from New Zealand, and this category of working New Zealanders, who have been employed in Australia and have the opportunity, because their employer wants to remain connected to them, to continue to be employed, is something that we felt was appropriate to support. 20:40 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Minister, as a number of us in this chamber have articulated, there are a number of people who are stuck in this country and have no income. They're not eligible for jobseeker payments or, in fact, JobKeeper. I've had a number of emails from Australians overseas who are in similar situations in the countries in which they live. Because they've been away, because they're stuck overseas, they've exceeded the extensions that have been made to some of the payments, or they had already fallen off the payments, and they have no visible means of support in the countries in which they're staying. And now we're doing the same here. Are you negotiating with any other countries for Australians to be supported overseas? As for all of the nonresidents who are here—and they're basically stuck here with no income and no access to income support—how are those people going to survive, when we've got citizens overseas who can't survive either? 20:41 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In relation to Australian citizens overseas—in particular, Australian citizens receiving or in need of a government payment who are overseas and unable to return to Australia—within the portability limits of their payment, because they are unwell with coronavirus or affected by coronavirus travel restrictions or country lockdowns they have generally had their portability automatically extended. Anyone who has stopped receiving a payment should let Services Australia know immediately to have their payment reinstated. In relation to temporary visa holders who are here in Australia, we don't accept that there is no capacity for temporary visa holders to return home if they are unable to support themselves in Australia. It's a long-established principle. Reading through one of the second reading amendments—I think from the Labor Party—even in that motion it was recognised that it's a longstanding principle that temporary visa holders are expected to be able to support themselves while in Australia. We have made a decision to facilitate access to superannuation for those temporary visa holders who have work rights, but what we do say is that we strongly encourage those temporary visa holders who are unable to support themselves over the next six months, either through work, through savings or by accessing their superannuation, to return home, and this is the time to go. It is a situation that we will continue to review periodically, and further changes may be made if required, but at this point in time our very strong advice to any temporary visa holder who cannot support themselves is to return home. 20:43 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Are you saying to international students as well that they should return home? What happens if they can't return home? 20:43 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia International students do come here on the basis that they are expected to support themselves while in Australia. That is the basis on which they come to Australia and that is the reason why we expect temporary residents, temporary visa holders, to support themselves either through their savings, through work, or through accessing superannuation if they have work rights here. Many working international students would have access to a level of superannuation. 20:43 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Minister, do you accept that, given the current situation with employment, many students will have lost their jobs? Yes, they were working, but they will have lost their jobs. They'll probably have little superannuation, in fact, and it's going to be very difficult for them to gain those jobs, particularly if they can't access JobKeeper. 20:44 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In Australia, when it comes to income support and related arrangements it has always been based on a residency requirement. That is not a new principle at all. We of course understand that it is a difficult circumstance, but the Australian government has a responsibility to prioritise Australians in the first instance. Indeed, we have extended supports to permanent residents and waived the waiting period for permanent residents that hadn't yet served the entire waiting period to be able to access relevant income support payments. Just to put that into context: we are here about to spend $130 billion in relation to six million working Australians—nearly half the Australian workforce. Probably another two million Australians will receive jobseeker payments. That is well over half the Australian workforce that will be receiving payments from the government. While I hear that some are saying that we should do more and more and more, the truth is that in this circumstance, in the context of the capacity of what we're able to do, in the first instance we do have to prioritise the interests of Australians. 20:45 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Thank you for your answer, Minister. I don't agree with you. We have amendments that we will put on that particular issue. You made a comment about Australians overseas. I did acknowledge that some of the portability processes had been extended. There are people stuck overseas that have previously been on payments but have fallen off them because for various reasons they got caught over there, overseas. Are you saying that they could potentially apply for some form of income support from Australia, even though they have actually then exceeded their portability requirements? 20:46 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Just to clarify this: those Australians who were receiving payments but had their payments stopped because they exceeded their portability requirements should approach Services Australia to have their payment reinstated. In relation to Australians who are overseas and who are unable to support themselves overseas, our advice would be the same to them. In fact it has been the same to them for some time now: come home. Of course, in that circumstance Australians would be able to receive the relevant income support in Australia and apply for income support here. 20:47 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I am aware of occasions where people actually can't come home for a number of reasons. But I will pass on your answer. Can I also ask about the issues around superannuation. If I'm stuck overseas and can't get a payment, am I able to access my superannuation while I'm overseas? It's my Australian super—superannuation that's been generated in Australia. Can I access that while I'm overseas? 20:47 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In relation to Australians who have permanently moved overseas, there are longstanding provisions that enable people to withdraw their superannuation. In relation to those Australians, any Australian who finds themselves in a position of hardship and complies with all of the relevant eligibility requirements would be able to access their superannuation. 20:48 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Minister, last week the Prime Minister said that the inclusion of New Zealanders in the JobKeeper program was due to the fact that they've been making a life here, working here and are connected to businesses here, and they've made commitments here and own properties and rental properties et cetera. Why then has the government not included other long-term visa holders that have made a similar contribution to the Australian economy? 20:48 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Because we have a particularly special relationship with New Zealand. 20:49 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The legislation before us tonight will allow the Treasurer to include classes to access the JobKeeper payment. What is the process of assessment that will occur for the inclusion of any new classes of people? How will you determine whether they qualify, and will it simply be up to the minister's will? 20:49 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I would very respectfully refer the senator to my statement in my second reading summing-up speech, where I addressed that precise question directly. The Treasurer is given the power under this legislation to exercise discretion, as you have rightly pointed out, and he will have the capacity to issue rules and determinations to give effect to that. I spelt all of that out in some detail in the second reading summing-up speech. 20:49 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you, Minister. As we know, Minister Ruston has been given similar powers to expand the jobseeker program to other categories of people. With the Treasurer's powers with JobKeeper, can you give confidence or provide any commentary around how the Treasurer will go about assessing whether there will be a need to look at different categories when the need arises? What trigger points will there be where the government will say, 'Okay, we'll agree to include certain categories of people in the JobKeeper payment'? 20:50 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Again, I really have addressed this in second reading summing-up speech. The reason that this legislation proposes to give the Treasurer this flexibility is that we recognise this is an evolving situation and there are likely to be unforeseen issues that will arise in the future. In that context it is going to be important, both for the minister for social services and for the Treasurer, to be able to adjust the relevant rules and eligibility criteria and the like in the context of an evolving situation. By the same token, I have made very clear the government's position in relation to a number of categories that have been put to the government now. We are not proposing to expand the JobKeeper program to local council workers. Local council workers are the responsibility of the states, and state governments recognise that. We're not proposing to expand the JobKeeper payments to TAFE or state school employees. Again, these are matters for state governments. We are not proposing to expand them to temporary visa holders, for the reasons that I have clearly spelt out. We are not proposing to expand the JobKeeper payment to casuals that have been with the same employer for less than 12 months, again for the reasons that I have already outlined. But, in the future, issues might arise that we can't currently foresee, and out of an abundance of caution in this legislation the government has proposed to give the Treasurer this discretion to be able to respond flexibly. These sorts of decisions will be subject to the normal decision-making processes of government, but, by giving the Treasurer discretion in this legislation and by giving Senator Ruston discretion in the legislation that we passed a couple of weeks ago, we are able to flexibly respond to an evolving situation. 20:52 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I appreciate the minister's response. With coronavirus highlighting the complications that can arise when the economy becomes heavily reliant on temporary visa workers, will the government consider measures in the future to encourage more permanent forms of migration? 20:52 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Australia is a great migrant nation. Australia's success, in large part, has been built on the back of generations and generations of people who have chosen to make Australia their home, and many in this chamber come from a proud migrant tradition. I think this government, like other governments, supports the contribution made by permanent migrants and migrants that have chosen to make Australia home all throughout our history. 20:53 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Given that holders of holiday-maker visas make up a significant proportion of the low-skilled workforce in the ag industry and given how important this labour source is to Australian farmers, why does this bill provide no support for working holiday makers who may be temporarily experiencing a reduction in work but want to stay in Australia and make a contribution to our national economy? 20:54 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia A lot of Australians are out of work, and our priority is to ensure that Australians are able to, at this point in time, pursue the jobs that are available. But working holiday-makers who have jobs are of course welcome to stay. In fact, we have announced certain flexibilities in relation to their visa arrangements during this period, including letting them work for the same employer for longer than they ordinarily would be able to and various other arrangements. But the principle is a very basic, simple principle: if you are a temporary visa holder, including a temporary visa holder with work rights, you are expected to support yourself while in Australia. You're expected to support yourself, through work, through your savings or by accessing your superannuation, and we've made it easier for temporary visa holders to access their superannuation in this current circumstance. If you're not in a position to be able to look after yourself, then we would expect you to go home. 20:55 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I wanted to ask about JobKeeper and the payments going to part-time workers. There's a flat rate. Part-time workers normally work a certain amount of time. Will an employer be able to require part-time workers to work more if they don't want more hours? 20:55 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia They can't require them to, but, of course, consenting parties can agree, as they can under ordinary laws. 20:56 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia You would be aware that I've got an amendment on this, so I want to be really, really clear that employers can't force a part-time worker to take on more hours if they don't want to. Given that there's a flat rate, they can't say, 'These are the number of hours that, previously, you would equate to that much money.' They can't force that. I want to be really clear about it. 20:56 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thought I was extremely clear about it. They can't force it, but consenting parties can reach agreement. We would encourage all those businesses and employees in this situation to seek to come to sensible commonsense agreements with each other. 20:57 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I have a slight variation of that question. If an employer were to say to an employee, 'If you want me to sign you up for the jobseeker scheme, I'll expect you to work the equivalent hours of a $1,500 a fortnight payment,' would that employee would be able to go to the Fair Work Commission and complain? Where would they take that situation? 20:57 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia For the third time, yes, an employer can't do that and, yes, an employee could complain in that circumstance. But, again, we would encourage all Australian workers and all Australian employees and their employers to work together through this period in a consensual spirit. 20:57 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I have a couple of questions in relation to businesses that are seeking to provide their workers with basically a tie-over until these payments commence in May. I believe that's the advice on the fact sheets. I've had a couple of constituents contact me and basically say that they've been to their bank and their bank is refusing to provide them with enough money to cover off on the jobseeker payment. I spoke with Anna Bligh this morning. She said that there may be some latency issues associated with some banks understanding what all of the requirements are. Can you please lay out what the government has done formally in respect of communicating with banks to make sure that these businesses can tie themselves over until the May payment? Secondly, I spoke to someone in a bank this morning who said that they still have quite rigid requirements in respect of the regulator that require them to go through a number of hoops. Are there any changes in that space in respect of directions to banks to ensure that people are not tied down in paperwork as they—and I'm talking about businesses—are seeking access to loans from banks to cover them between 30 March and the first payment, which is expected to come some time in early May? 21:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Let me first make the observation that in the context of the coronavirus crisis the banks have actually been fantastic. They have really sought to do their bit to help support our economy through this period in terms of the way they have approached, in particular, business lending and the challenges faced by Australian borrowers more generally. In relation to the issue of the JobKeeper program and being able to use that program and the expected payment as a basis to seek credit, that is an initiative that Anna Bligh, CEO of the Australian Banking Association, flagged in a statement that she released on 5 April. Senator Patrick, you mentioned a specific example. It's hard to make judgements without knowing the financial circumstances of an individual business as to why they may or may not be able to get financing. I was just observing in my own mind that, really, in terms of our mindset towards the banks, we seem to have come a long way from all of the recommendations for stronger protection of borrowers in the wake of the banking royal commission, to the proposition that you're putting now—that we should make sure we get rid of all this paperwork so they can get easy access to finance. So it's quite a spread in terms of the aspiration and what we're asking our banks to do. But that's just an observation on the side. In terms of the broader issues, the government has taken unprecedented action in coordination with the RBA and APRA to ensure the flow of credit in the Australian economy, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises. This includes the government providing a guarantee of 50 per cent to SME lenders for new unsecured loans to be used for working capital, which enables lenders to provide credit, which will result in SMEs being able to access additional funding to help support them through the upcoming months. To ensure support is being provided to small and medium-sized businesses across Australia, any particular bank or non-ADI lender is required to provide weekly reporting on a number of factors, including the average interest rate they're offering. This will be a way of comparing what lenders are offering and ensuring they're not taking advantage of SMEs under the scheme. In addition, the government has provided ASIC and APRA with record levels of funding, which has enabled them to increase their focus on consumer protections to ensure that all regulated entities are complying with the law. The government has also provided the Australian Office of Financial Management with $15 billion to invest in structured finance markets used by smaller lenders, including non-authorised deposit-taking institutions and smaller authorised deposit-taking institutions. This provides SMEs with the option of going to a wider number of lenders, including small banks and non-bank lenders, to get the credit they need without having to only rely on the big four banks. The government is also providing a temporary exemption from responsible lending obligations—going to the question of paperwork, I guess—for lenders providing credit to existing small business customers to help small business get access to credit quickly and efficiently. The government is confident that, with these measures in place, banks across Australia will do the right thing and provide support to assist otherwise viable businesses across the economy who are facing significant challenges due to disrupted cash flow to meet their existing obligations—and I stress here: this is to support and to assist otherwise viable businesses across the economy. Should banks not comply, then the government would be able to take action under the existing frameworks, including under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which holds banks and their senior executives to account and includes a range of tougher consequences if expectations are not met. This framework will incentivise good behaviour and ensure that banks and individuals are held to account where they fail to meet the standards expected of them. 21:03 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Thank you, Minister. I wasn't intending to say anything bad about the banks; I was just trying to understand what the government had put in place, so I thank you for that answer. I have one question that flows from that answer. Again, it's based on another constituent who is in a pretty good position but has noted that the margin between the official interest rate set by the RBA and the credit that is being offered to them in support of their business during the crisis is quite high. It's quite a large margin. You mentioned that there were reports going back, I presume, to the regulator in relation to interest rates. Does the government have any sort of expectation—and I appreciate it does depend on risk profiles—as to what is reasonable in respect of the difference between the RBA interest rates and what banks should be setting as interest rates in relation to these coronavirus payments? 21:04 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government doesn't set prices. The government doesn't set the interest rates charged by the banks. In the end, we have a competitive banking sector and we are going out of our way to ensure, as you've indicated, that there's the capacity to compare what lenders are offering and ensure they're not taking advantage of SMEs under the scheme; specifically, by requiring weekly reporting on a number of factors, including the average interest rates that are being offered. I would just make the general observation that, compared to what was the case in the past, and in particular and including on the back of some of our initiatives, the interest rates available to small business borrowers now are better than they have been. 21:05 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I just wanted a small clarification in relation to the relaxing of responsible lending laws through this period. Does that only relate to helping businesses, for example, pay their first month of the economic stimulus, the JobKeeper package, or does it relate to tiding them over during the period? Or can they, for example, go out and get a massive capital loan under this relaxed regime? 21:06 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The banks will still make their proper assessments. The answer to the first question is no. The exemption from the responsible lending rules is not just limited to the loans in the context of the JobKeeper program. The temporary exemption from responsible lending obligations for lenders providing credit to existing small business customers, to help small business get access to credit quickly and efficiently, is a general exemption. But it's 'existing small business customers', so they would have a pretty good read on their viability and profitability in ordinary times. And we think in the current circumstances that is appropriate. 21:07 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales In relation to the previous question I asked the minister regarding partnerships, would the government consider amending the package to allow the active partner along with the principal in the partnership to claim the jobseeker payment? 21:07 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia That is not something that we are proposing or considering. This is for one individual in the partnership. 21:07 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia There are a number of questions that hopefully I can go through fairly quickly, and they relate to income support and the process over this next six months. Can I confirm that the reviews that are normally carried out on a periodic basis of people on DSP, carer payment, and carer allowance have been and/or will be suspended? 21:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Senator Siewert, as you would imagine, the absolute priority and pretty much the full use of the workforce at Services Australia has been directed towards making sure that we progress the applications for payment of people who have come onto the payment. In limited circumstances, particularly where it was in the interests of the person for whom an assessment is needed, we would probably do so. But they would have to be quite exceptional circumstances where the safety of both the person undertaking the assessment and the person who the assessment was being undertaken with were not compromised in any way. So, whilst there hasn't been a blanket decision to cease all reviews over this period of time, there certainly has been a decision that we will only be undertaking them under exceptional circumstances. 21:09 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I thank the minister. That was my understanding, but I've now had a number of people approach my office saying that it seems like the standard review doesn't sound like it falls into those exceptional circumstances. In those instances, what happens? Will they continue, even though they're not exceptional ones, or can they say that they don't want to do it at the moment because they don't want to expose themselves to risk? 21:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Senator Siewert, what I'd suggest you do is what you have been doing over the last few weeks. Often there's a lag in the system—a decision is made and it takes a little bit of time before the system slows down or actually enacts the action. So what I'd suggest you do is provide me with the advice, as you have done in other circumstances. We will address them, and, if the matter persists, we'll obviously need to take stronger action. But at this stage it appears as if it may just be lag in the system. 21:10 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I appreciate that, Minister. We're getting people, as I said, ringing up and saying that it's difficult to respond. So we'll take those on notice and go straight to you. Thank you. Can I also confirm the issue around income reporting that was suspended during that very intense period of Centrelink being swamped? My understanding was that people did try to report their debts. I'm aware that a number of people did—a number of people did and it was not successful. Again, I've had people come to me and say they've now had a debt notice, which actually seemed quite quick. Other people have said, 'Well, we're really, really anxious that we're going to get a debt notice.' So there are a couple who have, but there are a lot of people that are anxious. My understanding is that, during that period where they couldn't and they did try to report their income, they're anxious that they will get one. Can I confirm that, in fact, that is not going to be the case? 21:11 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Senator Siewert, once again, I would be very interested in seeing the individual cases. We did suspend reporting; so there would be no reason why Centrelink would be aware that, if somebody hadn't reported income, they actually had income. So I'm a little confused about how it might have been raised. But if debt notices have been raised for the period you're talking about, that would seem like it would have been in error, and we'll pursue them. 21:11 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Thank you very much. That's appreciated. I found it a bit incredible, or a bit confusing, but they assure me that that's what it was related to. So I will follow that up. But I just want to confirm for those that are anxious—we have a lot of people that are just plain anxious—that, because they weren't able to report, they won't get a notice. They're very worried about it. 21:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My understanding is that the income reporting was suspended until last Friday. So for the period—I think it was the two weeks prior to that—nobody was required to have reported income. So you can be absolutely assured, in giving an assurance to anybody who is anxious, who believes that they should have reported income during that period and didn't, that there is no issue at all that they didn't. Income reporting commenced again last Monday, once the system was back and able to cope with it. 21:12 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Thank you for that reassurance. I can assure you that we were reminding people that they needed to start income reporting as well so there was no issue. I wanted to go to the recent announcement about the suspension of debt processing. There have been people that have sought advances on their Centrelink payments—you know, when they seek advances for big costs—that have been told no in the past because they had debts. For people that do need advances, and they have frozen debts, are they now going to be able to seek those advances where some crisis happens et cetera? 21:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Senator Siewert, I will endeavour to get you an answer to that in the next few minutes. My understanding is that they should still be able to get their advances, but I will check that and get back to you during the questioning. 21:14 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia That's much appreciated; thank you. You've suspended mutual obligations to 27 April—again, very much appreciated—and you've also indicated that, if there are ongoing problems, that will be extended. On what basis will you make that decision? 21:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The original reason for us suspending mutual obligations was obviously to make sure that our systems were completely focused on making sure we got new people onto payment. There are a number of things that will impact people's ability to meet their obligations. A number of things could occur. We could continue to suspend them if it seems an unreasonable expectation because of the level of quarantining and the requirements of the states in terms of people's actual behaviour. But, equally, it could just be that there is no work available. So it's one of those things that we're going to be constantly keeping an eye on and we'll be making the decisions closer to the time. But I will certainly undertake to make sure that, in relation to any extension on mutual obligations, or a limiting or changing of those mutual obligations, we give you as much time as possible. 21:15 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I appreciate that. In terms of terms of the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission that was announced by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago, some members were named up front in the announcement. It was my understanding that there may be additional people added to that. You will be aware that we felt very strongly there should be somebody from the community sector with strong experience working on the ground. We're also of the opinion there should be representation from First Nations and of vulnerable groups. Have further people been added to the commission? If so, who are they? If not, when do you expect to be letting people know that additional people have been appointed? Are you considering making sure First Nations and other vulnerable groups are on the commission? 21:16 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I very much respect that these are issues that Senator Siewert feels very strongly about and is very passionate about. They're not issues related to this bill. They're legitimate questions, and I'm happy, on notice, to provide answers to them. I believe you will be a member of the Senate select committee, and I'm sure that, through that work, you will ask the COVID-19 Coordination Commission chair to appear. I would encourage you to put these questions to them too. These questions are not related to the legislation in front of us. I'm mindful of the time, and the fact that Australians probably expect us to get this to a close in the not-too-distant future. 21:17 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Minister, I'm trying to be as expeditious as possible. This does relate to this package of legislation. I appreciate what you've just said in terms of the commission appearing before the committee. However, I was asking about the membership of that commission. That commission has a very important role, and I would have thought it would have been easy to answer the question. It's not up to the chair to tell me who's on that commission. It's actually up to the government who appointed the commission. I am trying to be as expeditious as possible, but these are issues that Australians are asking us about constantly. 21:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I have a number of questions across a range of issues, but likewise I intend to be very brief. On the rule-making power, can the minister confirm that the broad rule-making powers granted under the payments and benefits bill cannot be used to override or otherwise alter any employment conditions or social security entitlements that a person might otherwise have? 21:18 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In this legislation the Treasurer doesn't get the power to change IR laws or social security laws, if that is the question. Obviously, there is the capacity here, through the rule-making power, for the Treasurer to vary payment rates, but that can only be prospective and it is in the context of this legislation and this payment. We've also previously legislated, as a parliament, to give the social services minister certain powers for a temporary period, sunseted to 31 December 2020, to make changes to various payment rates, eligibility criteria and the like in relation to income support payments. 21:19 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks, Minister. I might come back to you with some follow-up questions. I'm aware of the general provisions, but it was more a specific question about whether employment conditions could be unilaterally varied. My understanding is the answer is no, but I was hoping for confirmation. Thank you for the clarification. I have a couple of quick questions on paid parental leave. I want to confirm that paid parental leave taken does not affect the continuity of service for casuals. Can you confirm that, if they return from paid parental leave but they haven't returned for longer than 12 months, their previous service in that role would count and they would be eligible for the JobKeeper payment as casuals that had been employed for more than 12 months but had been on that period of paid parental leave? 21:20 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Unpaid parental leave does not break continuity of service under the Fair Work Act. To the extent that a casual employee is a long-term casual employee who is eligible for unpaid parental leave under the Fair Work Act and they are on unpaid parental leave, that period can count for the purposes of satisfying the 12-month regular and systemic requirement as a casual for the JobKeeper payment. Unpaid parental leave does not break, as I've said, the employee's continuity of service. So, as long as that employee is on the employer's books on 1 March 2020, that employee will be eligible, subject to any other criteria which might apply. If a casual employee is on paid parental leave, for example, under the terms of an enterprise agreement, then that period will also count as service towards meeting the 12-month regular and systematic requirement for eligibility for JobKeeper payment. 21:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I have a related question on paid parental leave. If a worker is on paid parental leave but, due to COVID, their employer closes down, what happens to the worker's ability to continue to receive the 18 weeks government funded paid parental leave? Who would administer that if their employer closes its doors? 21:21 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia There is no change to these arrangements. These arrangements will continue to operate as normal. If an employer remains a viable business, has shut down by standing down its staff, an individual will continue to be paid by their government funded paid parental leave according to their current arrangements—typically paid to the individual by their employer. If an employer is no longer a viable business and an individual no longer has an employment relationship with their employer, Services Australia will instead pay individuals their paid parental leave entitlement directly on a fortnightly basis. 21:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks very much, Minister. I have one question about the appropriations bills. I understand this is a cognate debate, so I can ask about those. On the $40 billion discretionary fund, I understand that amendments in the bills before us pertain to when that money can be spent and that now it's permissible to spend it in subsequent financial years, not just the current one. We don't have a problem with that. I'm just seeking some clarity. There's a mention in the explanatory memo about how the large amount reflects the associated uncertainty about what may be required as part of the government's response. What are the parameters that will guide that discretionary spending? Are there any written anywhere? How close a link to COVID is the expenditure required to have, and where is the oversight of the discretion in the exercise of dispensing that fund? 21:23 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia First, let me make a slight correction in terms of when the fund is available. Part of the problem is that this financial year it was not yet available. Under the supply acts that we legislated last time, the advance of the finance minister to the tune of $40 billion was becoming available from 1 July 2020, and clearly the urgency and emergency is with us now. We believe, and we are proposing to the parliament—and we're very appreciative of the support from the opposition, and, as I understand from what you've just indicated, from the Australian Greens—that it is prudent for the government to be able to have access to this fund, this larger fund, earlier. We're not adding to the fund. We're just making it available, essentially, from royal assent for the remainder of this financial year. Then the appropriations acts for 2019-20 will lapse and then the supply acts 2020-21 will kick in. Whatever amount is spent out of appropriation acts 5 and 6 for 2019-20 will be deducted from the fund that is legislated in the supply act 2020-21. That's the first bit. In terms of the circumstances in which this advance to the finance minister can be spent, this is a longstanding arrangement in our appropriations act. In fact, in the Westminster system it's been in place for hundreds of years as a prudent management tool to deal with urgent and unforeseen items of expenditure. There are established rules in relation to all of this, and there are established accountability requirements. As finance minister, I've got to report to the parliament and to the Senate on the use of the advance. The Auditor-General reviews the report that is prepared on the use of the advance on an annual basis. But in the context of this particular fund, given it's got a larger size, we have agreed to some additional transparency measures in our engagement with the opposition. I've made a commitment that every week, when a determination has been made under the advance to the finance minister, I would issue a statement explaining what funding has been allocated and for what purpose. You will have seen that I issued such a statement last Friday when we committed $800 million to the Department of Health for the purchase of more masks and other personal protective equipment for our health workers. Right now I can't foresee what is unforeseeable. The reason we have this fund in place is to deal with unforeseen requirements in the context of the crisis that we're dealing with. The cost of medical equipment and personal protective equipment is higher than it has been in the past. The competition globally is more intense, and the demand domestically in Australia is higher than it usually is. So we do expect that there will be more calls on that fund in that context. I should also say that, if there is any expenditure item that goes above $1 billion, then I would seek the concurrence of the opposition for that payment through the shadow minister for finance. So there is that additional check and balance in there as well; it's not just a matter of me running off. In terms of the decisions underpinning the allocation of funding, the normal processes of government would apply; I can't just make a decision myself to incur expenditure. The decision to incur expenditure is going to be a decision by government through the normal processes, subject to the authority of the Prime Minister and, as applicable, to the decisions of the Expenditure Review Committee and the like. But, ultimately, I have the fiscal capacity to allocate funding to these urgent and unforeseen needs. I hope that answers your question. 21:27 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Minister, it does. I appreciate that. I have a couple of additional questions that sort of pertain to subsequent amendments. I'm happy to ask them now to expedite things, if that suits. It's just a question about the prescribed period in the bill. It's defined as running from 1 March to 31 March this year, but under the rules it shows that the JobKeeper fortnights end on 27 September. So my question is about why it is that the power to make new rules goes beyond the JobKeeper fortnights, and what this pertains to. Do you intend to keep making payments after August, when parliament should resume and would otherwise be available to approve future payment schemes? 21:28 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Well, the truth is, parliament is scheduled to resume, but we don't know what we don't know in terms of how this crisis plays out, and it is prudent to give ourselves that flexibility to be able to deal with these things over, like, a six-month period. 21:28 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks, Minister. Can I just seek your reassurance that, were parliament to resume, you would seek to use the normal courses of parliament to approve any future rule making, rather than relying upon this catch-all power? 21:29 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The reason this power is in this legislation, and a similar power is in the legislation that we passed last time, is to give ourselves flexibility to deal with a continuously evolving situation. But, of course, once we return back to normal, we would return back to the normal processes of parliament. 21:29 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks, Minister; it's good to have that statement. The rule-making power in section 7 does appear incredibly broad. What other payment schemes do you have in mind to create future rules that you're able to share with us at this point? 21:29 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I can't predict what unforeseen circumstances might arise in the future—the definition of 'unforeseen circumstances' is that they are unforeseen—but what I do believe is that it's prudent for the government and for the Treasurer to have this power so that we do have the capacity to respond to a continuously evolving situation. 21:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Do they have to be connected to the COVID-19 pandemic, though, in an economic sense? 21:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia They've got to be related to the JobKeeper payment, which is directly related to the COVID-19 crisis and the economic implications of it. 21:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Do they have to be for the benefit of workers as such or could payments pertaining to an entity be made for any purpose that you see fit? 21:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia This is part of the coronavirus economic response, and, as we've indicated, it is prudent for the Treasurer to have powers to flexibly make rules that are relevant to responding to the economic response to the coronavirus crisis. 21:31 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Just so I understand what you've said: the payments wouldn't just relate to workers? The new rules could also relate to money that could then be issued to entities; is that what you just said? 21:31 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Why don't I read you what it says, because it's very self-explanatory. Section 7, which is on page 4, provides: (1)   The rules may make provision for and in relation to:    (a)   one or more kinds of payments by the Commonwealth to an entity in respect of a time that occurs during the prescribedperiod— and you've already mentioned the prescribed period— and    (b)   the establishment of a scheme providing for matters relatingto one or more of those payments, and matters relating to such a scheme.    Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not limit each other. So it is a broad-ranging discretion that will enable the government to respond to the economic challenges flowing from the coronavirus crisis with the appropriate level of flexibility. 21:32 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, could that relate, for example, to a potential rescue package for an industry like small brewers in this country? They are potentially looking at losing their stock and their livelihoods because the product they produce can't be sold through outlets anymore. A lot of their product is in keg form, and they're looking at potentially millions of dollars of losses of inventory because they've been forced to shut down. Is that the kind of thing that could be used for? 21:32 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I'm not going to start speculating on circumstances which may or may not arise. Our approach to this coronavirus economic response as much as possible is to work through existing systems and processes, to make economywide and sectorwide decisions and to pursue sectorwide and economywide measures. This section is extremely clear. It relates to one or more kinds of payments, and the second paragraph of section 7 talks about the eligibility criteria for a payment—if or how an application for a payment must be made. So it is a broad-ranging discretion that will enable the government to flexibly respond to what is an evolving situation. 21:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On that earlier point in relation to section 7 payments that can be made to an entity, apologies if I wasn't clear earlier. My question was: can that payment be made for any purpose? Or must the payment be made for the benefit of workers? 21:34 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia It doesn't limit who the payment could be made to, but it can't be for any payment. It is a section on coronavirus economic response payments, so it is in relation to payments that the government may or may not decide from time to time may be required in order for us to appropriately support the Australian economy throughout this coronavirus crisis. 21:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland So it's not necessarily just for the benefit of workers; it sounds like you're envisaging it as a more broad economic measure. 21:34 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia That is what it explicitly says in the section. In fact, it is extremely clear in the section. 21:35 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Since other people are asking questions about their amendments, I might just ask a few quickly so we can get them out of the way. Before I do that, though: Minister, is it your understanding that the UK, New Zealand and Canada aren't discriminating between foreign workers and domestic workers in terms of accessing their emergency economic stimulus payments? 21:35 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia What I know is that, if you compare what we are doing with what other countries are doing, our scheme is significantly and materially more generous. I will compare with New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. In New Zealand, somebody working at least 20 hours a week receives $585.80 a week. For somebody working fewer than 20 hours a week, it's $350 a week. If the subsidy exceeds the wages usually paid to an employee, any difference is to be used by the business for wages of other employees affected. That amount is obviously lower than the Australian amount. In the United Kingdom, it is the lower of 2½ thousand pounds per month or 80 per cent of their regular wage. And in Canada it's 75 per cent of the first $58,700 normally earned by employees, representing a benefit of up to $847 per week. Employers who suffer a drop in gross revenue of at least 30 per cent in March, April or May when compared to the same month in 2019 will be able to access the subsidy, but employers would have to keep records demonstrating the reduction in arms-length revenues and remuneration paid to employees, and there are many details yet to be confirmed in relation to this. The JobKeeper scheme is more generous than the New Zealand scheme. The JobKeeper scheme is broader than the UK scheme. And we believe that we have developed a system that is administratively more efficient to administer using existing channels through the ATO, which allows government to ensure that businesses are passing on the subsidy in full to workers. 21:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania That didn't answer my question. My question was: are you aware that those countries in particular are allowing foreign workers access to their emergency stimulus payments? 21:37 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I'm not aware of the visa arrangements of all other countries around the world. What I do know—and I've said this many times now, so, in the interest of time, this will be the last time that I make this point—is that, in Australia, there has always been an expectation under our laws that temporary visa holders will be able to support themselves while in Australia. Those who are unable to support themselves over the next six months, either through work, savings or access to superannuation, are strongly encourage to return home. The time to do so is now. 21:38 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, the reason I asked the question is that, over the last seven years under your government, in this chamber we've signed multiple trade and treaty agreements with countries all around the world, not just bilateral agreements but also huge multilateral agreements that cover a whole range of rules and regulations around, for example, the mobility of labour. I'm just wondering if your government has sought any reciprocal processes with these countries whereby, if we pay foreign workers or allow them to access our schemes, we can seek compensation from those countries further down the track, and vice versa for Australians who happen to be in Canada, the UK or other countries. If they seek those schemes, would we potentially compensate their governments as part of the bilateral agreements? 21:39 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The answer is no. We're dealing with a real-time crisis and, quite frankly, the time is just not available to do those things. Our visa laws are very clear, and we believe the arrangements that we have made are overwhelmingly supported by the Australian people. 21:39 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I have a simple question: why has the government chosen May? I understand you haven't got a specific date yet as to when the first payments will flow to employers under the JobKeeper scheme. Why was there a six-week delay from the time this was announced? 21:39 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I've made that point many, many, many, many times. Organising this sort of program and these sorts of payments for six million Australians is a huge logistical exercise. To get this set up does take time, in terms of making sure the system is able to do so accurately, efficiently and effectively. It's entirely driven by the time required to get all of the systems in place to do this at this sort of scale. 21:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland One Nation agrees with the sentiment in many of the amendments, yet now is not the time for discussing these. I will explain and then check with the minister. Minister, I will have two questions after first confirming my understanding. First, as I said in my reply to the minister's statement earlier today, we have been concerned about the complexity of the legislation already in place, and now there is the added complexity of this legislation and the speed with which these changes are being made, yet the legislation allows ministers to make changes as regulations. Like the opposition, we understand the short-term need, in the circumstances, to give this government this power, and we'll be holding them accountable throughout the period of managing the virus and after the virus passes. We will continue to listen our constituents and we'll continue to advocate for them to put ideas to the government to protect workers and any groups that fall through the cracks. Our understanding is that unions have publicly acknowledged that the government has worked well with them on making changes to the legislation. The opposition has acknowledged publicly and in this Senate that the government has worked well with it. Our party has passed constituent concerns and ideas to the government, and the government has implemented these ideas. Second, the government and opposition have stated that they will oppose all other amendments. Any amendments to this legislation, regardless, would need to go back to the House of Representatives and would delay this package getting out to the people who need it. Third, given the complexity of the amendments and the lack of costings of some of these amendments, there has been no time for us to check the legislation. We would be neglectful to support these amendments with such little notice. All parties, as I understand it, have had ample opportunity to suggest changes to the government. Minister, can you confirm the minister's ability to make regulations to close the cracks in legislation to ensure fairness for any people in need who have been missed in this legislation and to make regulations to protect taxpayers from abuse of the new provisions? 21:42 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Roberts for those comments, for those remarks and for those questions. The Treasurer does have wideranging temporary discretion. The discretion for Senator Ruston in the legislation we passed a few weeks ago is also temporary. It's to respond to unforeseen circumstances. Of course, we will continue to monitor the situation as it evolves. We do want to ensure that those Australians who need support can get appropriate levels of support. Even as issues emerge which require our attention, we will have the flexibility under that rule-making power to respond to any such circumstances. In terms of scrutiny, there will be the opportunity for the Senate select committee to scrutinise the government's response. It has some very wideranging terms of reference on the government's responses, both on the health front and on the economic front. I know that Senator Roberts has nominated to be a participating senator on that committee, and I would encourage him to pursue all of the issues of concern to him and to One Nation through that process. 21:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, just following on from that, can you confirm that, because of the answer that ministers can make changes through regulations, there is no upper spending limit on this bill? If the estimates are in error, the $130 billion could become $150 billion. What is the top end? That's my last question. 21:44 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Senator Roberts is right that the $130 billion is an estimate. It's an estimate in a demand driven program. I've seen some of the commentary from observers and I've read some comments from Chris Richardson. The view among commentators appears to be that we have erred on the side of conservativism rather than on the side of underestimating. But the truth is that this is a demand driven program. These are estimates, and changes in economic parameters or changes in decisions could have an impact on the estimate moving forward. 21:45 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8930 together: (1) Clause 3 (before line 9), before the definition of approved form, insert: ACNC ‑registered charity has the meaning given by the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999. (2) Clause 7, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:    (3) If the rules make provision for a test of eligibility of an ACNC‑registered charity to a payment, the test must:       (a) exclude funding from a Commonwealth, State or Territory that is provided to the charity for a specific purpose; and       (b) include income from:       (i) individualised government funding, such as that provided for the purposes of the Child Care Subsidy or the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and    (ii) donations; and    (iii) investments and social enterprises; and       (c) for the purposes of this subsection, an entity's turnover is to be assessed for each separate service the entity provides. Note: An example of an entity providing separate services includes a single entity that provides disability, child care and aged care services.    (4) Subsection (3) does not limit subsections (1) or (2). These amendments relate to the definition of charity and the charity-specific eligibility. In my second reading contribution I made the argument for why I think this is essential. There are a couple of short points I wish to make. What I didn't talk about in my second reading contribution, due to time, is the fact that this pandemic and the crisis have an impact on charities' ability to support and to have volunteers supporting their efforts. I did just want to make the point that charities are now struggling to access volunteers. In fact a number of charities and not-for-profits, I understand, have been told that their volunteers won't be covered for insurance, for COVID-19, which means that they will not be able to access volunteer support. In some instances they are then trying to see if they can get other volunteers or, in fact, have to pay workers. The point here is that we recognise and appreciate that we've gone down to 15 per cent versus 30 per cent for not-for-profits. The point is that a lot of charities and not-for-profits actually get a lot of tied grants. They have no discretion over that funding, but they've seen a significant drop-off in funding, in donations and in their revenue-raising capacity. ACOSS did a short survey—I won't go through all the detail because of time. For me, one of the outstanding statistics on their members was: in less than 24 hours I understand 168 of their members, who represent a lot of people, responded and said that they felt that at this stage—37 per cent thought—they had job losses and thought that they wouldn't come under the 15 per cent turnover drop, because they have those tied grants. That 37 per cent would have job losses is quite significant. So I'm moving this amendment. I won't rehash all my other arguments for this, but I do ask—and I do realise that the tax commissioner has some discretion—on what basis is the government prepared to reconsider this issue, if it doesn't support this amendment? I'm guessing, from what people have said, that it won't get supported. Is there a point at which you will keep reassessing the not-for-profit and charity sector, to see when the tax commissioner will look at exercising their discretion? 21:48 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will not be supporting these amendments. The turnover test for charities has already been relaxed, in light of their special circumstances. Let me say, we worked very closely with ACOSS in relation to this. It's true that we haven't been able to deal with all of their issues, but, where we could, we certainly went out of our way to address their concerns. Excluding additional forms of income from the turnover test could result in assistance being directed to charities that have not been significantly impacted by COVID-19. In addition, it would be difficult for the ATO to source such information and verify accuracy in a timely way. The bill already provides flexibility to adjust the turnover test, if the need arises. In relation to the commissioner's discretion, that is a matter for him. In relation to in what circumstances we might make further changes, as I've previously indicated we will continue to assess an evolving situation and continue to make decisions. I can't make any predictions here or speculate on what we may or may not do but we will continue to assess how coronavirus is impacting on the economy, on jobs, on business, on the community services sector and on all Australians, and we will continue to make adjustments and decisions if and as required. 21:49 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Minister, I did make the point that we acknowledge that there is a different test. You have made different tests for businesses. Where the businesses are a group you've allowed them to separate into entities, for the purposes of this provision. Why can't you make a concession to or make the same sort of consideration for charities? This will impact on charities—charities that you are relying on to make sure that we get through this pandemic. This isn't about themselves; this is about their ability to support Australians that are in crisis. That's why they're asking for this. Question negatived. 21:50 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—I won't call a division. Can I please have it registered that the Greens supported— The CHAIR 112096 Yes, the Greens and—Centre Alliance, Senator Patrick? 21:51 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia by leave—Yes, Centre Alliance. The CHAIR 112096 It will be duly noted that you agreed with the amendment. 21:51 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move request (1) on sheet 8948: (1) Clause 7, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of clause 7, add:    (3) In determining the entitlement of an entity to a payment for an employee of the entity, the rules must provide that the types of employee that an entity is entitled to receive a payment in respect of include an individual that on 1 March 2020 was an employee of the entity and was the holder of a temporary visa within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958. ----- Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (1) Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill in a way that is intended to direct funding under the proposed jobseeker program to additional individuals. The amendment would require the Treasurer to make rules which include an additional class of employees when calculating an entity's entitlement to receive a payment under the scheme established by the bill. Specifically, the effect of the amendment would be to include temporary visa holders as eligible employees when assessing an entity's eligibility for payments from the Commonwealth under the rules. As this would increase the number of employees for whom employers would be eligible to receive payments, the amendment will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (1) If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. This amendment relates to temporary visa holders' access to JobKeeper. We have had substantive discussion in this chamber about this particular issue. We are deeply concerned about this issue and about access to these provisions. The parliament is quite rightly moving to address the current crisis. We think that the people who are on temporary visas do need access to these provisions to be able to have a form of income and, in this instance, to be able to work where jobs are available and where they've had jobs. We've covered this substantially in the chamber, so I won't rehash those arguments other than to try to say: 'Please change your mind. Please support these workers. Please support these people who will have no form of support.' I tabled a petition earlier today that 20,523 people signed in a relatively short space of time, urging the government to move to support the people who are being left behind. Question negatived. 21:53 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—Madam Deputy President, I ask that the Greens be recorded as supporting this amendment. 21:53 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia by leave—Madam Deputy President, I ask that Centre Alliance be recorded as supporting this amendment. The CHAIR: It is duly noted that the Greens and Centre Alliance supported the amendment. 21:53 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia In relation to amendment (1) on sheet 8934, I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: (1) Clause 7, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of clause 7, add:    (3) In determining the entitlement of an entity to a payment for an employee of the entity, the rules must provide that the types of employee that an entity is entitled to receive a payment in respect of include an employee of the entity who satisfies the requirements in subsection (4), regardless of the period of time that the individual has been employed by the entity. Casual employee requirements    (4) The requirements are that:       (a) the individual was a casual employee of the entity on 1 March 2020; and       (b) it is reasonable to assume that the individual would have continued to be an employee of the entity if the entity had not been directly or indirectly affected by the Coronavirus known as COVID-19. This amendment relates to casual employees. Again, we've had substantial debate in this chamber about casual employees who, for no apparent reason that we can see that's justifiable, aren't able to qualify as they have had their work for less than 12 months. I heard an instance quoted in the chamber earlier today; I think the person was three days outside the 12-month period for qualifying. I had someone who, I think, was 13 days outside the period of qualifying for this. Surely, the idea here is to keep as many people as possible working and as many people as possible connected to work as we move out of the crisis and the economy picks up. The idea, I would have thought, is to keep these workers connected to work as much as possible. As I understand it, there are over a million workers who are working. They're working. They're casual workers who just don't happen to have had their jobs for 12 months; some are very close to it. In some instances, there's very little difference in the amount that the casual workers who have been working for under 12 months have been earning. As I articulated in my second reading contribution, 50 per cent of the household income for the households that these workers are a part of is coming from these casual workers who are missing out. I don't know how we can justify saying to a worker who has been working: 'You don't get the JobKeeper payment. You can't access the JobKeeper payment, because you haven't had that job for 12 months,' when, as casuals, they have been working for 12 months. It's not justifiable. We should be extending this to casual workers so we keep as many people as possible connected to work and supported in the workplace. I strongly urge the government to extend these provisions to all those workers—the one million workers. I had an older gentleman contact me. He's a part-time pensioner who has been working for just under the 12 months. In fact, I tell a lie; I had two people contact me in the last 24 hours. Another person contacted me just a couple of hours ago saying they are a part-time worker on a part pension who didn't qualify because they had changed jobs and hadn't been connected to their job for 12 months; it is just under the 12 months. They're going to miss out and they're on a part pension. This is important to Australians. It's important to workers. What they want to do is hold on to their jobs. The Senate transcript was published up to 22:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.