The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
… the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.
This Bill seeks to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act to give powers to the Clean Energy Regulator that ensure accredited wind farms do not create excessive noise.
Under the Bill, the definition of excessive noise would be background noise plus 10 dBA.
Should a wind farm be found to be contravening the excessive noise provisions of this Bill, it would be prevented from creating and on-selling large-scale generation certificates.
The importance of having a nationally applicable definition of excessive noise has been explained by Dr Bob Thorne, a well-regarded independent acoustician. Dr Thorne said:
" The thing that none of us has is a consistency across all states. That leads to my mind to the most important function of this bill: it gives a consistent approach to excessive noise throughout all of Australia... This is where I would see the benefit of this particular bill in that it provides a certainty of approach to all states, it provides a certainty of approach to the industry and it gives a clear definition to all the different states ' legislation. "
The benefits of a definition of excessive noise that applies to all states and territories will provide clarity and consistency of application throughout Australia.
Those who live close to wind farms can therefore be assured the wind farms are required to operate in accordance with established noise guidelines so that any disturbance caused by wind farm noise is minimised.
Ultimately, this is about empowering individuals and communities who have felt disempowered as a result of these large industrial structures and the excessive noise they create.
The suggested limit of background plus 10 dBA is in fact generous compared with current Australian noise guidelines.
The South Australian Environmental Protection Authority's noise guidelines impose a limit of background plus 5 dBA in cases not involving wind farms.
So we must consider is that, in some areas, noise from wind farms is limited at 40dBA, or background plus 5 dBA, whichever is greater. This figure completely fails to take into account the fact that background noise — the sounds we hear all the time — is going to be far lower in rural and regional areas than in metropolitan areas, and instead allows the highest possible level of noise to occur.
The comparative 'noise nuisance' of 40dBA will naturally be much higher in the areas where wind farms are built.
During the Environment and Communications committee inquiry into this bill, leading acoustician Dr Stephen Cooper gave the following evidence:
" The standards say that if a noise is above the background it is likely to be annoying and that exceedances of up to five are of marginal significance. So the concept has been that for general noise you can have noise that is audible but once you get to about five, above the background, it starts to present problems to the community or those people being affected by the noise. So if the background is higher in a city environment, then you can have a higher noise level. If you are near a large industrial estate or near a freeway that generates noise, then you are in a noisier environment and you can have a higher level of noise emission from the industrial sources.
This graph clearly shows that, as you move to quieter environments, then the criteria that apply should also drop down. "
Excessive noise in general has been shown to cause sleep disturbance and disruption, as discussed in the World Health Organisation's 'Guidelines for Community Noise'.
There is so much information flying around in this debate that it important that independent research into the potential health effects of excessive noise from wind farms is undertaken.
I note that the Coalition has circulated amendments which, if enacted, would require the NHMRC to cause research to be conducted into the possible effects of noise from wind farms on human health.
I thank the Coalition members who have spent a significant amount of time working with Senator Madigan and me to construct some workable amendments. While I do have some concerns about their other amendments, I strongly support the need for more research.
Unfortunately the wind farm debate has been tarnished to some extent by certain individuals who choose to attack those who complain that their health has been adversely affected.
Allowing for independent research is something we should all support, no matter which side of the debate you are coming from.
A unanimous report from the Community Affairs References Committee in 2011 into the social and economic impact of wind farms in regional areas recommended that independent research be undertaken into the reported health effects.
And at this stage it's appropriate to pay tribute to the late Judith Adams and her tireless work in this area.
The committee also recommended that further consideration be given to the separation distance between wind farms and residences, and that further research be done on the noise effects of wind farms, including infrasound.
I want to take this opportunity to discuss some of the arguments that have been raised against this bill.
Some, including Senator Milne, have claimed this bill is 'anti-wind farm' and part of a campaign against renewable energy.
With respect, this bill is not anti anything except excessive noise.
We already have laws in place to control noise levels around airports, major roads, and other significant infrastructure.
How is this any different?
Yes, there are state and territory laws in place that put noise limits on wind farms. But these vary from region to region, and can't be enforced anyway because there is no real-time noise data available.
Senator Milne also spoke at length against the reported health
effects of wind farms. She went so far as to claim that 'where people have a financial interest in the wind farm... these people do not get sick'.
Firstly, I'd like to mention the case of David and Alida Mortimer in the South East of South Australia. They are turbine hosts — they get a financial benefit from having a turbine on their property — but they have been very vocal about the negative impact this has had on their lives.
This bill is not about the purported health effects of wind farms. This bill is about excessive noise — something that is widely acknowledged can have an impact on sleep and quality of life.
But where is the harm in commissioning research into possible health effects? If there is no link, then what is there to fear?
Senator Milne also said she believed Senator Madigan and I were 'part of a campaign against wind energy and renewables in Australia'.
I repudiate that in the strongest terms.
Professor Simon Chapman, whose work on the plain packaging legislation and tobacco advertising I greatly admire, also accused me of being an "anti-wind farm zealot", adding that my interest in this cause brought about a "sad decline of a once admirable independent."
At least he thought I was admirable once.
Professor Chapman is of course welcome to express his opinion, and I am pleased to be able to express mine.
I am not anti-wind farm.
In fact, I am pro-renewable energy. It is on the public record that I believe it is important that we have a mandated renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020.
I also believe that we have a very long way to go to achieve that.
My issue is not with that target but with the way the target is achieved through an over-reliance on one specific form of technology — wind turbines.
Wind farms do not provide a reliable baseload power, which means dirty coal-fired power stations need to be kept on standby.
We need to be investing in baseload reliable renewables, and I worry that our reliance on wind energy is in fact stifling investment in other areas, such as geothermal, solar thermal and tidal power.
So I am not anti-wind power.
But I do believe that wind power is only one part of the solution, and we shouldn't focus on it to the exclusion of everything else.
In September last year, The Australian ' s environment editor Graham Lloyd wrote about a two year analysis of Victorian wind farms, undertaken by mechanical engineer Hamish Cumming.
Lloyd wrote:
" [Cumming ' s] analysis shows that despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from green energy schemes driven by the renewable energy target, Victoria ' s wind farm developments have saved virtually zero carbon dioxide emissions in the state. "
He goes on to describe how, despite the feed of wind-generated power into the grid, fossil fuel generators do not reduce their rate of coal consumption.
In South Australia, Cumming estimated that the cost of greenhouse gas abatement was at $1484 a tonne.
I believe climate change is real and must be addressed urgently. We must do everything we can to mitigate the damage it has and will cause to our environment and our economy.
Part of that challenge is reshaping our economy to move towards less carbon-intensive ways of operating across all sectors. It is a fine balance between using a carrot and a stick.
We are not striking that balance.
For example, the structure of the current carbon tax could act as a positive disincentive to investment in other forms of renewable energy.
So, while I of course commend this Bill, I believe we also need to look at our over-reliance on wind energy and the repercussions for investments in other innovative forms of renewable energy.
I note that the Government does have upcoming legislation to extend a tax rebate to geothermal exploration activities.
This is certainly a step in the right direction.
But geothermal projects still struggle to get access to funding, even when specific amounts have been set aside.
For example, in a response to an estimates question I placed on notice last year, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism stated that the Government had committed a total of $899 million to renewable energy projects.
Of this, only $302 million was for solar projects and $205 million was for geothermal.
And, even worse, only $104 million had actually been received by grant recipients.
This shows a serious neglect in funding alternative forms of energy.
We put all our eggs in one basket with coal-fired power, and we're now paying the price. Let's learn from that and not make the same mistake again.
I understand there is a lot of controversy about wind farms, and that these arguments make some people uncomfortable.
But ultimately, this is a question about excessive noise. It is fair and reasonable that there be a national standard for noise, and that wind farms publish live information to show their compliance with this standard.
In the end, communities must be empowered. They must have access to real-time information on the noise generated from these turbines, because right now they are fighting legal battles with one hand tied behind their back.
In the same way that aircraft noise near airports is publicly available, the same approach should be taken to wind farms.
Surely in the interests of transparency, the industry should not object to this information being made available to local communities.
As I said before, this is no different from noise restrictions in place elsewhere.
I indicate my support for this bill, and I hope this is only the beginning of the debate on these issues.
We have not seen electricity use drop this much since the National Electricity Market (NEM) commenced.
The Senate divided. [11:30]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Australia has promised China it will iron out problems with excessive 'green tape' and environmental approvals to encourage and fast-track greater Chinese investment in Australian agriculture.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 2 OF 2013
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 7.20 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend:
That—
(a) the Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 June 2013 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, and the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 March 2013 (see appendices 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) the Small Business Commissioner Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 May 2013 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend:
That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Caring for People on Newstart) Bill 2013 to its next meeting.
(Anne McEwen) Chair
28 February 2013
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1. The current levels of online crime, particularly in relation to crimes against minors
2. The prevalence of online communications between minors and adults, the purpose and content of those communications, and previous criminal offences where misrepresentation of age has occurred
3. The current offences in the Criminal Code Act and their effectiveness in preventing and punishing offences in relation to the evolving online environment.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Federal Police
National Children's Commissioner
Carly Ryan Foundation
Bravehearts
Australian Law Reform Commission
State and Territory Police
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
April/May 2013
Possible reporting date:
27 June 2013
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Examination of the impact of the bill on families, individuals and young people; examination of the social impacts of the proposed changes.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ACOSS
The Australia Institute
Welfare Rights
Australian Institute of Family Studies
FaHCSIA
DEEWR
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
15 March 2013
Possible reporting date:
21 March 2013
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Examination of economic impacts on families; examination of broader economic impact, including on birth rate.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Australian Families Association
Kids First Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
5 March2013
Possible reporting date:
12 March 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Small Business Commissioner Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
Late March to mid April 2013
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
That:
(a) government business orders of the day nos 4 to 7 be considered from 12.45 pm today under the temporary order relating to non-controversial government business;
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 94 (Minerals Resource Rent Tax Amendment (Protecting Revenue) Bill 2012); and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Xenophon for today, for personal reasons.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 be extended to 18 March 2013.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the victims of sexual and other abuse in Defence be extended to 16 May 2013.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 May 2013:
The feasibility of a prohibition on the charging of fees for an unlisted (silent) number service, with particular reference to:
(a) recommendation no. 72.17 contained in report no. 108 of the Australian Law Reform Commission on Australian privacy law and practice;
(b) whether the payment of a fee unduly inhibits the privacy of telephone subscribers;
(c) the likely economic, social and public interest impact for consumers and businesses, carriage service providers and the White Pages directory producer, if the charging of fees for unlisted (silent) number services was prohibited;
(d) the implications of such prohibition for the efficacy of the national public number directory; and
(e) any other relevant matters.
The care and management of younger and older Australians living with dementia and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD), including:
(a) the scope and adequacy of the different models of community, residential and acute care for Australians living with dementia and BPSD, with particular reference to:
(i) Commonwealth-provided support and services,
(ii) state and territory provided services, and
(iii) services provided by the non-government sector;
(b) resourcing of those models of care; and
(c) the scope for improving the provision of care and management of Australians living with dementia and BPSD, such as:
(i) access to appropriate respite care, and
(ii) reduction in the use of both physical and chemical restraints.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2013:
Review of the citrus industry in Australia, including:
(a) scale and structure of the industry;
(b) opportunities and inhibitors for growth of the Australian industry;
(c) competition issues in the Australian market;
(d) adequacy and efficiency of supply chains in the Australian market;
(e) opportunities and inhibitors for export and export growth; and
(f) any related matters.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, and for related purposes. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Pharmaceutical Transparency) Bill 2013.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Retaining Federal Approval Powers) Bill 2012 be extended to 12 March 2013.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Charcot Marie Tooth disease (CMT) is the most common form of inherited motor and sensory neuropathy,
(ii) there is no cure for CMT and while most sufferers live a normal lifespan, many do so with severe disabilities,
(iii) estimates are that around one in every 2 500 Australians is affected by CMT,
(iv) while CMT is more common than diseases such as muscular dystrophy, there is a low level of community awareness of CMT, particularly amongst Indigenous Australians,
(v) genetic counselling and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis means that those carrying the CMT gene can now conceive without the 50 per cent risk of passing CMT to their offspring, and
(vi) despite the advances, detection and genetic counselling, low awareness and detection of CMT means that this disease is still spreading to future generations, when it could be stopped;
(b) notes the need for more investment for research into the cause, care and cure of CMT; and
(c) as a first step, calls on the Government to provide funding for projects which will lead to the eradication of CMT.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes. Migration Amendment (Reinstatement of Temporary Protection Visas) Bill 2013 [No. 2].
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to restore two classes of Temporary Protection Visas (subclasses 785 and 447) that were available under the former Coalition Government for those who arrive illegally in Australia or at an excised offshore place and are found to engage Australia's protection obligations under the Refugee Convention.
This bill is entirely consistent with the Coalition's long held position of providing temporary protection visas for those who arrive illegally by boat as part of a comprehensive suite of measures to stop the boats.
The Temporary Protection (Offshore Entry) Visa (subclass 785) is a visa for people who:
The visa is temporary for a term of up to three years, to be set by the Minister or his/her delegate. The visa gives the holder the right to work, to Special Benefits payments and access to Medicare.
Successive temporary visas can be applied for upon conclusion of the term of the visa unless the Minister allows an application for a permanent protection visa to be made.
The Temporary Protection (Secondary Movement Offshore Entry) Visa (subclass 447) is a visa for people who:
The visa is temporary for a term of up to three years, to be set by the Minister or his/her delegate. The bill defines a secondary movement person as someone who is a non-citizen seeking protection having moved beyond their country of first asylum and who transited in a country other than Australia where the person could have sought protection;
A secondary movement person cannot be granted a permanent Protection Visa. Such a person may only apply for a further temporary protection visa, or if eligible, one of the mainstream visas for which temporary protection visa holders are eligible.
The visa gives the holder the right to work, to Special Benefits payments and access to Medicare.
Temporary protection visas deny access to permanent residence and family reunion. Once a visa has expired, an applicant's refugee status would be reassessed and they would either return home if it was safe to do so or be reissued with another temporary visa. Temporary protection visas fulfill Australia's responsibilities under the Refugee Convention by providing safe haven for those who are found to have a legitimate claim to refugee status but have entered Australia illegally without a valid visa. There is no obligation under international law to provide permanent residence.
This bill effectively reverses the decision of the Rudd/Gillard Government in 2008 to abolish Temporary Protection Visas that started the chaos, cost and tragedy on our borders and has led to more than 33,300 arrivals of people by boat, more than 1,000 deaths at sea, more than 8,100 permanent protection visas being denied to people who applied for a humanitarian offshore visa because they did not come on a boat and a budget blowout for taxpayers of $6.6 billion.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the significant increase in Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) licence fees for exporters from $500 to $8 350 from 1 July 2012 for horticulture and plants,
(ii) the disproportionate impact on small and medium exporters,
(iii) That the licence fees discriminate against and discourage small and medium exporters, and
(iv) the failure of the Government to successfully negotiate the acceptance of AQIS Approved Officers in many of Australia's export markets; and
(b) calls on the Government to urgently review the AQIS licence system so as not to discriminate against and discourage small and medium exporters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes That the average annual Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme military superannuation pension in 2011-12 was $24 603;
(b) condemns the Gillard Labor Government for its ongoing and stubborn refusal to grant 57 000 Australian military superannuants and their families a fair go;
(c) denounces the Australian Labor Party for misleading veterans before the 2007 election into believing that Labor would actually deliver fair indexation, a point highlighted by Senator Lundy and the then Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support (Mr Kelly) in their letter to the former Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Mr Tanner) of 14 September 2009; and
(d) criticises the Government for its ongoing failure to schedule a time for the Senate to consider the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 thus denying the Senate the opportunity to debate and vote on the Coalition's amendments to provide fair indexation for these men and women who have served their nation.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) coal seam gas is a high-risk industry that poses unacceptable risks to our rivers and groundwater, agricultural lands and natural environment, and our communities, and
(ii) since becoming Australia's Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Burke has not rejected a single coal seam gas project, rather approved multiple enormous coal seam gas field developments across Queensland, and most recently in Gloucester in New South Wales despite significant community concerns about the health and environmental impacts of this new industry; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to protect Australia's rivers and groundwater, agricultural lands and natural environment, our communities and the world's climate and stop this new high-risk industry.
The Senate divided [12:07]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, signed an agreement on 11 June 2002 with Lockheed Martin with no public consultation or competitive tendering process for the purchase of up to 100 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs),
(ii) the then Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, announced approval for the purchase of the first 14 JSFs on 25 November 2009 at a cost of around $3.2 billion, contractually committing to two,
(iii) the Australian Auditor-General confirmed in its September 2012 report That the cost for each aircraft is US$131.4 million, more than treble the initial price,
(iv) the aircraft cannot yet fly at supersonic speeds or within 25 miles of storms due to potential ignition of oxygen in the fuel tank,
(v) Senator John McCain of the US Senate describes the JSF program as a scandal and a tragedy, and
(vi) the United Kingdom, the biggest investor in the JSF program, in May 2012 reduced and delayed its acquisition, and the Dutch Parliament in July 2012 voted to cancel its involvement altogether; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) cancel the technically and financially infeasible JSF program,
(ii) urgently examine alternatives given the very long lead times for project development, acquisition and entry into service, and
(iii) focus Australia's Defence procurement priorities on the equipment and training required to address the defence and humanitarian challenges arising from climate change, water stress and resource depletion.
The Senate divided [12:12]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate calls on the Australian Government to seek an immediate explanation from the Government of Japan on its non compliance with the injunction of the Federal Court of Australia in 2008 against whaling in the International Whale Sanctuary in the Southern Ocean.
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the reduction in National Health Reform funding to the states indicated in the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook;
(b) expresses its concern over whether the methodology used to justify these reductions, especially in regard to population growth estimates, was correct and applied in good faith;
(c) calls on the Government to restore funding to the National Health Funding Pool to all states in 2013 and over the forward estimates;
(d) is concerned That the direct payments to Victorian hospitals announced by the Government undermines the Government's own National Health Reform Agreement; and
(e) condemns the long term underinvestment by some state governments in their public hospitals.
The Senate divided. [12:24]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Australia has the highest number of asbestos victims per capita in the world and this is not expected to decline until after 2020;
(b) notes that many Australians are still vulnerable to mesothelioma when they renovate older houses and also through inadvertent exposure as a result of natural disasters destroying property;
(c) supports the Asbestos Free Australia campaign of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; and
(d) encourages the government to establish a National Asbestos Authority to implement the National Strategic Plan in line with the recommendations of the Asbestos Management Review.
That the Senate calls on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to act on his promise of August 2011 to protect national parks under federal environment laws by listing them as matters of national environmental significance to protect them from the threats of logging, grazing, mining or large scale land clearing.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Now that NBN Co. has reached volume rollout it is impractical for NBN Co to provide ad hoc updates on financial and deployment metrics to a level of granularity not already provided for in public releases, parliamentary reporting processes and regular rollout information provided on our website for the use of access seekers.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
After consultation with the Attorney-General's Department, the courts settled and agreed upon a model which provided for a separate agency to be responsible for their combined administration. The model had the virtue that it provided for a transparent and independent agency with one CEO. This model allowed for the existing situation to continue—that is, where the CEO of the agency is also the CEO for both courts. It also provided for other arrangements at a future time, whereby the courts could have separate CEOs—that is, principal registrars—who were responsible for judicial administration as distinct from the work of the agency. This would align all federal courts other than the High Court.
That this bill be now read a third time.
One of the issues that has dogged this portfolio over the life of the Rudd-Gillard Government is the fate of the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrates Court was truly one of the success stories of the Howard Government. It was established in 1999 as a measure to enhance access to justice in the federal jurisdiction. Although it has jurisdiction over most matters arising under federal law, most of its work is in the family law jurisdiction. The Labor government made a grave error of judgment when it sought to dismantle the Federal Magistrates Court. To deal with smaller cases quickly, it is vital that there be a lower tier Commonwealth trial court. A Coalition government will restore a second tier Commonwealth trial court to deal with smaller family law, trade practices, industrial, bankruptcy, tax and administrative law matters. It will be called the Federal Circuit Court.
Over the past several years, the courts have been operating at a loss. Despite implementing many cost-cutting initiatives, the point has been reached where in order to balance the budget in 2012-13, it would no longer be possible to continue the provision of many existing services, such as maintenance of regional registries, circuits and the use of family reports in parenting cases.
Replacement of judicial officers could not be afforded without further impinging on other services.
All the federal courts have been running at a deficit and are projected to do so for the next four years. The chief executives of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court disclosed to the Senate Legal Affairs Estimates Committee—
that, in order to comply with Department of Finance stipulations that the courts bring their budgets back into balance, the already stressed services the courts provide will be cut back even further.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
… I think it’s important that the state premiers do the job they were elected to do and that was to put their fiscal house in order and I respect the job that they’re doing.
… I would have thought it'd be a good idea to say that somebody's moving next door to you that might not be able to have all the language skills that you might normally expect, or that they come from a traumatised background.
… has promised China it will iron out problems with excessive "green tape" and environmental approvals to encourage and fast-track greater Chinese investment in Australian agriculture.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Milne moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the vilification of refugees and asylum seekers.
… I would have thought it'd be a good idea to say that somebody's moving next door to you that might not be able to have all the language skills that you might normally expect, or that they come from a traumatised background.
The Government had the option of having these services on Christmas Island. If relatives of those who were involved wanted to go to Christmas Island, like any other Australian who wanted to attend a funeral service in another part of the country, they would have made their own arrangements to be there.
… … …
And when it comes to the question of do I think this is a reasonable cost then my honest answer is, "No I don't think it is reasonable".
The Senate divided. [15:36]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senator Payne today relating to western Sydney and the Prime Minister.
I was shocked and outraged, I can't have snooty-nosed free settler types making funny comments about Rooty Hill.
The federal government also announced an investigation into raising NSW's Warragamba Dam. The cost of raising the wall is estimated to be $500 million, and federal funding would be contingent on state government backing for the project.
Government Response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Report:
Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties) Bill 2012
November 2012
INTRODUCTION
On 9 February 2012, the Senate referred the Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties) Bill 2012 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2012. On 28 February 2012, the Senate agreed to extend the reporting date to 4 April 2012.
BACKGROUND
The bill seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 to remove the mandatory sentences relating to aggravated people smuggling offences.
Under Australian federal criminal law, mandatory minimum penalties apply to a very limited number of serious, aggravated people smuggling offences in the Migration Act 1958 . These penalties were first enacted in 2001, to deter repeat offenders and ensure courts consistently apply penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
The Migration Act contains four aggravated people smuggling offences which carry mandatory minimum penalties:
Sections 234A and 233C carry mandatory minimum penalties of five years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. Offences under section 233B—and repeat offences under any of the provisions—carry a mandatory minimum penalty of eight years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years.
Minors are only prosecuted with people smuggling offences in exceptional circumstances on the basis of their significant involvement in a people smuggling venture, their involvement in multiple ventures or where a serious incident occurs on a venture. However, where the court determines on the balance of probabilities that the accused was a minor when the offence was committed, the mandatory minimum penalties under the Migration Act do not apply (section 236B(2)).
Until recently, the most commonly prosecuted people smuggling offence was the aggravated offence of people smuggling involving five or more persons (section 233C), which attracts a mandatory minimum penalty. However, on 27 August 2012, the Attorney-General gave a direction to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) not to prosecute first time offender, lower culpability crew under section 233C, but to consider prosecution with a lesser offence that does not attract a mandatory minimum penalty. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers that changes to Australian law in relation to Indonesian crew be pursued with options including discretion being restored to Australian courts in relation to sentencing.
Recommendation 1
2.68 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the operation of the mandatory minimum penalties applied to aggravated people smuggling offences under section 236B of the Migration Act 1958 , with particular reference to:
The Government supports this recommendation and has taken steps to implement it.
On 27 August 2012, the Attorney-General gave a direction to the CDPP not to prosecute first time offender, lower culpability crew under section 233C of the Migration Act, which involves mandatory minimum penalties and to consider prosecution under a lesser offence that does not attract a mandatory minimum penalty.
The direction applies from 27 August 2012, to prosecutions then on foot and to new prosecutions.
The direction does not apply to organisers of people smuggling ventures; to crew who repeatedly come to Australia on such ventures; or to crew involved in ventures where a death occurs.
The CDPP has now re-assessed the 101 people smuggling crew matters that were before the courts, excluding appeals to which the direction does not apply, on 27 August 2012. Of these, the CDPP discontinued 34 matters and 2 matters resulted in directed acquittals. A further 60 matters were recommenced under a lesser people smuggling charge that does not attract a mandatory minimum penalty (s233A or s233(1)(a)), while 5 cases continued under s233C.
The Australian Government is also considering further the effectiveness of the current structure of offences in the Migration Act in light of the recommendations made by the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers in its report released on 13 August 2012.
Recommendation 2
2.69 The committee recommends that the Australian Government facilitate and support further deterrence and awareness raising activities in relation to people smuggling offences, with a focus on relevant communities in Indonesia.
The Government supports this recommendation and has taken steps to implement it.
In addition to strong law enforcement cooperation with regional partners, the Government is delivering public information campaigns throughout the region to ensure potential irregular immigrants are aware of the perils of a boat journey to Australia. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for the offshore communications effort.
Campaigns are underway in key source and transit countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia. These campaigns seek to raise awareness of the dangers and costs of seeking to migrate irregularly, as well as promote regular pathways to resettlement.
Australia and Indonesia are committed to working together to raise awareness in vulnerable communities of the dangers of people smuggling and to deter people from becoming involved in people smuggling ventures.
On 2 July 2012, the Prime Minister and the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono agreed that Australia and Indonesia will conduct a joint public information campaign in Indonesia to prevent potential crew from being used by international people smuggling networks by helping them to understand the consequences, both in Australian and Indonesian law.
This campaign has commenced with two information sessions held in Bali and Kupang from 17-19 September 2012 for local Indonesian stakeholders and representatives.
This agreement follows an Australian Government public information campaign delivered by the International Organization for Migration in Indonesia in 2009‑2010 to raise awareness among Indonesian communities of the dangers of people smuggling and the consequences of involvement in this activity. This campaign specifically targeted potential crew members, fishermen, boat owners, boat builders, and coastal industry workers.
The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service has also tasked its contracted communications providers to raise awareness of the new policy arising from the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers' report.
Recommendation 3
2.70 The committee recommends that the Senate should not pass the bill .
That the report be printed.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate adopt the recommendations of the first report of 2013 of the Procedure Committee.
That Senator Siewert be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.
Following negotiations with the mining industry and the deliberations of the Policy Transition Group (PTG), which was established to advise on the implementation and technical design elements of the MRRT, the government agreed to the PTG's recommendation 'that there be full crediting of all current and future State and Territory royalties under the MRRT so as to provide certainty about the overall tax impost on the coal and iron ore mining industries.
When you impose a significant tax you are always going to provide incentive for people to minimise the tax that they pay.
One of the ways in which they are going to do that is to try to shift income out of the taxed pool into the untaxed pool. To that extent, yes, this tax does invite that.
In all fairness I have not devoted all that much time to that. But I think the issues that will arise, even under the tax as it is currently proposed, will include timing issues, revenue recognition issues and particularly cost allocation issues; what the allowed rate of return on the downstream assets should be; how that allowed rate of return should be allocated; what the relevant asset base downstream is; and at what pace those downstream assets should be depreciated. All of those issues will doubtless arise in respect of this tax.
You can't run this country if you can't manage its budget.
Today the House has put in place arrangements for offshore processing. Today the House has done what the Australian people have wanted us to do for a long time.
These cuts are absolutely heartless because they’ve been made by Labor in the hope that it will achieve a phony surplus.
These cuts were, as I said early in the year, disgraceful and callous.
This is a major embarrassment for the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and for the Health Minister.
That the Senate—
(a) notes That the average annual Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme military superannuation pension in 2011-12 was $24 603;
(b) condemns the Gillard Labor Government for its ongoing and stubborn refusal to grant 57 000 Australian military superannuants and their families a fair go;
(c) denounces the Australian Labor Party for misleading veterans before the 2007 election into believing that Labor would actually deliver fair indexation, a point highlighted by Senator Lundy and the then Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support (Mr Kelly) in their letter to the former Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Mr Tanner) of 14 September 2009; and
(d) criticises the Government for its ongoing failure to schedule a time for the Senate to consider the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 thus denying the Senate the opportunity to debate and vote on the Coalition's amendments to provide fair indexation for these men and women who have served their nation.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Mobile devices can increase productivity by: increasing the effectiveness of employees or managers, or by saving them time; or by increasing the effectiveness or reducing the need for computers, vehicles, office space or other capital.
As managers can be contacted, review information, and communicate with the office, without being physically present, they are able to increase the speed of information transfer and make timely decisions which can enable other follow-on tasks to be accelerated, improving the efficiency of business.
The lobby was set up not only to fight for legal rights, but also to challenge cultural misconceptions about polyamorous relationships.
… … …
The lobby contends there is no reason adults should not be able to form committed relationships with more than one person, and there is no evidence that smaller families are any better off.
… … …
As far as the law is concerned, the lobby said the government should not have the right to restrict consenting adult relationships based on love and respect.
“The legal, health and financial protections enjoyed by a spouse in a monogamous relationship must be extended to all partners in a family,” the spokesperson said. “A family should be about security, stability and love; not about its structure.”
The House of Representatives
For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love.
And that's why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.
The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people. There may be, in some future time, some other question. The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step.
The first time in a long time the Greens have disappointed me. I know that it might be politically expedient to cast us poly people out but true marriage equality should let the people getting married decide what their family looks like.
If there is ever a popular movement to legalise poly marriage in the future, The Greens will be the first to lend their support, I guarantee it. A few poly people are angry with them for not expressing support, but I think we need to be realistic.
… part on an ongoing problem with the queer movement where people who don’t fit into the mainstream queer mould are being excluded from the debate, with claims that they are ruining our chances to reach equality.
The institutional queer movement has become dominated by upper to middle class wealthy queer activists …
"The idea that love can only be between two people comes from the conservative definition of a ‘legitimate relationship’ between one man and one woman,” Ms McFadden said.
As a feminist, I have serious concerns about the implications of polygamy for women, particularly in some extreme elements of religious communities where polygamy is used to control, almost own, women.
As a feminist, I have serious concerns about the implications of conservative rhetoric that dictates the type of relationships women can have with other people. If a woman wants to be in a relationship with a man and a woman and another man, why shouldn't she have the right to marry those partners.
The Poly community has always been let down, even by supposedly left leaning political parties.
We have a message for all those members of the same sex marriage movement who think they can get marriage by excluding us: Shame.
Some members of the Australian Green Party believe that their party platform to support 'marriage for all' means that the party must support polyamorous marriage. Guess who disagrees? Gay marriage advocates…
Lying scoundrel more like. Cate Faehrmann was using the same line, though she knows better.
Timothy Scriven is an active member of the Greens on Campus and on our executive.
Now I have no problem with people taking a stand, or expressing a view. Have at it, as far as I am concerned. I do have a problem when they say they represent me, and I do have a problem when they represent a view that I think is counter productive to a cause that most people I know believe in. PAL would appear to—
arguing for legal recognition of polyamorous relationships, a topic I would not argue against, however a conversation that right now would put us at odds with the campaign for marriage equality.