The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017
For many, the changes are dramatic: full time or part time retail workers who work a full 8-hour shift, for example, will lose at least $72.90 per week. Annually, this equates to a $3499 loss.
… workers in Rural Australia losing between $370.7 million per annum and $691.5 million per annum … a loss in disposable income of between $174.6 million per annum and $343.5 million per annum to local economies in Rural Australia.
… we've got to find solutions to create a more flexible, dynamic, 21st century economy out of which everybody wins.
… the Fair Work Commission will report soon on … penalty rates. They're an independent body, in fact you had a lot to do with the way they operate now when you were Minister. Will you accept their findings given this is an independent body assessing penalty rates for Sunday, if you're Prime Minister.
Yes.
MITCHELL: You'll accept them?
SHORTEN: Yes.
MITCHELL: Even if they reduce Sunday Penalty rates?
SHORTEN: Well, I said I'd accept the independent tribunal …
First, penalty rates are not being abolished.
The Sunday weekend penalty rates for Level 1 fast food workers will be aligned with the Saturday rate of 125% for permanent employees and 150% for casuals. This is a relatively modest reduction from 150% and 175% respectively. Even higher penalties will apply to fast food employees classified at Levels 2 and 3. The public holiday penalty rate will be adjusted to 225% for permanent employees and 250% for casuals. A similar modest reduction.
Second, the adjustment in Sunday penalty rates will be phased-in over at least two annual increments, commencing on 1 July this year. The incremental adjustment in Sunday penalty rates will occur on the same day that employees will receive a minimum wage increase through the Commission's Annual Wage Review.
Third, penalty rates for nurses, firefighters and indeed all workers are not under any threat whatsoever. The Commission's decision only concerns fast food, retail and hospitality industry workers. There are some unique issues in these industries and no-one is suggesting that penalty rates for nurses or firefighters should be changed.
The Pharmacy Guild welcomes the Fair Work Commission decision on penalty rates which is reasonable, balanced and evidence-based.
Once implemented, this decision will help enable community pharmacies to continue to provide access to vital medicines and other services across weekends and public holidays.
The commission ruled today that 7am-9pm Sunday penalty rates for full and part-time pharmacy employees will be reduced from 200 per cent to 150 per cent and for casuals from 225 per cent to 175 per cent. The rates for public holidays have been reduced from 250 per cent to 225 per cent for full and part-time pharmacy employees, and from 275 per cent to 250 per cent for casuals.
It has never been in anyone's interest for pharmacies to be unable to open on Sundays or public holidays.
It has never been in anyone's interest for pharmacies to be unable to open on Sundays or public holidays.
… some issues in this parliament … are complex and … some … are dead simple. This parliament has never had a more straightforward choice than it does today. This parliament can vote with Labor to protect … the take-home pay of … 700,000 of our working Australians … or it can vote to cut wages in retail, hospitality, pharmacy and fast food.
As a major employer, we simply don't agree with the argument that stripping workers of their take-home pay is going to be good for business or for employment.
There's no evidence whatsoever to support the claims that cutting low-paid workers' pay even further is going to be beneficial for us as a nation.
People can't spend money they don't have and cutting pay ends up hitting businesses between the eyes.
… do not support the PC recommendations to reduce Sunday penalty rates in the hospitality, entertainment, retail, restaurants and cafe industries or to provide greater consistency in weekend rates in those industries where that would result in rate reductions. We do not support the requirement for the FWC to implement the reductions through the award review process.
ACCER and CCER oppose the applications in the Penalty Rates Case to vary specific awards in the retail and hospitality sectors to reduce penalty rates, in particular reductions to Sunday rates. ACCER and CCER reject legislative and other attempts to abolish or reduce weekend penalty rates due to concerns about the negative impact on the incomes of vulnerable workers and the detrimental impact of unsociable working hours on rest, recreation, and family time.
There is a very clear decision to be made here. You can either vote to save the penalty rates—the Sunday pay rates—of young people, of women, of people in the regions and of workers who depend upon these penalty rates. You can vote to do that, or you can vote to endorse cutting them.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 3 OF 2017
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 7.16 pm.
2. The committee recommends—That—
(a) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 May 2017 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(e) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 6 and 7 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:
5. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(David Bushby)
Chair
23 March 2017
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The bill makes significant changes to bargaining under the FW Act.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Unions
Employer organisations
Fair Work Commission
Fair Work Ombudsman
Department of Employment
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment Legislation committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
(signed)
Senator Siewert
APPENDIX 2
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Name of bill: Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow for a full and detailed examination of the provisions proposed in the bill. To allow stakeholders to make submissions on the detailed proposals in the bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Employers, employer groups, unions, academics, industrial relations experts.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
22 May 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 3
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Fair Work (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow for a full and detailed examination of the provisions proposed in the bill. To allow stakeholders to make submissions on the detailed proposals in the bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Employers, employer groups, unions, academics.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
22 May 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 4
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow for a full and detailed examination of the provisions proposed in the bill. To allow stakeholders to make submissions on the detailed proposals in the bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Employers, employer groups, unions, academics, industrial relations experts.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
22 May 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 5
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Removal of 'offend' and 'insult' provisions from section 18C of the Act.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Persons and organisations who made submissions to the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights concerning Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The Committee could inform itself of the submissions and report of that Committee to enable a relatively short review process.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs — Legislation - Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
April 2017
Possible reporting date:
Tuesday 9 May 2017
(signed)
Senator Bernardi
APPENDIX 6
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
The week of May 9
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 7
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To understand the extent of the market that will actually be captured by this tax. To understand the ability of the tax office to collect this tax.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Online retail platforms.
Bricks and mortar retail firms. Logistics companies.
Tax academics.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
(signed)
Senator Siewert
At the end of the motion, add “and in respect of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017”.
Omit “9 May 2017”, substitute “28 March 2017”.
The Senate divided. [12:35]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 45 (Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017); and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That general business order the day No. 44, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017, be considered on Thursday, 30 March 2017 under consideration of private senator's bills.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
The Senate divided. [12:49]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 introduces major reforms under the government's Jobs for Families Child Care Package.
This package will deliver genuine, much-needed reform for a simpler, more affordable, more accessible and more flexible early education and childcare system.
Almost one million Australian families will benefit as a result of this childcare assistance package. Low- and middle-income families will be the greatest beneficiaries.
The measures contained in this bill represent an important investment in Australia's future, and they will deliver genuine reform.
The child care package contained in this bill has been before three Senate Inquiries. I thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, as well as all those individuals and organisations who contributed to these inquiries. The government welcomes and accepts the recommendation from each of the committee's majority reports that the childcare bills be passed.
The government's Jobs for Families Child Care Package strikes the right balance between targeted childcare support for hardworking families who depend upon it, a generous safety net to protect those most vulnerable in our community, and ongoing support for high-quality early learning. This is further boosted through our $840 million in federal support in 2016 and 2017 for 600 hours of universal preschool access for each child in the year before school.
The key elements of the Child Care Reform Package are:
o the Additional Child Care Subsidy
o the Community Child Care Fund
o the Inclusion Support Program
This bill makes significant amendments to the current A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 in order to introduce the Child Care Subsidy, Additional Child Care Subsidy, and new approved provider and service requirements from July 2018. The bill provides for a number of transitional provisions that will commence in July 2017 and for the fast-tracked introduction of some enhanced compliance measures from royal assent.
Together these will give effect to the majority of the government's response to the recommendations from the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Childcare and Early Childhood Learning
Our objective is to help parents who want to work, or who want to work more, while still focusing on early childhood education.
Having two parents in paid employment has become the preferred choice for most families because of the changes in our society and economy over many years. Access to more affordable, quality child care puts the opportunity of work within far better reach of more families.
The Jobs for Families Child Care Package is designed to support more families, including jobless families, to increase their participation in work, training, study or volunteering. The Government's significant investment is targeted to those who need it most—low- and middle-income families who are juggling work and parenting responsibilities.
We want families to choose their child care around their work, rather than limit their work hours to suit their child care. It is estimated that the package will encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their involvement in paid employment.
Child Care Subsidy
The centrepiece of the Jobs for Families Child Care Package is the new Child Care Subsidy. From July 2018, the Child Care Subsidy will replace the current Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate with a single, means-tested subsidy.
The Child Care Subsidy will be better targeted than current childcare payments, providing more assistance for low- and middle-income families.
This reform is fundamentally fair. Low-income families will receive a Child Care Subsidy rate of 85 per cent of the actual fee charged (up from 72 per cent). That decreases to a 20 per cent subsidy for very high income families who are currently receiving a 50 per cent rebate on their out of pocket costs. The Child Care Subsidy rate tapers from 85 per cent to 20 per cent to ensure the package is most generous to those who earn the least. A family on $60,000 a year [whose child care centre charges $100 per day] would pay around $15 a day per child for care.
To make child care fairer, the coalition's reforms include abolishing the $7,500 Child Care Rebate annual cap that currently applies to all families. This will ensure that low- and middle- income families are not limited by a cap on the amount of child care they can access. Families earning more than around $185,000 will also benefit from an increased annual cap of $10,000 per child.
The new Child Care Subsidy will be paid directly to childcare service providers to make the system simpler for families.
An activity test will ensure that taxpayers' support for child care is targeted to those who depend on child care to work or work additional hours. The three-step activity test will align the hours of subsidised care more closely with the combined hours of work, training, study or other recognised activity undertaken, and provide for up to 100 hours of subsidy per fortnight. The bill provides that at least eight hours of activity a fortnight results in access to 36 hours of subsidised child care a fortnight; more than 16 hours of activity a fortnight results in access to 72 hours of subsidised care a fortnight; and more than 48 hours of activity a fortnight results in the maximum amount of subsidised care of 100 hours a fortnight.
These reforms are fundamentally fair—they provide the greatest hours of support in child care to the families who work the most hours, and the greatest subsidy and financial support to the families who earn the least.
The Package is also designed to place downward pressure on childcare costs for families and to ensure the government's significant investment in child care is more sustainable into the future.
New data released earlier this week showed that there are nearly 18,000 approved child care services nation-wide, caring for roughly 1.25 million children.
But the data also illustrates a broken early education and care system that is not working for Australian families. The data for the June 2016 quarter shows families faced a fee spike of almost eight per cent since the June 2015 quarter. While the Turnbull Government has done everything it can to reduce fee increases in the current system, this latest 7.6 per cent increase in child care fees – including a 6.3 per cent increase in Long Day Care fees – demonstrates that Australia's child care system needs to be reformed.
We need to fix this broken system with a complete overhaul.
The reforms will place downward pressure on what have been incessant child care fee increases through an hourly rate cap.
Additional Child Care Subsidy
We know children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from quality early childhood education and care, and that is why we are providing additional support to those who need it most. The Child Care Subsidy I have just spoken of will be supplemented by an Additional Child Care Subsidy to provide extra childcare support for disadvantaged and vulnerable children, whether they be children at risk of serious abuse or neglect, families experiencing temporary financial hardship, grandparents on income support with primary carer responsibilities for their grandchildren, or parents on income support seeking to return to work, study or training.
The Child Care Safety Net aims to work alongside other state, territory and federal government payments and programs that are designed to give our most vulnerable children the additional support they need. Amongst other measures, it will provide low-income families who do not meet the activity test up to 24 hours per fortnight of subsidised care—this is equivalent to two weekly six-hour sessions. These 24 hours will be provided at the highest 85 per cent rate of subsidy, which is an increase on the current rate of about 72 per cent.
Getting children into quality child care maximises the early learning opportunities for children who may not be getting all the support they need at home. It also improves a family's ability to break a cycle of poverty and intergenerational welfare dependence by minimising barriers to workforce participation and providing access to early learning.
The Productivity Commission's report identified that existing programs that support disadvantaged and vulnerable families are complex, inefficient, poorly targeted and open to abuse. This is particularly the case in relation to the Community Support Program, special childcare benefit and the jobs, education and training childcare fee assistance payment.
These payments and programs, along with the current Budget Based Funded Program and grandparent childcare benefit, will be replaced by the Additional Child Care Subsidy and other elements of the Child Care Safety Net. Together, these will comprise a more integrated and targeted set of funding programs that leverage the increased Commonwealth investment in child care to provide the best early learning outcomes, particularly for those who need it most.
The new payments will remain linked to immunisation requirements that were strengthened under the very successful No Jab, No Pay policy from 1 January 2016.
Elements of the Jobs for Families Child Care Package outside the legislation
The Jobs for Families Child Care Package also includes a number of other important measures that are not formally part of the legislation. This includes the Community Child Care Fund which will help new and existing services, particularly in rural, regional or vulnerable communities, increase the supply of places in areas of high, unmet demand.
Much has been said, in both the House of Representatives debate and in the Senate Inquiry, about the transition of Budget Based Funded services under this package, otherwise known as BBFs, and the support they will receive from the Community Child Care Fund.
There are 300 BBF services nationwide, caring for around 22,000 children, amongst those are around 5,000 children in 45 mobile services.
In order to address concerns with the current block-funded program, which is capped and closed, this Package brings BBFs that are delivering child care into the broader funding model. For the first time, families using these services will receive direct support from the Government through the Child Care Subsidy and, for those requiring extra support, through the Additional Child Care Subsidy.
Recognising that many of these services go to great – and costly – lengths to travel to small communities with limited numbers of children, our third funding source for BBFs, including mobiles, is the Community Child Care Fund, which is an ongoing program with funding of $110 million a year. A significant portion of that fund will be provided as a supplementary funding stream to BBFs that need extra support in order to remain viable. As is the case for the BBF program, Community Child Care fund guidelines will not be legislated – this has the benefit of flexibility and the ability to tailor the program to meet emerging needs into the future.
However, having listened to the need for certainty going forward, I can assure the Senate that these BBFs will benefit from longer term grants of between 3 and 5 years. Great care has been taken to support BBFs in the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, including service based reports developed by Pricewaterhouse Coopers for each and every BBF. This careful work will continue after the bill has been passed, particularly with regard to further consultation on the Guidelines governing the Community Child Care Fund, which will be published by July 2017. We will also examine this program, along with every other provision of the bill, as part of the Post Implementation Review scheduled to commence within one year of implementation.
Strengthened compliance arrangements
Unfortunately, there are those who seek to use Government support to the childcare system for personal gain. This Government is determined to ensure that taxpayer support for early childhood education and care is used for fee relief for families, as intended.
We know that compliance measures are effective. Last year, we introduced new rules to eliminate the costly abuse of payments through a process known as 'child swapping' in the family day care sector. The Australian Government's focus on noncompliance (mainly but not solely focussed on family day care) is showing very clear results. The Government's action has resulted in a significant reduction of fraud in the child care system. While still growing the number of child care places available to hard working families, we have also managed to spare taxpayers nearly $1 billion in waste and driven dozens of rorters out business.
By contrast, under the previous Labor Government in the two years to June 2013, there were no cancelations, no suspensions and only two fines issued. In 2012-13 the Labor Government carried out only 523 compliance checks, while in the past financial year the Coalition Government carried out 3,100.
This Government will continue its tough stance on compliance and it is fast-tracking some of the strengthened compliance arrangements in this legislation to ensure they take effect from Royal Assent.
Currently, once a child care provider is approved by a state or territory regulator, the Commonwealth has limited grounds for not approving fee assistance for parents using that service. Compliance measures being brought forward in this legislation will include the power for the minister to make legislative instruments to place a pause on child care service applications for fee assistance. Such a pause may be made in relation to a particular service type for a defined period.
This measure will help us to address excessive growth within a particular child care service type, specifically where there are concerns about proven or alleged noncompliance with family assistance law.
Closure and transitional arrangements for child care payments
The bill includes consequential amendments and will provide transitional provisions to support the replacement of existing child care payments with the Child Care Subsidy and Additional Child Care Subsidy.
Conclusion
By way of conclusion, this bill, and the Jobs for Families Child Care Package more generally, will deliver significant and greatly needed reform through a simpler, more affordable, more flexible and more accessible childcare system. I commend the bill to the Senate.
These changes will diminish our kids' potential to make a smooth transition to school, compounding the likelihood of intergenerational disempowerment and unemployment. Children will fall behind before they have even started school and suffer greater risks of removal into out-of-home care.
… engagement in early childhood education reduces risk of harm to a child, and subsequent involvement with statutory child protection authorities, as well as reductions in remedial services and criminal behaviour in the longer term. Holistic community based Indigenous services are a central preventative measure to strengthen families and prevent child abuse and neglect.
The Government is committed to Indigenous children having the same opportunities as other children to access child care and early learning.
Decouple funding for the Jobs for Families Package from cuts to Family Tax Benefit payments.
The link to Family Tax Benefits looks more like a political link rather than a budgetary one.
It is a political strategy which will adversely impact the same families the government argues its new childcare reforms will especially benefit.
As families are struggling with cost of living pressures across the board, we strongly urge the Government and the Parliament to proceed—
… without any further cuts to family payments.
… declaring conduct, relevantly speech, to be unlawful, because it causes offence, goes too far. The freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech. There is no right not to be offended.
None of Australia’s international treaty obligations require us to protect any person or group from being offended. We are, however, obliged—
to protect freedom of speech.
I'm walking my children to school and out a car window someone shouts f*#% off to your own country. My kids are 6 and witnessing such disgusting behaviour.
People should be allowed to have a joke in this country—it's part of our Australian culture and way of doing things, I think—without being hauled before the courts.
… work to maintain the protections and preservations of Australia as a pluralist society in which multiculturalism is protected, and bigotry is challenged.
… a stamp duty for land tax swap could boost the economy by a massive 82c for each dollar swapped. There's no bigger benefit imaginable from rejigging tax.
Ensuring that our company tax rate is competitive, ensuring that it is competitive with other economies, particularly those in our region, is absolutely critical to attract the investment into businesses in Australia …
Children from disadvantaged families need to have access to two days per week of affordable quality early childhood education and care as a minimum. The 12 hours per week proposed is insufficient.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Farrell today relating to company tax cuts.
Ensuring that our company tax rate is competitive, ensuring that it is competitive with other economies, particularly those in our region, is absolutely critical to attract the investment into businesses in Australia.
Business groups have become increasingly concerned at the lack of commitment and this intensified on Wednesday when Treasurer Scott Morrison refused for a third straight day to say whether the government would stick with the plan and take it to the next election …
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to housing affordability.
Budget estimates 2016-17 (Supplementary)—
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 9 February and 22 March 2017—Defence portfolio.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Australian government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration report:
Business Innovation and Investment Program
March 2017
Background
The Business Innovation and Investment Program (the program) was introduced on 1 July 2012 and included in the SkillSelect expression of interest (EOI) database to facilitate the matching of prospective migrants with state or territory government nomination. The program aims to attract skilled and experienced business owners, senior executives and investors to Australia with the assets and desire to migrate to Australia on the basis of entering into business or investment activity.
On 18 March 2014, the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon. Scott Morrison MP, asked the Joint Standing Committee on Migration (the committee) to inquire into and report on the program, excluding the Significant Investor Visa stream.
In March 2015, the committee handed down its report. The report included one recommendation for the government to consider.
Committee's recommendation
The committee recommended that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection examine the program as part of the 2015-16 Migration Program Survey (the survey) and in its Skilled Migration and Temporary Activity (SMTA) visa review The committee asked that the department examine the:
Australian g overnment response
The government appreciates the time taken by the committee in undertaking its inquiry into the program.
In principle, the government supports the committee's recommendation to review the program. However, rather than the committee's recommendation to review the program as a part of the survey and the SMTA visa review, the government will undertake a separate review of the program. This approach will allow for a more targeted and comprehensive analysis of the program.
A review separate from the survey or SMTA visa review is preferred for the following reasons:
Review of the program
The committee asked that the government examine specific aspects of the program in the recommended review.
1. Suitability and attainability of the objectives set for the program
The review will clarify the objectives of the programme, and the visa settings which underpin it. Any resulting recommendations will be put to the government for consideration.
2. Role the state and territory governments play in administering the program
The government will review the role of the state and territory governments in sponsoring business migrants and ensuring that the skills and economic value of business migrants is optimal.
The review will examine whether the current system adequately balances the risks and benefits of the programme and the division of responsibilities between the states and territories and the Commonwealth.
3. Data collection
The government recognises that more targeted data should be obtained from state and territory governments in order to properly evaluate and report on the suitability of the programme.
While this will be subject of further discussions with the state and territory governments, the review will develop a forward working plan for monitoring and evaluating the program.
4. Promotion and marketing of the program
The government agrees that the program requires promotion and marketing to ensure it targets innovative and successful business people to migrate to Australia. The government continues to promote the program and adapt its promotional activities to ensure Australia remains internationally competitive as a destination for innovative talent and investment.
5. Application processing and service standards
The government notes the committee's recommendation to examine options for improving application processing times and service standards. As noted by the committee, it is difficult to attribute the cause of delays in processing to any one issue, including whether these delays are due to under-resourcing in the department or failure on the part of the visa applicant.
Processing times and service standards are regularly reviewed and informed by feedback from the department's processing network, applicants and external stakeholders.
6. Role swapping
The government agrees with the committee's observation that a decline in applicant rates may be attributed to the removal of the ability for "role swapping" among primary and secondary applicants for the permanent visa.
On 1 July 2015, role swapping was reintroduced for the program (excluding SIV and PIV), to allow the primary applicant for the provisional visa to be the secondary applicant for the permanent visa and the secondary applicant for the provisional visa to be the primary applicant for the permanent visa. This enables visa holders with established businesses in their home country to maintain their business offshore and have their spouse or de facto partner run their Australian business, thereby increasing the flexibility of the program.
7. English language requirements
A minimum English language threshold is one of the factors that will be considered as part of the review. The age threshold for applicants will also be considered.
8. Innovation points test
The innovation and investment points test will be reviewed.
9. Attracting investment in regional Australia, graduates, early-stage entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists
The program settings recognise that business owners and investors may be the best judge of where to invest, including in regional Australia.
While visa settings facilitate the entry of talented or skilled migrants to Australia, other factors will also contribute to a potential migrant's decision to choose Australia. In this context, the department will work closely with other government agencies to ensure the program visa settings are appropriately supportive of broader policy directions.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rhiannon to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017
Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Siewert to replace Senator Rhiannon for the committee’s inquiry into the Community Development Program
Participating member: Senator Rhiannon
Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Roberts
Participating members: Senators Burston, Georgiou and Hanson
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Burston, Georgiou and Roberts
Strengthening Multiculturalism—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Dodson, Kitching and Singh
Participating members: Senators Bilyk, Brown, Cameron, Carr, Chisholm, Collins, Dastyari, Farrell, Gallacher, Gallagher, Ketter, Lines, Marshall, McAllister, McCarthy, Moore, O’Neill, Polley, Pratt, Sterle, Urquhart and Wong.
Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017
Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
EDUCATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2017
Student loans to pay for tuition fees provide important financial support for vocational education and training students who would otherwise be unable to afford to study because of upfront fees.
Most training providers whose tuition fees are funded by student loans do the right thing, providing high quality training that gives their students the skills they need to get a job, or get a better job.
Unfortunately, however, it is common knowledge that Labor's failed VET FEE‑HELP scheme was exploited by a number of unscrupulous providers and their agents.
In particular, disadvantaged Australians were targeted, including those with a disability, those with low levels of literacy, Indigenous Australians and older Australians.
People were signed up for loans but had little understanding of what they were signing up for; taking out loans for courses which they did not need and did not have the capacity to complete.
That is why the Turnbull government axed Labor's failed VET FEE‑HELP scheme and established a new, student-centred, robust, outcomes-focused VET Student Loans program.
VET Student Loans rebuild Australia's income contingent loan program for vocational education and training from the ground up, restoring confidence in the VET sector and better protecting students.
As part of VET Student Loans, the Government announced it would establish a new VET Student Loans Ombudsman, giving students access to an independent complaints handling mechanism with the power to adequately investigate their concerns.
The submissions made to the Senate inquiry into the VET Student Loans Bills late last year demonstrated the significant stakeholder support for the government's announcement.
For example, the Consumer Law Action Centre said:
'An ombudsman will assist the sector to rebuild its reputation and the trust and confidence of students, parents and employers. The fact that the Government is acting quickly to establish this service is welcomed, as accessible and free dispute resolution is complementary to a rigorous consumer protection environment.'
Similarly, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) noted:
'An ombudsman also offers the vast majority of providers the protection of knowing that those who do the wrong thing will be weeded out.'
The VET Student Loans Ombudsman will be operated through the Commonwealth Ombudsman, whose independence will help in restoring confidence in the VET sector.
The VET Student Loans Ombudsman will be able to investigate complaints, and compliance by providers with legislation in relation to loans, for both the new VET Student Loans program or under Labor's failed VET FEE‑HELP scheme, and make recommendations to address concerns.
The unfortunate actions of a small number of unscrupulous providers and their agents have left some students with significant debts and damaged the reputation of our many high quality VET providers.
This government recognises the critical importance of assisting these students with their complaints and repairing the reputation of the sector.
This is why I introduce this bill today.
Australian Research Council amendments
The bill also increases the funding caps in the Australian Research Council Act 2001 in line with inflation and ensures that the Australian government can continue to provide support for thousands of research projects.
The Australian government is making a significant investment in science, research and innovation—committing $10 billion across all portfolios in 2016–17 alone.
Through our $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science agenda (NISA) the Turnbull government is supporting research, incentivising innovation and entrepreneurship, rewarding risk taking, and promoting science, maths and computing in schools includes, including through:
Through the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Australian Government is investing in excellent fundamental and applied research that helps improve the quality of people's lives, supports Australian industries and businesses, and ensures our nation remains at the cutting edge of research, innovation and global competitiveness.
Such research has and continues to play an important role in both addressing the most challenging and significant social and economic problems of our time, and ensuring taxpayers money is invested wisely.
In November last year, the government announced more than $416 million in Australian government funding through the ARC's National Competitive Grants Program.
This funding supported research projects including: developing high-speed optical wireless technology; helping to better understand speech and language difficulties in children; and understanding how people with disabilities use smartphones to navigate and use essential services.
In January this year, the government also announced the first research projects awarded funding under the new continuous Linkage Projects scheme, including research that will: improve our national rail track system; develop better coal seam gas water treatment; and improve the efficiency of Australia's mining sector.
Australia's higher education system must have adequate research funding and facilities to ensure we attract and retain world-class academics, working with industry, and teaching the next generation of researchers, policy-makers and entrepreneurs.
Unlike the former Labor government, which left a funding cliff for NCRIS in June 2015, and announced $6.6 billion in cuts to university funding, the Turnbull government, through the NISA, has secured the future of the NCRIS network and its 1,700 highly skilled technical and research staff.
High quality, accessible and sustainable research infrastructure is a crucial investment in Australia's future.
The amendments in this bill, to extend funding through to 2019–20, provide certainty to Australian researchers to continue to deliver critically important research, build partnerships with industry and the community, and realise excellent research outcomes for Australia and the world.
I commend this bill.
HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH COMMISSIONER) BILL 2017
1 SECOND READING SPEECH
I am proud to introduce the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill, which amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 for the purpose of establishing Australia's first National Rural Health Commissioner.
This is an incredible and historic occasion—an historic occasion for the coalition, the National Party, and the third of our population that call regional, rural and remote Australia home.
This is really a historic occasion for our nation.
Improving access to quality health care for people, no matter where they live, is a priority for this coalition government.
Our doctors, our nurses, dentists, allied health workers, our pharmacists, our Indigenous health workers, mental health workers, our midwives we understand these people, what they are up against and we understand the needs of Australians in regional, rural and remote Australia.
We understand that it takes a toughness and a boldness, coupled with a deep sensitivity, to work in health in rural and remote areas.
Since Australia's pioneering days, before telecommunications, we found ways to overcome isolation between the new colonies. We did that. We are a nation that has overcome geographic challenges, having one of the largest land masses and the largest search and rescue regions in the world.
Around one-third of Australians live outside metropolitan areas, and about two per cent of the population live in remote and very remote locations. Compared to metropolitan areas, rural and remote Australians generally:
For those living in rural, regional and remote Australia, finding services can often be difficult, if not impossible.
As our Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party, has said, 'We will continue to make sure that for the people out there doing it tough, that you don't make their life tougher.'
This government is committed to bridging the city-country divide.
The common problems encountered in the bush necessitate the development and application of a dedicated framework which supports a nationally coordinated approach that is adaptable to local conditions.
Our commitment today is to ensure that regional, rural and remote communities will have a champion to advocate on their behalf so they are able to receive the support they need to deliver health services to local people.
This is all guided by a deep-lying principle that every Australian should have the right to access a high-quality standard of health care, no matter where they live.
To this end, this bill will pave the way to establish Australia's first-ever National Rural Health Commissioner. The commissioner is an integral part of our broader agenda to reform rural health in this nation.
Establishing this role will be achieved by amending the Health Insurance Act 1973 , which will provide for the commissioner to be a statutory position, enabling them to carry out their duties independently and transparently.
The commissioner will work with regional, rural and remote communities, the health sector, universities, specialist training colleges and across all levels of government health administration to improve rural health policies and champion the cause of rural practice.
The position will be independent and impartial—a fearless champion. The commissioner will be someone who has extensive experience within the rural health sector, who is capable of collaborating and consulting closely with a broad range of stakeholders, and who has a passion for improving health outcomes in regional, rural and remote Australia.
The commissioner will be appointed for a period of two years, with a reappointment up until 30 June 2020.
As a part of the role, the commissioner will be required to submit a report to the responsible minister. This will outline findings and recommendations for consideration by the government.
The Minister must table a copy of the final report before each house of the parliament, within five sitting days of the House after the final report is given to the minister.
The commissioner will not be able to delegate his or her powers to anyone else, they will not hold any financial delegation powers, nor will they have any specific employment powers.
The commissioner will be assisted by staff from the Department of Health throughout the duration of their term.
Once appointed, the commissioner's first priority will be to develop National Rural Generalist Pathways. The aim of these pathways will be to address the most serious issue confronting the rural health sector: the lack of access to training for doctors in regional, rural and remote communities. Attracting and retaining more doctors and health professionals into country areas is essential if we are to improve access to health care around the coast and in the bush.
Rural generalists are faced with a unique set of challenges, and the commissioner will examine these while developing the generalist pathways.
It is widely recognised that rural generalists often have advanced training and a broader skill set than is required by doctors practising in metropolitan centres. In many instances, they perform duties in areas such as general surgery, obstetrics, anaesthetics and mental health. They not
only work longer hours but also are frequently on call after hours in acute care settings, such as accident and emergency and hospital admitted patient care.
However, despite the rural generalists' multidisciplinary skill set, demanding workload and geographic isolation, there is no national scheme in place which properly recognises this set of circumstances.
In developing the National Rural Generalist Pathways, the commissioner will consult with the health sector and training providers to define what it means to be a rural generalist. The commissioner will also examine appropriate remuneration for rural generalists, to ensure their extra skills and working hours are recognised. By addressing these areas, the pathways will help to encourage more doctors to practise in regional, rural and remote Australia.
While the development of the pathways will be the commissioner's first priority, the needs of nursing, dental health, pharmacy, Indigenous health, mental health, midwifery, occupational therapy, physical therapy and other allied health stakeholders will also be considered.
Health-care planning, programs and service delivery models must be adapted to meet the widely differing health needs of rural communities and overcome the challenges of geographic spread, low population density, limited infrastructure and the significantly higher costs of rural and remote health-care delivery.
In rural and remote areas, partnerships across health-care sectors and between health-care providers and other sectors will help address the economic and social determinants of health that are essential to meeting the needs of these communities. The commissioner will form and strengthen these relationships, across the professions and for all the communities.
It is worth noting that this government's commitment has been shared and welcomed by the sector. These are organisations that have been crucial in its development and I would like to thank:
In addition to establishing the role of the commissioner, this bill also contains two other amendments to the Health Insurance Act 197 3.
It will repeal section 3GC of the act, to abolish the Medical Training Review Panel. In October 2014, members of the Medical Training Review Panel identified an overlap between their functions and those of the National Medical Training Advisory Network. Part of the advisory network's functions is to provide advice on medical workforce planning and medical training plans to inform government, employers and educators. Given this focus, it was agreed that the advisory network could pick up the panel's annual reporting obligations on medical education and training, and that the panel's role would cease. This measure will simplify legislation in the health portfolio.
The other amendment will be the repeal of section 19AD of the act. This will not affect any medical practitioner subject to the legislation, and will not affect the operation of any current workforce or training programs. It will remove a burdensome and ineffective process which required a review every five years of the operation of the Medicare provider number legislation, subsections 19AA, 3GA and 3GC of the Health Insurance Act 1973.
Previous reviews have not resulted in operational improvements to the legislation. Furthermore, recent developments in systems supporting Medicare provider number legislation and processes are not captured by section 19AD. Repealing this ineffectual measure in the act is a necessary measure.
To sum up, this bill is an important step forward for regional, rural and remote health in Australia.
This coalition government recognises the value of our rural communities and the special place they hold within the fabric of this country. People living in these communities make an enormous contribution to our national economy, and to the culture and character of Australia. Access to a quality standard of health care is what they deserve and are entitled to expect. The key is to recruit and retain more doctors and health professionals outside of the major cities, and that will be the focus of the National Rural Health Commissioner and our government.
With the appropriate training opportunities, recruitment, remuneration and ongoing support, the government is confident that more people will be encouraged to pursue a rewarding career in rural health.
Regional, rural and remote health is built on the commitment, the expertise and the courage of its workforce. We have some of the most resilient and passionate people working in this sector. The formation of the commissioner will help to provide the rural health workforce with the support it needs to carry out its vitally important work.
Finally, the commissioner will champion the incredible and rewarding opportunities of a career in rural medicine. Our government will do our best to hear you, to listen to you, and to make the necessary steps for our health system to work better for you.
Our coalition government looks forward to working closely with the National Rural Health Commissioner to ensure we can improve access to health services for all the men and women who call regional, rural and remote Australia home.
SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SIMPLIFYING STUDENT PAYMENTS) BILL 2016
SECOND READING SPEECH
This bill will introduce a package of measures that will simplify and support access to student payments by:
Youth allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY Living Allowance are income support payments that provide financial assistance to full-time students and apprentices. The payments are designed to encourage people to undertake further education and training to enhance their employment and career prospects.
In the 2015-16 budget, the government committed over $60 million to commence the replacement of the ageing Centrelink IT system to support future welfare reform.
The measures in this bill support payment simplification, access to payments and future welfare reform by aligning payments settings, simplifying the administration of payments and making eligibility for student payments and concessions fairer and easier to understand.
I thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed. The committee received submissions from the National Welfare Rights Network and the Australian Council of Social Service both of which support the bill without amendments. I also thank these organisations for their support of the bill.
The government will continue to provide assistance for students and those most in need. The changes will not affect the overall value of student payments.
Aligning means testing rules
The first measure, aligning means testing rules, aims to simplify means testing and remove anomalies between student payments and other welfare payments. This measure is to commence from the first 1 January or 1 July after Royal Assent and will be achieved through a number of means.
Firstly, the family tax benefit income test and the youth parental income test will be harmonised, so that family tax benefit income details can be automatically reused for the youth parental income test. Parents will no longer be required to resubmit their income information to support a youth payment claim by one of their children.
Secondly, the integrity of the student payments means test will be improved by removing an anomaly that allows some partnered youth allowance and Austudy recipients to be subject to a more generous assets test than applies to all other youth allowance and Austudy recipients.
Integrity will also be improved by extending the trust and company rules that already apply to all other income support payments, to student payments. As a result, all of the income or assets held by students through a trust or company will be taken into account when establishing their entitlement to a payment.
Lastly, the pension income test exemption for regular gifts from immediate family members will be aligned across the social security system so that it also applies for student payments and other social security benefits.
Extending this exemption will remove a disincentive for families to provide support to family members. For dependent students, the parental means test already reduces a dependent child's youth payment where a parent has the ability to provide support, and it is not logical or equitable to further reduce the youth payment when the parent provides the expected support.
As per the explanatory memorandum tabled in parliament, this measure is estimated to save $778,000 over the forward estimates.
Simplifying eligibility for the Health Care Card issued to students
The second measure in this bill will ensure that from 1 January 2019 all students receiving income support will receive a concession card.
This change will allow all students receiving youth allowance (student), Austudy and ABSTUDY living allowance to automatically receive a Health Care Card. This will guarantee that around 240,000 students will receive Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions at the concessional rate and access to the lower threshold of the Extended Medicare Safety Net when they receive a student payment. It may also provide greater access to bulk billing allowing students to focus on their studies without worrying about their medical costs.
This measure will improve consistency by aligning access to concession cards for students with other income support recipients.
Under the current rules, students are the only income support recipients not to qualify for an automatic issue Health Care Card. Instead, students can make a claim for a low income Health Care Card if their income is below a certain limit. This process is burdensome for students and costly for the Department of Human Services to administer. The automatic issue Health Care Card and the low income Health Care Card provide the same Australian government benefits to cardholders.
In 2017, holders of the Health Care Card and low income Health Care Card pay only $6.30 for each Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescription. Without a concession card these prescriptions could cost students up to $38.80 each. Access to a concession card means that once these students and their families' total out-of-pocket expenses for prescriptions reach the concessional Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net of $378.00 or 60 prescriptions, they may receive Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescription items free of charge for the rest of the calendar year. These free Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions are not available to people without a concession card.
In 2017, the annual threshold for both Health Care Card and low income Health Care Card holders for the Extended Medicare Safety Net is $656.30, instead of $2,056.30 for non-cardholders. Once the threshold has been met, Medicare will pay for 80 per cent of any further out‑of‑pocket costs for the rest of the calendar year for services including general practitioner and specialist attendances, as well as many pathology and diagnostic imaging services.
Currently, the application for the low income Health Care Card requires students to meet a more stringent income test, with the student needing to earn slightly less than the income limit for youth allowance over an eight week period. This measure will also extend these benefits to around 4,000 students who previously were not eligible for a concession card.
Currently, in most circumstances, student payment recipients must wait eight weeks to become eligible for a low income Health Care Card. This measure will ensure concessions are available to all students as soon as they start receiving an income support payment.
In order to avoid waiting eight weeks to become eligible for a low income Health Care Card, currently an applicant of a student payment can provide proof that their income was below the relevant limit in the previous eight weeks. Following introduction of this measure, students will no longer be required to produce this proof to be eligible for a concession card. Not only does this measure guarantee that student payment recipients will receive health-related concessions, it will cut red tape and reduce reporting requirements for these students.
The financial impact of this measure over the forward estimates will be a cost of $726,000.
Automatically updating the geographical classification
The third measure in this bill will, from the first 1 January or 1 July after Royal Assent, simplify the process for adopting the latest version of the 'Australian Statistical Geography Standard' remoteness structure published by the Australian Statistician which is used in the assessment of eligibility for student payments under the Social Security Act 1991.
Currently, youth allowance recipients whose family home is in a location geographically categorised under the remoteness structure as Inner Regional Australia, Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia or Very Remote Australia can access additional benefits or concessional qualification requirements under the Social Security Act that are not available to students from major city areas. The additional benefits are:
These additional benefits are in recognition that students from regional and remote areas are more likely to have to relocate to study and have significantly lower participation rates in higher education than students from major city areas.
The geographical remoteness structure currently used in the Social Security Act to determine eligibility for these additional benefits is the 2006 'Australian Standard Geographic Classification', published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The '2006 remoteness structure' has been used to determine eligibility for student payments since 2011. However, the '2006 remoteness structure' is out of date and was subsequently superseded, in January 2013, by the 2011 'Australian Statistical Geography Standard' remoteness structure. The remoteness structure is updated every five years by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, following each Census. The next update, which will be to the '2016 remoteness structure', is due in January 2018.
This measure will introduce amendments to the Social Security Act, so that qualification for student payments will automatically draw upon the updated remoteness structure, without the need for future legislative amendment when a new 'Australian Statistical Geography Standard' remoteness structure or any replacement remoteness structure is published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The 2011 'Australian Statistical Geography Standard' remoteness structure will apply from the first 1 January or 1 July after Royal Assent, with the 2016 version having effect from the first 1 January or 1 July to occur after the day of its publication. This will ensure that the assessment of qualification for youth allowance and the Relocation Scholarship is based on the latest available information on geographical classification.
This measure will result in some students, who were previously ineligible for payment, being able to qualify for youth allowance under the concessional workforce participation arrangements and the Relocation Scholarship, and they may qualify for a higher rate of the Relocation Scholarship.
There is a risk however that these changes could disadvantage students who commence study in a year that a remoteness structure update is released or who are partway through their course when their family home is no longer classified as located in a regional area. It is expected that the numbers of students affected will be very small.
However, students who are found ineligible for youth allowance under the concessional workforce participation independence criteria due to a change in the remoteness structure, may still qualify for Youth Allowance as a dependent or under one of the other independence criteria.
Students who are no longer eligible for the Relocation Scholarship due to their family home being reclassified as located in a major city area rather than a regional location, will still retain access to youth allowance, provided they continue to meet the qualification criteria.
Students who had previously qualified for youth allowance under the concessional workforce participation independence criteria using an earlier remoteness structure, will not have their qualification for youth allowance reassessed if their family home is classified as in a major city location of Australia under an updated remoteness structure. These students will retain their independent status.
The reclassification of areas is unlikely to have lasting or recurrent effects on students' payment eligibility given the cycle of five-yearly updates of the geographical classification document and that on average tertiary courses are completed in three to four years.
This measure is expected to have a cost neutral effect on the budget over the forward estimates.
Independent test for youth allowance and scholarship payments for students
The fourth measure in this bill was an election commitment and part of a package to support regional students' access to education. It will amend the rules governing when a person will be regarded as independent for the purposes of youth allowance and the Relocation Scholarship. This measure will reduce, from 18 months to 14 months, the period young people from regional and remote areas of Australia have to earn the amount required to satisfy the workforce independence provisions. This measure is to commence from 1 January 2018.
Students whose family home is in a regional or remote location can access youth allowance on the basis of being independent under concessional workforce participation arrangements. One way in which students can demonstrate they have supported themselves is through a period or periods of employment over 18 months since leaving secondary school, with earnings totalling at least 75 per cent of Wage Level A of the National Training Wage schedule in a modern award. This is $24,042 for the 2016-17 financial year.
In addition, to access these arrangements students' parental income must be below $150,000, they must be undertaking full-time study and they must be required to live away from home to study.
This measure recognises that regional and remote students face additional costs in pursuing tertiary education and, similar to the measure to automatically update the geographical classification used to assess eligibility for student payments, it recognises that regional students have much lower participation rates in higher education than students from major cities.
The reduced period from 18 months to 14 months will allow students to qualify for youth allowance four months sooner than under current arrangements. Students will be able to take a gap year at the end of secondary school, and subject to them satisfying the other qualification requirements for youth allowance, receive payment as independent the following year. Students who are considered independent for youth allowance purposes, do not have their rate of payment affected by parental income, as is the case for dependent recipients.
Currently, students who qualify for youth allowance under these arrangements may commence study prior to qualifying for student payments or take two gap years before commencing study and qualifying for payment. The longer students are disengaged from study after completing secondary school, such as for more than a year, the less likely they will be to commence or complete tertiary study.
It is estimated that approximately 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify for youth allowance as independent under this measure—approximately 2,500 would become eligible for payment as independent four months earlier than under current provisions and approximately 1,200 would become eligible for payment as independent, who otherwise would not have met the independence criteria, due to an expected change in their employment patterns to earn the required amount in a shorter period. This may include students who choose to take a gap year, who may have not undertaken a gap year otherwise.
This measure is expected to cost approximately $81.1 million over the forward estimates.
Conclusion
Together these measures will assist in simplifying and supporting access to the payment system and support future welfare reform.
That the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017
Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (COMBATING MULTINATIONAL TAX AVOIDANCE) BILL 2017
SECOND READING SPEECH
This bill implements the suite of tax integrity measures the Turnbull government announced in the government's 2016-17 budget to combat multinational tax avoidance.
Most taxpayers comply with Australia's tax rules and pay the right amount of tax.
However, there are some who do not; some who try to avoid paying Australian tax by diverting Australian profits to low tax countries.
When this happens, other taxpayers, including families and small businesses who comply with our tax laws, are left to carry the taxation burden.
This government will not stand for tax avoidance. We will not stand for the deliberate flaunting of our tax laws by major multinational enterprises.
That is why the Turnbull government has introduced some of the strongest taxation integrity rules in the world — so that those taxpayers who attempt to avoid paying tax are caught and do not undermine our tax system.
This government inherited a tax system that had not kept pace with developments in global trade and investment and digital commerce. It was left to this government to reverse the years of inaction on tax integrity, and ensure that the tax loopholes are closed and multinational entities operating in Australia pay the right amount of tax.
We are determined to have the strongest rules against tax avoidance; to level the playing field and deliver a fairer tax system for all.
In 2015 the government introduced a package of three key reforms to combat multinational tax avoidance.
The first was the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law to stop multinationals with significant Australian activities booking profits overseas to avoid paying tax in Australia. We are already seeing positive results from this measure, with many multinationals now restructuring to book their income in Australia.
The second was to double the penalties for large companies that enter into tax avoidance or profit-shifting schemes — making them think twice before engaging in these behaviours.
Thirdly, we introduced country-by-country reporting which requires large multinationals to report to the Australian Taxation Office their income and tax paid in every country in which they operate.
But we are aware that more needs to be done.
The Diverted Profits Tax does not apply to managed investment trusts or similar foreign entities, sovereign wealth funds and foreign pension funds. These entities have been excluded as they are low risk from an integrity perspective, as they are widely held and undertake passive activities. This exclusion will ensure that such entities do not face unnecessary compliance burdens as a result of the introduction of the Diverted Profits Tax.
Similarly, the Diverted Profits Tax does not capture entities with Australian income of $25 million or less.
The Diverted Profits Tax contains a number of key features that will encourage greater cooperation between uncooperative multinationals and the ATO. As a result this will reduce the length of disputes between the ATO and multinationals.
These key features include:
Increased p enalties
Schedule 2 of this bill increases the administrative penalties that can be applied by the Commissioner of Taxation to significant global entities for breaching their tax reporting obligations.
From 1 July 2017, the government will increase the maximum penalty 100-times for these entities where they fail to lodge tax documents on time or take reasonable care when making statements to the ATO.
The penalty regime that was in place when we came to government was wholly inadequate and was not commensurate with the gravity of reporting offences that could be committed by significant global entities.
As a consequence, this bill which I am introducing today, will raise the maximum administrative penalty for significant global entities who fail to comply with their tax reporting obligations from $5,250 to $525,000 when taking into account the increase in the value of Commonwealth penalty unit announced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
The government is also doubling the penalties for these entities when they make false or misleading statements to the ATO.
These changes will make the penalties applicable to significant global entities more commensurate with their turnover, and provide greater incentive for them to lodge tax documents on time and take reasonable care when making statements to the ATO.
We also announced that we would enhance the ATO's ability to detect tax avoidance by progressing work on developing a disclosure regime requiring advisers to report aggressive tax schemes to the ATO. We have also committed to new protections for whistleblowers who report tax misconduct to the ATO.
This government also announced in the 2016-17 Budget that Australia would implement OECD anti-hybrid rules to ensure that multinationals are not able to take advantage of differences in how countries tax hybrid financial instruments or hybrid entities.
We have ensured a level playing field for all domestic suppliers by passing legislation that ensured GST is charged on digital products and services imported by consumers. But we are now going even further and will remove the low-value imported goods GST threshold. This means that GST will be charged on all low-value goods imported into Australia regardless of their price.
The government is taking a strong, world-leading, but balanced approach to multinational tax avoidance.
The Turnbull government has said that enough is enough when it comes to multinationals diverting profits offshore and failing to meet their tax disclosure responsibilities.
Adopting the changes in this Bill will keep our transfer pricing rules in line with international best practice and help ensure that profits made in Australia are taxed in Australia.
Full details of the measures contained in the bill are outlined in the explanatory memorandum.
DIVERTED PROFITS TAX BILL 2017
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 forms part of a package of bills to combat multinational tax avoidance.
This bill imposes a new Diverted Profits Tax that is targeted at multinationals who enter into arrangements with off-shore related parties that lack economic substance so as to divert their Australian profits to related parties in lower tax countries, in order to avoid paying Australian tax.
This bill imposes an upfront Diverted Profits Tax liability payable on the amount of the diverted profits at a penalty rate of 40 per cent.
This has the effect of encouraging greater cooperation between uncooperative multinationals and the ATO. As a result this will greatly reduce the length of disputes between the ATO and multinationals, and lead to timelier dispute resolution.
Further details of the bill and the new Diverted Profits Tax are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance Bill 2017.
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016
Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017
Australia has some of the best banks in the world. It is partly because of our excellent regulatory system and prudent management.
It meant complex questions were impossible to raise and answer, allowing many specific questions to be glossed over, evaded, put on notice or given enough spin to render them meaningless.
AUSTRALIA has some of the best banks in the world. It is partly because of our excellent regulatory system and prudent management.
The last thing the system needs is another inquiry.
There are problems with bank and some of the - I wrote down a little list as I was coming in here because obviously this is a key issue.
I think a Royal Commission will have to look at vertical integration—
Our two market guardians are the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission … The standard they set is world's best practice.
I think though what we've got is a banking industry in Australia, particularly the big four banks, that believe for whatever reason that they can continue with business as usual and they don't have to change
… complex questions were impossible to raise and answer, allowing many specific questions to be glossed over, evaded, put on notice or given enough spin to render them meaningless.
Dr Roger Gareth Munro was arrested by Queensland Police officers today and brought before the Southport Magistrates Court, where he was formally charged with five counts of fraud under s408C of the Queensland Criminal Code, following an ASIC investigation. Each charge carries a maximum period of imprisonment of 12yrs.
Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.
… complex questions were impossible to raise and answer, allowing many specific questions to be glossed over, evaded, put on notice or given enough spin to render them meaningless.
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016
The activity test … is also out of touch with international best practice, which has seen many countries expand universal provision for preschool aged children.
A child care service may require a Priority 3 child to vacate a place to make room for a child with a higher priority.
These changes will diminish our kids' potential to make a smooth transition to school … Children will fall behind before they have even started school …
Early Childhood Australia calls on the cross bench to stand firm in negations with the Government around the child care package or block the bill in the Senate if key amendments are not made.
"We are calling on the Xenophon team and other Crossbench Senators to at least support an increase to 15 hours of care as a baseline to allow the most vulnerable children consistent access to 2 days of care a week,” CEO Sam Page said.
"Early Childhood Australia has consistently argued that a minimum of 15 hours early childhood education per week is in the best interests of children and that we only supported the Bill if this was included.
"We call on the Senate to block the Bill today, unless there is an amendment to increase the base entitlement to 15 hours a week.
"We also need the income threshold for a base level of care increase to $100,000 and make changes to the activity test to make it more flexible for families who are in casual or unpredictable work situations.
"Without these amendments families with only one partner working and earning more than $65,000 per year would receive ZERO child care subsidies and face the full cost of child care fees. They are unlikely to be able to afford this on such a low wage and their children risk missing out on the benefits of quality early learning.
"The Bill also needs to lift the support to Indigenous children who are twice as like to enter school developmentally vulnerable, and who need guaranteed support to at least 3 days of care under the new package. Then we may actually start to see the gap actually closing on early learning indicators.
"We are concerned at reports that the Government has stepped away from their commitment to increase the hours for the most vulnerable children in the community," …
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:
(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 49 (line 23), omit "24", substitute "30".
Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it potentially increases expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. The amendments will increase the maximum number of hours for which child care subsidy can be paid in relation to a low income result individual and thus may have the effect of increasing total expenditure under the standing appropriation.
The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. If the effect of amendment (1) is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation contained in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.
We call on the Senate to block the bill today unless there's an amendment to increase the base entitlement to 15 hours a week.
The committee divided. [20:24]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 26), after the definition of extended child wellbeing period , insert:
extended low income threshold has the meaning given by subclause 13(3) of Schedule 2.
(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 49 (line 31), omit "lower income threshold", substitute "extended low income threshold".
(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 49 (after line 33), at the end of clause 13, add:
(3) In this Act:
extended low income threshold means $100,000.
Note: This amount is indexed under Schedule 4.
(4) Schedule 1, item 47, page 53 (after table item 18), insert:
(5) Schedule 1, item 48, page 53 (after table item 18), insert:
(6) Schedule 4, item 5, page 221 (after line 6), after paragraph (1) (a), insert:
(aa) extended low income threshold;
(7) Schedule 4, item 5, page 221 (line 20), after "items 18,", insert "18A,".
—————
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (2) to (6)
Amendments (2) to (6) are framed as requests because they potentially increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 . These amendments will increase the income threshold for which the low income result is available, so that more people can access the higher level of hours for which child care subsidy can be paid under the low income result provisions. Thus, they may have the effect of increasing total expenditure under the standing appropriation.
Amendments (1) and (7)
These amendments are consequential on amendments (2) to (6). Amendments (1) and (7) should therefore be moved as requests.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (2) to (6)
The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. If the effect of these amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation contained in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 , then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that these amendments be moved as requests.
Amendments (1) and (7)
These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments purely consequential on amendments framed as requests may also be framed as requests.
The committee divided. [21:09]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 36, (lines 26 and 27), omit step 4 of the method statement, substitute:
Step 4. Work out the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for each of those sessions of care (see clause 2).
If the applicable percentage is 0% for each of those sessions of care, the amount of child care subsidy for the individual for the week, for those sessions, is nil.
Otherwise, go to step 5.
(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 38 (after line 8), at the end of subclause 2(1), add:
Note: If the applicable percentage for a session of care is 0% (see table item 5 of subclause 3(1)), the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for the session of care is nil.
(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 39 (table item 5), omit "20%", substitute "0%".
(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (line 16), omit "$184,290", substitute "$134,290".
(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (line 18), omit "$274,290", substitute "$284,290".
The committee divided. [21:42]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 2), after item 5, insert:
5A Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
fourth income threshold has the meaning given by subclause 3(4) of Schedule 2.
(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 36, (lines 26 and 27), omit step 4 of the method statement, substitute:
Step 4. Work out the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for each of those sessions of care (see clause 2).
If the applicable percentage is 0% for each of those sessions of care, the amount of child care subsidy for the individual for the week, for those sessions, is nil.
Otherwise, go to step 5.
(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 38 (after line 8), at the end of subclause 2(1), add:
Note: If the applicable percentage for a session of care is 0% (see table item 6 of subclause 3(1)), the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for the session of care is nil.
(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 39 (table item 4), omit "upper income threshold", substitute "fourth income threshold".
(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 39 (after table item 4), insert:
(6) Schedule 1, item 41, page 39 (table item 5), omit "5", substitute "6".
(7) Schedule 1, item 41, page 39 (table item 5), omit "20%", substitute "0%".
(8) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (after line 16), after the definition of third income threshold , insert:
fourth income threshold means the lower income threshold plus $274,290.
(9) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (line 18), omit "$274,290", substitute "$284,290".
(10) Schedule 1, item 92, page 82 (lines 13 to 15), omit all the words from "Or, the individual" to and including "the year.".
(11) Schedule 1, item 92, page 83 (line 8), omit "passed;", substitute "passed.".
(12) Schedule 1, item 92, page 83 (lines 9 to 11), omit paragraph 67DB(2) (d).
(13) Schedule 1, item 92, page 83 (lines 12 to 26), omit subsections 67DB(3) and (4).
(14) Schedule 1, item 92, page 83 (line 28), omit "(5)", substitute "(3)".
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [21:58]
(The President—Senator Parry)