The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That general business orders of the day relating to the private senators' bills listed for today be called on and considered in the following order:
No. 2, the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013 and no. 7 Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013.
… to take the necessary measures to prevent infanticide, prenatal sex selection, trafficking in girl children …
(a) the professional service involves a medical practitioner performing:
(i) a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman;
or
(ii) a service that relates to or is connected with performing a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman;
and
(b) the termination is carried out solely because of the gender of the foetus.
This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 .
I don't think there is any doctor that would perform an abortion on those grounds.
… uphold the rights of girls and women and to address the multiple manifestations of gender discrimination including the problem of imbalanced sex ratios caused by sex selection.
… uphold the rights of girls and women to address the multiple manifestations of gender discrimination including the problem of imbalanced sex ratios caused by sex selection.
There are rare but important reasons of gender selection on medical grounds. These include (but not exclusively):
(a) Rare serious genetic (X-linked) conditions where there is no other way of determining a possibly seriously affected child other than both gender [and]
(b) Other probable hereditary clinical disorders … that do not have a recognised genotype.
It is clear that, while intending to effect a common good, restrictive laws and policies implemented in isolation from efforts to change social norms and structures can have unintended harsh consequences, and may violate the human rights of women.
… the causes of biased sex selection lie in gender-based discrimination, and that combating such discrimination requires changing social norms and empowering girls and women.
Sex selection is an ethically controversial issue. The Australian Health Ethics Committee believes that admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex. Therefore, pending further community discussion, sex selection (by whatever means) must not be undertaken except to reduce the risk of transmission of a serious genetic condition.
It is clear that, while intending to effect a common good, restrictive laws and policies implemented in isolation from efforts to change social norms and structures can have unintended harsh consequences, and may violate the human rights of women. Prohibitive legal responses should be seen as a demonstrable attempt on the part of government to redress sex-ratio imbalances, based on the hypothesis that combating the use of technology for non-medical reasons will lead to a rapid halt in sex selection. Yet there is wide agreement that the causes of biased sex selection lie in gender-based discrimination, and that combating such discrimination requires changing social norms and empowering girls and women.
(a) the professional service involves a medical practitioner performing:
(i) a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman; or
(ii) a service that relates to or is connected with performing a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman; and
(b) the termination is carried out solely because of the gender of the foetus.
We believe that changing access to Medicare for abortions in Australia because of cultural biases and practices occurring in other countries is inexcusably bad public policy.
The Medicare Benefit Schedule Item Number that this Bill seeks to amend also subsidises the provision reproductive health procedures other than pregnancy termination, such as treatment of miscarriage. There is no recording of the reason for the provision of the procedure under that Item Number, and thus no solid evidence that Medicare funding is being used for termination of pregnancy for the purpose of sex selection.
Governments in affected countries have undertaken a number of measures in an attempt to halt increasing sex-ratio imbalances. Some have passed laws to restrict the use of technology for sex-selection purposes and in some cases for sex-selective abortion. These laws have largely had little effect in isolation from broader measures to address underlying social and gender inequalities.
Sex selection is an ethically controversial issue. The Australian Health Ethics Committee believes that admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex. Therefore, pending further community discussion, sex selection (by whatever means) must not be undertaken except to reduce the risk of transmission of a serious genetic condition.
The College does not support termination of pregnancy for the reason of "family balancing" or "gender preference".
There are rare but important reasons for gender selection on medical grounds. These include (but not exclusively):
a) Rare serious genetic (X-linked) conditions where there is no other way of determining a possibly seriously affected child other than by gender
b) Other probably hereditary clinical disorders (phenotypes) that do not have a recognised genotype
e.g. parents—
e.g. parents that have two severely intellectually handicapped sons may elect for a female child in order to reduce risk of a severely intellectually handicapped offspring in their next pregnancy.
The National Association of Specialist Obstetricians & Gynaecologists … has had a recent email survey of its councillors, with the result that no one was in favour of social gender selection.
A question was raised as to how this could be enforced, with the suggestion to require laboratories which perform MBS funded antenatal chromosome testing to not release the sex of the embryo except for specific medical indications eg Haemophilia, Duchene's muscular dystrophy etc until after 20 weeks, which is when they can find out by ultrasound anyway. It will be very unlikely anyone will terminate a pregnancy after that for a non medical indication.
… Medicare benefits … should not be used to address social issues.
If the Australian Parliament is inclined to prevent gender-biased sex selection as per the interagency statement by the OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO referred to in the explanatory memorandum for the Bill, it should do so in a more direct and specific way.
The interagency statement states at page 7:
It is clear that, while intending to effect a common good, restrictive laws and policies implemented in isolation from efforts to change social norms and structures can have unintended harsh consequences, and may violate the human rights of women.
and
"…the causes of biased sex selection lie in gender-based discrimination, and that combating such discrimination requires changing social norms and empowering girls and women."
The interagency statement provides a suite of recommendations about the many levels on which this social issue should be addressed. It does not recommend denying financial assistance for legal medical procedures.
…the interagency statement offers a range of recommendations for addressing the issues and does not recommend denying financial assistance for legal medical procedures.
It is clear that, while intending to affect a common good, restrictive laws and policies implemented in isolation from efforts to change the social norms and structures can have unintended harsh consequences, and may violate the human rights of women.
We believe that changing access to Medicare for abortions in Australia because of cultural biases and practices occurring in other countries is inexcusably bad public policy.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 12 OF 2014
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 at 7.34 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend:
That—
(a) the provisions of the Automotive Transformation Scheme Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2014 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 October 2014 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Measures) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2014 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2014 (see appendices 4 and 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 November 2014 (see appendices 6 and 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) contingent upon its introduction in the Senate, the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2014 (see appendices 8 and 9 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2014 (see appendix 10 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(h) the provisions of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 5) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2014 (see appendix 11 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges (Amendment) Bill 2014
Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2014
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 2014
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2014
Migration Amendment (Humanitarian Visa Intake) Bill 2014
Mining Subsidies Legislation Amendment (Raising Revenue) Bill 2014
Motor Vehicle Standards (Cheaper Transport) Bill 2014
Save Our Sharks Bill 2014
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014.
(David Bushby)
Chair
25 September 2014
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITT EE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Automotive Transformation Scheme Amendment Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Automotive industry companies, industry associations, workers, unions, local and state governments.
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:
24 November 2014.
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Counter Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Law Council of Australia
Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law
Australian Human Rights Commission
Civil Liberties Councils across Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
October 8 – 10, 2014
Possible reporting date:
Monday 24 November 2014.
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Infrastructure Australia (Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, BCA and other business/infrastructure peaks
Academics
Regulators (ACCC, PC)
Urban Development Institute of Australia and other urban advocates
East West/Westconnex etc project process critics
Public transport advocates
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
26 November 2014.
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Mental health experts – eg. Professor Patrick McGorry
Law Council
State/Territory law enforcement agencies
Australian Federal Police
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
24 November 2014.
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Law Council of Australia
Human Rights Law Centre
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
10 November 2014
Possible reporting date:
29 November 2014.
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Refugee Council of Australia
Law Council of Australia
Human Rights Law Centre
Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
24 – 26 February 2015
Possible reporting date:
10 March 2015.
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas, introductions of Safe Haven Enterprise visa, reinforcing the government's powers to conduct maritime operations and introducing more rapid processing and streamlining review arrangements for illegal maritime arrivals.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Joint Agency Taskforce
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee.
Possible reporting date:
27 October 2014.
(signed)
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
For consideration of the impact of this Bill on the continuation of robust, independent and transparent monitoring and assessment of matters of national water reform and the management of Australia's water resources.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Water Services Association of Australia
Australian Water Association
Murray Darling Basin Authority
National Irrigators Council
Australian Conservation Foundation
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee.
Possible reporting date:
24 November 2014
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 9
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
• The Greens oppose the abolition of the National Water Commission
• Is only federal independent body to track water policy. Advises COAG and Australian Government on water policy.
• Audits effectiveness of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan
• Promotes water reform
• Many organisations have expressed concern at its axing (listed in next point)
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Water Commission, National Farmers Federation, Water Services Association of Australia; Australian Water Association; Environment Victoria; Australian Conservation Foundation; NCCNSW; EDO; Environmental Farmers Network; Inland rivers Network; Lock the Gate; NSW Chief Scientist & other scientist bodies; Wentworth Group of Scientists; NSW Aboriginal Land Council; Bev Smiles (Inland Rivers Network); World Wildlife Fund; Phil Wallis (Monash University); Dr Richard Kingsford (UNSW); Friends of the Earth; Murray Darling Basin Commission; other states' water organisations.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
10, 14, 19, or 20 November
Possible reporting date:
First week of December
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 10
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To investigate the financial impact of the budget measure on the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and to investigate what benefit membership to international commodity organisations has to research and development and to Australia generally.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
24 November 2014.
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 1 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No.5) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Seek key stakeholder feedback on the impact of the legislation on research and development.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Firms affected by the proposed reduction in the R&D concession rate.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
28 October 2014.
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That:
(a) government business order of the day relating to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014 be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bill 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 notice of motion no. 448 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Milne) relating to the establishment of a National Independent Commission Against Corruption; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 2 October 2014 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators’ bills:
Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2014, subject to introduction.
No. 29 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 331 during the sitting of the Senate today from 3.45 pm
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 331 during the sitting of the Senate today from 3.55 pm
That the Migration Amendment (Repeal of Certain Visa Classes) Regulation 2014, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2014 No. 65 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the dangerous spread of the Ebola virus in parts of West Africa, that has infected more than 5 500 people, and caused the deaths of more than 2 600, and
(ii) the major threat that this outbreak poses to international peace and security;
(b) applauds the efforts of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, China and Cuba, all of which have provided medical teams and aid to help combat the disease;
(c) raises concern That the Australian Government has ignored calls from Médecins Sans Frontières for countries, including Australia, to evaluate their emergency medical and logistics capacity and make a contribution beyond financial support; and
(d) urges the Australian Government to contribute to the fight against Ebola on the ground through the provision and support of scientific, medical and humanitarian personnel.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the dangerous spread of the Ebola virus in parts of West Africa, that has infected more than 5 500 people, and caused the deaths of more than 2 600, and
(ii) the major threat that this outbreak poses to international peace and security;
(b) applauds the efforts of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, China and Cuba, all of which have provided medical teams and aid to help combat the disease;
(c) raises concern That the Australian Government has ignored calls from Médecins Sans Frontières for countries, including Australia, to evaluate their emergency medical and logistics capacity and make a contribution beyond financial support; and
(d) urges the Australian Government to contribute to the fight against Ebola on the ground through the provision and support of scientific, medical and humanitarian personnel.
That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 2 October 2014, from 9.30 am to noon, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2014.
That the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 30 September 2014.
That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 30 September 2014, from 4 pm to 10 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into Australia's naval ship building industry.
That the Select Committee on Health be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) Tuesday, 30 September 2014, from 4.30 pm to 6 pm;
(b) Wednesday, 1 October 2014, from 12.45 pm to 2 pm, and from 4.30 pm to 7 pm; and
(c) Thursday, 2 October 2014, from 9 am to 12.30 pm, and from 3 pm to 5.30 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on inviting world leaders from government, business and civil society to the Climate Summit on 23 September 2014 to ensure a global response to our shared responsibility in limiting global warming to less than two degrees;
(b) acknowledges That the UN Climate Summit was another step in the right direction of transitioning away from fossil fuels towards a shared, low carbon future;
(c) recognises the 700 000 people around the world who took part in the People's Climate March rallies on the weekend of 20 September and 21 September 2014 to inspire parties to set ambitious greenhouse emission reduction targets for beyond 2020; and
(d) requests That the Government immediately outline its plan on how it will ensure Australia contributes its fair share to the global effort, based on the recommendations of the Climate Change Authority, well in advance of the Paris Conference of the Parties.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, no later than 4 pm on 2 October 2014, the following documents held or prepared by Infrastructure Australia:
(a) any business case presented by the Victorian Government for the East West Link project;
(b) any other documents in relation to the East West Link project provided to Infrastructure Australia by the Victorian Government; and
(c) any assessment of the proposed East West Link undertaken by Infrastructure Australia, including the priority of this project as compared to other projects.
The Senate divided. [12:14]
(The Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Since the Australian Government and all state and territory governments agreed to the National Water Initiative (NWI) in 2004, there has been considerable progress in national water reform, through enhancing the security of irrigation water entitlements, enabling water markets and trade, strengthening Australia's water resource information base and improving urban water security.
The Abbott Government is committed to continuing to progress national water reform and to supporting and promoting implementation of the NWI. However, this should be done as efficiently as possible. As such, we have determined it is no longer necessary to retain a separate body to undertake the functions of the National Water Commission (NWC). Instead, and in line with the Governments ongoing commitment to the NWI principles, key NWC functions will be retained and transferred to existing Commonwealth agencies.
The Bill delivers on the Government's commitment announced in the 2014-15 Budget to cease the operations of the NWC by the end of 2014, while transferring key functions to existing Commonwealth agencies. The abolition of the NWC is expected to result in a saving of $20.9 million over the forward estimates, further improving the budget bottom line. The findings of the Commission of Audit were taken into account in making this decision, which recommended abolishing the NWC as a standalone agency.
The National Water Commission's roles are of a monitoring and reporting nature. It does not deliver programs or have any approval or regulatory functions.
The National Water Commission has reported to the Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictions on the national benefits that result from the implementation by governments of the NWI, such as the creation of water entitlements as a tradeable asset, the development of water markets, improved environmental protection for our rivers and wetlands, and improved urban water security for our towns and cities.
I would like to thank all the staff of the National Water Commission for the contribution they have made to water reform over the last decade. Their role in reporting on the rate of reform has been significant and they all should be extremely proud of their work.
Given both the substantial progress already made in water reform and the current fiscal environment, there is no longer adequate justification for a stand-alone agency to monitor Australia's progress on water reform. In line with reform priorities to improve efficiencies across the Australian Government and to improve the budgetary outlook, the NWC will cease its functions following the release of its assessment of national water reform in October this year. The budget does not provide funding beyond December and the winding up of the NWC is well advanced.
2 environmental water, and the effective implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (Basin Plan).
The Government reaffirms its commitment to the NWI and will ensure that the key audit and review functions required under the NWI and Water Act 2007 (Water Act) are continued, in a rigorous manner, and with appropriate independent oversight.
The triennial assessments of progress toward achieving the NWI objectives and outcomes by state and territory governments and the independent audit of implementation of the Basin Plan and associated water resource plans will continue as statutory functions, but will now be undertaken by the Productivity Commission (PC). The PC will also be responsible for the biennial National Water Planning Report Card which is produced under the Triennial Assessment.
The Productivity Commission will also undertake independent audits on implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as required by the Water Act. Retention of this function is necessary to ensure continuing public confidence in the implementation of the Basin Plan.
As the Productivity Commission collates performance data for other National Agreements and National Partnership Agreements, it is well placed to take on the audit of progress in implementing the Basin Plan from 2018, the Triennial Assessment of NWI implementation and producing a biennial National Water Planning Report Card.
By allocating the assessment and audit functions to the PC, stakeholders will benefit from the PC's reputation for independence, the confidence in which it is held by the Australian public and governments, as well as its performance and benchmarking expertise. The Government is confident that the PC will strengthen and improve the reporting and analysis of the progress of water reform across Australia.
In addition to the statutory functions that will be transferred to the PC, the Department of the Environment (the Department) will take on responsibility for assessing milestone payments to Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Murray-Darling Basin reform, and for providing ongoing advice on the status of relevant state and territory water resource plans to the Clean Energy Regulator, as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011.
The Department will also be responsible for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report, which will be undertaken for the Department by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
The retention of these key functions by existing agencies was flagged in the 2014-15 Budget papers, including the transfer of appropriate funding to support these functions, and will ensure the commitment by all governments to deliver on agreed reforms is realised.
I will now turn to the details of the Bill.
The Bill provides that certain key assessment and audit functions of the NWC that are considered essential in the future will continue but be undertaken by different agencies. The
3 Bill amends the Water Act 2007 to provide that the triennial assessments of NWI implementation by state and territory governments and the independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan Implementation will be undertaken as statutory functions by the PC.
The Bill makes consequential changes to the Water Act to reflect the fact that the NWC will cease to exist. To this end, references to the NWC in the Water Act will be removed, including references which allow for the sharing of information with the NWC or concerning its administration.
Lastly, the Bill provides for transitional arrangements for the closure of the NWC's activities.
The Bill and other measures put in place by the Government will ensure continuation of all important functions of the NWC in a more efficient and effective manner.
That:
(a) if by 2 pm on Thursday, 25 September 2014, the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 has not been finally considered the Senate shall not adjourn, the routine of business from not later than 8 pm shall be government business only, and the Senate shall continue to sit until 10 pm; and
(b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958 in relation to the annual humanitarian visa intake, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
As I introduce this Bill the world is responding to an urgent humanitarian crisis in the Middle East which has led to millions of people being displaced. Men, women and children have had to flee their homes in search of safety. Neighbouring countries are doing more than their fair share to support the desperate and vulnerable. It is now time for Australia to step up its efforts to assist asylum seekers and refugees fleeing the dangers of war and terror.
It is true that the sheer scale of the world's refugee crisis can feel confronting and often distant from our shores. However despite this distance, Australia must uphold its obligations under the Refugee Convention and provide sanctuary to those in need. Australia is a rich and prosperous country with the capacity to offer greater support in the form of humanitarian aid and increase our refugee intake and resettlement.
Following the federal election the government recklessly slashed Australia's refugee intake by more than 6,000 places. This was a short-sighted move which has left Australia lagging behind comparable countries who have sought to increase their support in light of the ongoing global humanitarian crisis.
This Bill, The Migration Amendment (Humanitarian Visa Intake) Bill 2014, will amend the Migration Act to ensure that the Minister of the day must grant no fewer than 20,000 humanitarian visas per year.
The Executive is currently responsible for determining the migration programme and the total number of visas to be issued under each subclass annually. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the total number of humanitarian visas issued each year by amending The Act to prevent the Government limiting the number of visas in a particular class or subclass that can be granted at any time when fewer than 20,000 humanitarian visas have been granted. The Bill also affords greater transparency and accountability by requiring the Minister to make quarterly statements to Parliament setting out how many humanitarian visas of each class have been granted.
It is clear that now, more than ever, Australia must join likeminded countries and increase our humanitarian intake in the wake of the crises in Syria and Iraq. In the past year over 1.8 million Iraqis and 9.5 million Syrians have been displaced by the fighting, and there is no sign of this slowing. In Syria alone, more than 100,000 people register as refugees every month. Only last month the UNHCR announced that the number of registered Syrian refugees reached 3 million. That is a figure more than two times the population of my home state of South Australia.
Despite this huge need, Australia has only offered 4500 existing places to Iraqi and Syrian refugees. We can do better than this, and we must. In the past we have taken the lead and offered refuge to those who have had to flee the horrors of war. In the 1970s and 1980s, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, Australia resettled thousands of Vietnamese refugees, many of whom have gone on to make an incredible contribution to our country. It is now time to do it again.
It is not beyond Australia's remit to increase our commitment to refugees and asylum seekers fleeing war, torture and persecution. Germany alone has committed a total of 20,000 places to Syrian refugees; this is over two thirds of the total resettlement places offered across the whole of Europe. Similarly, the Swedish government announced that it would be granting permanent residency to any Syrian refugee seeking asylum that has already fled to Sweden. As I introduce this Bill there are hundreds of Iraqi and Syrian refugees already in Australia that the government has locked up in detention. They too should be given refuge and protection.
Despite the Australian government committing troops and fighter jets to a new war in Iraq, they have refused to increase Australia's refugee intake. This step is irresponsible and ignores the realities of war and the desperate needs of those who are caught in the middle of the deadly conflict. The increasing humanitarian crisis in the Middle East demands a genuine and compassionate response. Australia must heed the calls from the United Nations and take urgent action by increasing Australia's humanitarian intake.
This Bill is more than a symbolic gesture, it will offer a practical response to the crisis and greatly help neighbouring countries who are providing lifesaving support to the people who are enduring these extreme circumstances.
I commend this Bill to the Senate
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
TAX AND SUPERANNUATION LAWS AMENDMENT (2014 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2014
This Bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.
This Bill delivers on the Government's election commitment to introduce a tax receipt for individual taxpayers and continues the Government's work in restoring the integrity of the Australian tax system.
Soon after the Government was elected, we were advised that 96 tax and superannuation measures, had not been legislated.
This backlog created significant operational uncertainty for businesses and consumers.
We acted swiftly to clean up Labor's mess, and to provide certainty and reduce red tape for all taxpayers: investors, small business and corporate Australia.
This Bill furthers the Government's commitment to eliminate uncertainty, and to restore simplicity and fairness to the Australian tax system.
Schedules 1 to 3 of this Bill implement measures announced but never developed or legislated by the previous government.
Schedule 1 will improve the integrity and the fairness of Australia's taxation system by tightening and improving the thin capitalisation rules.
The thin capitalisation rules are designed to prevent multinationals from profit shifting by allocating a disproportionate amount of debt to their Australian operations, and claiming excessive debt deductions in Australia, thereby reducing their Australian taxable income. If the Australian operations are funded by excessive debt, they are said to be 'thinly capitalised'.
The rules consist of a number of statutory debt limit tests which calculate the maximum debt deductions allowed to be claimed for a multinational's Australian operations. The current limits were set in 2001.
This Bill amends the statutory debt limits to bring them more closely into line with commercial debt levels or to regulatory requirements in the case of banks and non‑bank financial entities. Bringing the limits more closely into line with commercial debt levels reduces the incentive for multinational enterprises to allocate excessive levels of debt to their Australian operations, and claim excessive debt deductions in Australia, thereby reducing their Australian taxable income.
It also introduces a new test for inbound investors to restrict tax deductible gearing of the Australian operations to the level of gearing of the group worldwide.
We are assisting the small and medium enterprise sector that have overseas operations by reducing the cost of determining whether they comply with the thin capitalisation legislation. - The threshold for complying with the regime will be increased from $250,000 to $2 million of total debt deductions.
Schedule 2 will reform the tax exemption for foreign non‑portfolio dividends paid to Australian corporate taxpayers. This exemption helps ensure that Australian investments in offshore subsidiaries are able to compete on an equal footing with other businesses located in that country. The reforms will both modernise the rules to provide broader access to the exemption and improve the integrity of the tax system by ensuring the exemption only applies to returns on instruments treated as 'equity' for tax purposes.
This removes a significant tax planning opportunity that has arisen from a flaw in the current tax law. This flaw has allowed multinational taxpayers to claim a tax exemption for interest income from loans to offshore subsidiaries, whereas this income should be assessable.
The Government believes that the reforms contained in Schedules 1 and 2 strike an appropriate balance between encouraging business investment to grow Australia's economy and protecting Australia's tax base.
Maintaining a secure and sustainable tax system is central to the Government's efforts to repair the Budget. The changes to the thin capitalisation rules and the exemption for foreign non‑portfolio dividends are expected to provide an achievable increase in revenue of $755 million over the forward estimates period.
Schedule 3 to this Bill amends the income tax laws to improve the integrity of Australia's foreign resident capital gains tax (CGT) regime by preventing the double counting of certain assets under the regime's Principal Asset Test.
The Principal Asset Test applies to determine whether an entity's underlying value is principally derived from Australian real property.
Removing the double counting of certain assets will ensure that a foreign resident's interest in an entity that derives its value principally from Australian real property remains within Australia's tax net.
Under Australia's taxation laws a foreign resident is subject to CGT only where the CGT asset disposed of is either a direct or indirect interest in Australian real property or where the asset is used in carrying on a business through a permanent establishment (for example a branch) in Australia.
The amendments in this Bill extend the original 2013-14 Budget announcement to include interests in unconsolidated groups as well as in consolidated groups held by foreign residents to ensure the Principal Asset Test operates as intended.
Schedule 3 also makes a technical amendment to references to the permanent establishment definition to ensure the foreign resident CGT regime applies where assets are used in carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in Australia.
Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the tax law to require the Commissioner of Taxation to issue a tax receipt to individuals following their income tax assessment.
During the last Election, the Coalition committed to introducing a tax receipt for individual taxpayers.
In his Budget press release of 13 May 2014, the Treasurer announced how the Government would deliver on its commitment to the community.
From 1 July 2014, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) started issuing tax receipts to individual taxpayers in Australia.
It is expected that around 10 million tax receipts will be issued. Up to 15 July 2014 the ATO had already issued over half a million receipts.
To make tax receipts a formal, ongoing feature of the system, the Government is now introducing legislative amendments to the taxation law, included in Schedule 4 to this Bill.
The tax receipt is a concise one-page personalised and itemised receipt which shows, in dollar terms, how much of a person's tax bill was spent on each area of the Budget. It will also show information about the level of gross government debt.
In most circumstances, the tax receipt will accompany the taxpayer's notice of assessment.
The Government understands that every dollar the Government has, it holds on trust for the taxpayer. We believe taxpayers deserve transparency so that they know how their tax is being spent, what the levels of debt the Government has incurred are, and what we are paying on that debt.
The previous government left $123 billion in deficits with debt projected to reach $667 billion in the medium term. This debt has to be paid back, and it is dead money the Government cannot use to help families or to cut taxes.
Government debt, if left unchecked and allowed to continue on the inherited trajectories of Government deficits and excessive spending would have been $667 billion at the end of the medium term.
Without action, the Budget outlook is deficits and rising debt for at least another 10 years. The budget would never get to surplus and the debt would never start to be repaid.
There is a strong economic and moral imperative to change course and put the budget back onto a secure and sustainable footing.
This Government is committed to living within its means. It is not sustainable for a Government to continue to borrow money to pay for consumption today, at the expense of generations of taxpayers into the future.
Our first Budget outlined a path to return the Budget to a more sustainable footing.
Because of this plan, in our first four years to 2017-18, deficits are now estimated to total $60 billion.
Our policies aim to reduce debt by almost $300 billion over the next decade.
This improvement is built off a significant reduction in payments growth.
At the 2013 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, average real growth in payments over the four years to 30 June 2017 was 2.6 per cent. The average over the four years to 30 June 2018 is now 0.8 per cent.
The Government will redirect spending to measures that will boost productivity and workforce participation, to build a stronger economy.
This includes the Infrastructure Growth Package — the Asset Recycling Initiative and other new investments in infrastructure — to which have committed nearly $11.6 billion in our first Budget. It includes building a new Medical Research Future Fund within the next six years. This will be the largest of its kind in the world.
We are also eliminating waste and targeting government assistance to those who need it most.
This accords with our plan to reduce the Government's share of the economy over time, which in turn will free up resources for private investment.
It will see payments as a percentage of GDP fall over time.
And it will allow us to start to pay down public debt.
We want to reduce the amount Australian taxpayers spend on interest repayments.
We want to ensure that more of their tax dollar is spent on the delivery of front line services.
The benefit of making these decisions now is that, in the years ahead, we will be able to afford a sustainable quality of life.
Every generation before us has helped to build the quality of life that we enjoy, and we can do no less for future generations.
Budget repair is about government living within its means and ensuring the sustainability of government services.
This measure enshrines the Government's election commitment to provide further transparency to taxpayers as we undertake this task to repair the Budget. This initiative will ensure that all governments are held accountable for spending tax revenue wisely and for the levels of government debt they maintain.
Costs for the issuance of the receipt will be met by the ATO.
Schedule 5 makes a number of amendments to ensure the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies and addressing unintended outcomes.
Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
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.
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT (INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION) BILL 2014
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the grant of Australian citizenship to children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries that are not party to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. Under such bilateral arrangements, Australian citizens have, for several years, been able to adopt children from South Korea, Taiwan and Ethiopia. Although the intercountry adoption program with Ethiopia is now closed, there are a number of families who are awaiting the finalisation of their adoptions. At present, children adopted under bilateral arrangements require a passport from the home country and an Australian adoption visa to travel to Australia. This imposes additional complexity and cost on the adopting families. Under the amendments to be made by this bill, children will be able to be granted citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. They will then be able to travel to Australia on an Australian passport, with their new families, as Australian citizens.
The bill gives effect to a recommendation made in the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption published in April 2014. The Prime Minister announced the review in December last year, in response to strong interest from parents and others involved in intercountry adoption. As the report of the Committee shows, intercountry adoption can be a time consuming and frustrating process, and there is a strong case to be made for a more efficient and nationally consistent approach. The Government is examining options for comprehensive reform of intercountry adoption arrangements, as recommended in the report and subsequently endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments.
This bill is one small step in the process of reform. It will place children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements in the same position as children adopted by Australian citizens under Hague Convention arrangements. The overarching requirement from Australia's perspective is that a potential partner country is, firstly, willing to participate in an intercountry adoption arrangement with Australia and, secondly, will meet the standards and safeguards equivalent to those required under the Hague Convention. Where a non-Convention country meets those standards, there is no reason why adoptions should not be recognised in the same way as adoptions in Convention countries. The government has recently given effect to this principle by amending the Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements-Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998 to provide for automatic recognition of adoptions in partner countries once the adoption is finalised and an adoption compliance certificate has been issued.
Children adopted from Hague Convention countries which issue adoption compliance certificates are already able to obtain Australian citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. This has been the case since the enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 . The adoption compliance certificate provides assurance that the adoption has been carried out in accordance with the ethical and legal framework required by the Hague Convention. As the process for children adopted under bilateral arrangements, including automatic recognition under Australian law, is in substance identical, there is no reason why those children should be treated differently in the Australian Citizenship Act. This was recognised by the Interdepartmental Committee which identified this issue as suitable for immediate reform. The Government has moved quickly to act on that recommendation.
The key feature of the bill is an amendment to Subdivision AA of Division 2 of Part 2 of the Act. The amendment simply expands the scope of the existing Hague Convention provisions, so that they also cover adoptions in accordance with bilateral arrangements. The decision making framework remains the same. An application must be made to the Minister for the child to become an Australian citizen. The application can only be approved if the adoption has been finalised in the overseas country and an adoption compliance certificate issued by the authorities of that country. The adoption must also have the effect of terminating the legal relationship between the child and his or her previous parents. Importantly, the Minister retains a discretion to refuse an application which meets all of the statutory requirements. This would be relevant if fraud or some other irregularity came to light before citizenship was granted. Similarly, the Minister must not approve a child becoming a citizen if the Minister is not satisfied of the identity of the child.
The amendments made by the bill will apply for the benefit of all children adopted under bilateral arrangements, whether the adoption was finalised before or after the amendments come into force.
In conclusion, the Government acknowledges the hard work, dedication, and perseverance of our citizens who embark on the challenging journey of intercountry adoption. They have our admiration and respect.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
MARINE SAFETY (DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL VESSEL) NATIONAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL 2014
The purpose of this Bill, the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2014 (National Law Bill) is to amend the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 (National Law Act) to ensure that it operates as it was originally intended.
The National Law Act commenced on 1 July 2013, introducing nationally consistent law for the regulation of domestic commercial vessel safety and establishing the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) as the National Regulator for the domestic commercial vessel fleet operating in Australian waters across all states and territories, including Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
The amendments in the National Law Amendment Bill have been agreed by all Transport Ministers at the Standing Council of Transport and Infrastructure Ministers’ meeting in November last year.
The National Law Bill will ensure the National Regulator is able to exercise discretion when considering the suspension, revocation and variation of vessel certificates. This will provide greater flexibility to accommodate the variety of operational variables within Australia’s domestic commercial vessel fleet.
This Bill also provides minor amendments to ensure the definition of ‘defence vessel’ aligns with the Navigation Act 2012, which also deals with marine safety.
In addition to those amendments already mentioned, the National Law Bill provides amendments to ensure the National Law Act:
I commend this Bill to the House.
MIGRATION AMENDMENT (PROTECTION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2014
The Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014 amends the Migration Act to make changes to the way asylum seekers are assessed, irrespective of their mode of arrival. These are necessary changes required to effectively respond to the evolving challenges in the asylum seeker caseload arising from recent judicial decisions and management of the backlog of illegal maritime arrivals (unauthorised maritime arrivals under the Migration Act). These changes will enable the Australian public to have confidence in the Australian Government's capacity to assess all asylum seekers in Australia using enhanced integrity measures and increased processing efficiency.
These changes to the current protection determination system will improve the integrity of decision making. Australians need to be confident that those who are found to be refugees are in fact who they say they are. If asylum seekers do not cooperate with the Government to establish their identity they should not be given the benefit of a protection visa. These amendments will make it clearly the responsibility of a person who comes to this country seeking protection to establish their own claims to be a refugee and to do so at the beginning of the process. It is also time to stop compromising the overall integrity of the visa system by allowing exploitation of the merits review system by applicants who are not genuinely pursuing a protection claim but only interested in extending their time in Australia.
Schedule 1 of the Bill improves integrity within the protection status determination process, starting with an amendment which sends a clear message that the ultimate responsibility lies with the asylum seeker to establish their claims for protection and to provide sufficient evidence to support those claims. The Bill makes it clear that it is not the responsibility of the department or the Refugee Review Tribunal (the RRT) to make a case for protection on behalf of an asylum seeker. This change will put Australia on a par with like-minded countries including the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This responsibility will apply to any asylum seeker making claims for protection regardless of whether it is for the purposes of an application for a protection visa or for the purposes of an assessment undertaken as part of an administrative process such as a request for me to consider the exercise of my public interest powers.
Notwithstanding this amendment, the Government acknowledges that there will always be a small number of vulnerable individuals including unaccompanied minors who may not be able to clearly present their claims without assistance. The Government will continue to have arrangements in place in order to assist these specific individuals.
In tandem with this, the Government is introducing a provision to allow the RRT to draw an adverse inference about the credibility of a protection claim, where an asylum seeker raises a claim or provides evidence at the RRT for the first time, without having a reasonable explanation about why the claims or evidence were not raised before the primary protection visa decision was made. This provision makes it clear that asylum seekers must have a reasonable explanation for presenting claims and evidence during the review process which they could and should have provided earlier. The goal is for all claims to be presented at the earliest opportunity to enable timely, efficient and quality protection outcomes, and to limit any unnecessary delays in finalising assessments. This change will not prevent asylum seekers raising late claims where there were good reasons why they could not do so earlier. What this amendment seeks to prevent are those non-genuine asylum seekers who attempt to exploit the independent merits review process by presenting new claims or evidence to bolster their original unsuccessful claims only after they learn why they were not found to be refugees by the department. In the past, this behaviour has led to considerable delay while new claims are explored. To make it clear, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any claim that can be presented at the initial application stage is presented at that stage.
Establishing an applicant's identity is a keystone of making a decision to grant or refuse any visa. This is especially the case for protection visa applicants because their identity, nationality or citizenship can have a direct bearing on whether they engage Australia's protection obligations. Identity in the global age is increasingly complex to determine and many people hold dual or multiple nationalities or seek an advantage from not disclosing their genuine identity. This bill introduces amendments that enhance the process of establishing identity for protection visa applicants, and addresses the ways in which that process has been frustrated in the past. Changes to section 91W of the Migration Act, and the introduction of a new section 91WA, introduce a power to refuse the grant of a protection visa unless the applicant provides documentary evidence of their identity, nationality or citizenship when requested to do so, or has taken reasonable steps to do so. Presenting bogus documents for the purpose of establishing identity will result in refusal of a protection visa application unless the applicant has a reasonable explanation for presenting them and either provides documentary evidence of their identity, nationality or citizenship, or has taken reasonable steps to do so. The same applies to an applicant who has destroyed or discarded identity documents, or has caused that to happen at the hands of another person such as a people smuggler.
It is appropriate to refuse a protection visa where an applicant fails or refuses to comply with a request to establish their identity, where it is in fact possible for them to do this. These measures make it clear that Australians expect protection visa applications to be made in good faith, and with full disclosure of identity. However, the proposed changes also respect the fact that in some circumstances, including some cases where a person is stateless, it may not be possible for a protection visa applicant to provide documentary evidence of their identity, nationality or citizenship, even if they want to and have taken all reasonable steps to do so. Cooperation is the key in these cases.
This Bill also inserts section 91WB into the Migration Act. This section puts beyond doubt that an applicant for a protection visa, who is a member of the same family unit of an existing protection visa holder, cannot be granted a protection visa simply on the basis of being a member of the same family. It clarifies, for example, that a person who marries a protection visa holder years after the time they were granted their visa, will not, and should not, be granted that same visa. Family migration is the appropriate pathway in that case. The change also discourages family members of protection visa holders from arriving in Australia, particularly illegally, expecting to be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member. This amendment does not change the definition of a "member of the same family unit". Nor does it affect the existing ability of a member of the same family unit to apply together with, or have their application combined with, the eventual holder of a protection visa when they are present in Australia at the same time. This amendment simply encourages members of the same family unit of a protection visa holder to use established pathways for family reunion.
This Government remains committed to ensuring it abides by its non-refoulement obligations under theConvention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) and Schedule 2 of the Bill contains amendments to clarify the threshold for assessing Australia'snon-refoulement obligations under these treaties. InMinister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33the Full Federal Court found that the threshold for assessing complementary protection claims is whether there is a 'real chance' of significant harm, the same low threshold that applies to the assessment of claims under the Refugees Convention. A 'real chance' can be as low as a ten percent chance of harm occurring. It is the Government's position that the risk threshold applicable to thenon-refoulement obligations under the Convention Against Torture and the ICCPR is 'more likely than not'. 'More likely than not' means that there would be a greater than fifty percent chance that a person would suffer significant harm in the country they are returned to.
Accordingly, this Bill inserts a new section 6A into the Migration Act which makes it clear that this higher threshold is required to engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations. This is an acceptable position which is open to Australia under international law and reflects the Government's interpretation of Australia's obligations. This new threshold applies to all assessments of complementary protection claims related to the Convention Against Torture and the ICCPR. The threshold will also be reflected in the complementary protection provisions under section 36(2) (aa) of the Migration Act until such time as the Migration Amendment (Regaining Control Over Australia's Protection Obligations) Bill 2013 is passed by this Parliament. The Bill also ensures that all complementary protection assessments are made with regard to a country of return that is relevant to the person seeking protection.
Schedule 3 of the Bill will introduce amendments to streamline the operation of the current statutory bars placed on illegal maritime arrivals (unauthorised maritime arrivals under the Migration Act). It is inefficient and administratively complex for a person to be subject at different times to different provisions that prevent them from making a valid application for a visa when one would suffice. These amendments will significantly reduce complexity without impacting on the practical effect of the existing arrangements. Statutory bars are an essential mechanism which supports the orderly management of applications from illegal arrivals.
The amendments will broaden the statutory bar in section 46A of the Migration Act so it will apply to unauthorised maritime arrivals who hold bridging visas or other prescribed temporary visas in addition to unauthorised maritime arrivals who are unlawful. The amendments will also ensure that where section 46A of the Act applies to an unauthorised maritime arrival, section 91K of the Act will no longer apply.
Finally, the amendments in this Schedule make the statutory bar in section 46B of the Migration Act, which applies to transitory persons, consistent with the amended bar in section 46A, to ensure that transitory persons are treated consistently with unauthorised maritime arrivals.
Schedule 4 of the Bill contains amendments to improve processing and administration of both the RRT and the Migration Review Tribunal. The Principal Member will be able to issue practice directions to applicants at review and their representatives, including migration agents and legal practitioners, regarding the procedures and processing practices to be followed for reviews. The Principal Member will also be able to issue guidance decisions to tribunal members to reduce inconsistencies across decisions. The Tribunal must comply with the guidance decisions unless a Tribunal member is satisfied that the facts or circumstances of the decision under review are clearly distinguishable from the facts or circumstances in the guidance decision. The Tribunals will also have a discretionary power to make an oral statement of reasons where there is an oral decision without the need for a written statement of reasons. This change has the potential to significantly reduce the administrative burden on the Tribunals. However, a review applicant may, within a specified period, request a written statement of reasons to be provided to them.
The Tribunals will also be able to dismiss an application where an applicant fails to appear before the Tribunal after being invited to do so. This will stop applicants from using the merits review process to delay their departure from Australia. However, the Government recognises that a review applicant may have genuine reasons for not attending a hearing and the Tribunals will have the power to reinstate an application that has been dismissed for non-attendance where the Tribunal considers it appropriate to do so, in the circumstances where the applicant has applied to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application within 7 days after receiving notice of the decision to dismiss the application.
This Bill deserves the support of all parties. We need the tools to ensure public confidence in Australia's capacity to assess claims for asylum in the interests of this country, and against the interests of those who show bad faith. These changes uphold the importance of integrity, the establishment of identity, and increased efficiency in our protection processing system.
I commend the Bill to the chamber.
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.
INFRASTRUCTURE AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT (COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2014
The Australian Government is committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st Century, to ensuring this nation has the productive infrastructure it needs to meet the challenges ahead.
The 2014-15 Budget laid out a historic $50 billion infrastructure plan to deliver vital transport infrastructure right across our cities, regional centres and rural communities. This commitment is part of the Government's economic action strategy to build a strong, prosperous economy, boost productivity and create thousands of new jobs.
Building better road and rail infrastructure will make it easier for freight to move around our cities and to our rural and regional centres. Infrastructure investment helps cut fuel costs and reduces travel times so we can spend more time in productive activities or with our loved ones.
The Government is not just getting on with infrastructure delivery; we are also determined to reform the way decisions are made to prioritise new infrastructure projects. Therefore we are acting to reform.
The Government's election commitment was for a strong independent, transparent and expert advisory body able to forge productive relationships with industry, states and territories and to deliver quality independent advice on infrastructure proposals.
We have delivered on that promise and on 1 September the new governance arrangements for Infrastructure Australia (IA) officially commenced.
On 1 September I also announced the new Board of IA under Mr Mark Birrell.
IA will now be able to better demonstrate transparency and rigour in its prioritisation of projects and its advice to Government.
IA is getting on with the key priorities this government has tasked it with:
Let's be clear. IA is already assessing projects which involve Commonwealth funding of at least $100 million and will make public the details of their evaluations. This was the Government's election commitment and this is what we are delivering without the trigger being specified in legislation.
With the previous amendments provided for in the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013, the Government had provided for this to be specified through a disallowable legislative instrument. However, the Bill as amended by the Senate no longer provided for such an instrument. We therefore made an undertaking during debate on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 to ensure that the $100 million threshold would figure in this Act.
This Bill will amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (IA Act) to clarify the legislative and administrative arrangements for Infrastructure Australia. It will also rectify the currently incorrect placement of provisions pertaining to cost benefit analyses of infrastructure proposals in the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. This will ensure that cost benefit analyses inform the evaluation of proposals under the IA Act.
The Bill will amend the Act to include in the functions provision the requirement that Infrastructure Australia undertake evaluations of proposals that involve Commonwealth funding of at least $100 million. This figure is to be established as a benchmark based on 2014 dollars and indexed at least every five years to ensure this figure maintains relativity into future years.
Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to deliver more appropriate, efficient and effective infrastructure and transport. Investment in nationally significant infrastructure is central to growing Australia's productivity and improving the living standards of Australians now and in the future.
To maximise productivity improvement through investment, funding must flow to projects that yield the highest benefits. Therefore, it is critical to base project selection on rigorous analysis and sound planning to avoid wasteful investment. The Government recognises that Australia needs improved planning – coordinated across jurisdictions – to underpin investment and regulatory reforms.
We are, therefore, focussed on long term planning based on robust, evidence based findings through a greater understanding of the critical issues facing Australia's infrastructure and land transport system.
Notwithstanding the significant reforms the Government has made to Infrastructure Australia, it remains an advisory body, a key advisory body with an independent view. It will not be the decision‑maker in terms of funding allocation. That responsibility will remain with governments.
The Bill currently before Parliament builds on the IA reforms and corrects anomalies which arose from amendments made to the Bill during the parliamentary debate so as to enable the organisation to operate effectively now the new organisational structure has commenced.
The key elements of this Bill are to:
During debate on the previous amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Act in June this year the member for Grayndler Mr Albanese indicated his support for the amendments we are now bringing.
He said:
' I put on the record here that if the minister wanted to have a minor amendment bill or what have you to fix up that little bit, if he thought it was important, there would be support from the opposition. ' *
I thank Mr Albanese for his support in bringing forward these amendments to further strengthen Infrastructure Australia.
As these amendments only relate to clarification or are of an administrative nature by rectifying an anomaly there are no regulatory or financial impacts on business and the non-for-profit sectors. There is no net impact on the Government Budget flowing from the changes in this Bill.
The Government is committed to broadening the current infrastructure reform agenda in collaboration with jurisdictions and industry to improve productivity and drive economic growth.
*Hansard Thursday 26 June at page 39.
The reform to Infrastructure Australia is a key component of this broader reform package and is critical in better enabling it to deliver quality independent advice. The Government will consider this advice when selecting priority projects, which is important to improving productivity.
The Government will remain focussed on delivering critical infrastructure, ensuring we are getting value-for-money for our investments and will be dedicated to embracing and increasing innovation in project delivery.
The Government is committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st Century and these reforms to Infrastructure Australia are a further step in the achievement of this goal.
TAX AND SUPERANNUATION LAWS AMENDMENT (2014 MEASURES NO. 5) BILL 2014
Today I introduce a Bill to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to implement a range of changes to Australia's tax laws.
The Government's Economic Action Strategy is not about undoing our strong safety net—it is about making it sustainable.
This Government's Economic Action Strategy is about setting up a stronger and more sustainable economy, which starts off with a stronger Budget.
We have already delivered on our promise to abolish the Carbon Tax and its associated savings will be passed onto households and businesses.
That means the average cost of living across all households will be around $550 lower than it would otherwise have been this year.
This Bill represents another chapter in the Government's Economic Action Strategy.
We inherited from Labor an unsustainable budget position.
The measures in this Bill will return around $1.4 billion to the Budget over the forward estimates.
Schedule 1: Abolish the Mature Age Worker Tax Offset
The Mature Age Worker Tax Offset, which merely reduces the amount of tax that might be payable for those who are already working by up to $500, simply does not work.
It doesn't work because it does not help older Australians enter the workforce.
It does not help reduce labour market disadvantage.
Many older Australians don't need to be encouraged to enter the workforce. They want to work. We need them to work.
That's why this Government is introducing a new wage subsidy for older job seekers called the Restart programme.
From 1 July 2014, an incentive of up to $10,000 will be available to employers who hire an older job seeker.
That means that job seekers aged 50 years or over and in receipt of income support for a minimum of six months can get back into work without some of the hurdles they might otherwise encounter due to age.
The Mature Age Worker Tax Offset achieved little and abolishing it will save the taxpayer $760 million over the forward estimates period.
Full details of this measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Schedule 2: Abolish the Seafarer Tax Offset
The Seafarer Tax Offset is a refundable tax offset.
It is provided to companies for salaries, wages and allowances paid to Australian resident seafarers employed to undertake overseas voyages on certified vessels.
Australian companies are eligible for the Seafarer Tax Offset if they employ seafarers on overseas voyages for at least 91 days in the income year.
The current regulatory regime for shipping imposes a cost on shippers and their customers. Because it is a part of current shipping regulation, the Seafarer Tax Offset effectively imposes a cost on all Australian taxpayers.
The Seafarer Tax Offset's primary goal was to increase the employment of Australian seafarers. In fact the seafarer tax offset was claimed by fewer than 20 shipping companies in respect of around just 250 employees.
With low take-up of all the tax concessions offered by the previous government's Stronger Shipping package, the Seafarer Tax has not achieved its goal.
Abolishing this offset is expected to save the Government $12 million over four years.
And that's another step towards repairing the budget.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Schedule 3: Reducing the tax offset under the Research and Development Tax Incentive
We are also reducing the tax offset available under the Research and Development Tax Incentive.
The rates will be reduced by 1.5 percentage points from 1 July 2014.
These changes are in line with the Government's commitment to cutting the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points from 1 July 2015—which is the same amount as the reduction in the R&D offset rates.
Changing the offset will neither affect the eligibility of companies for the R&D tax incentive, nor the way companies claim the incentive.
Nor will the changes affect the administration of the R&D tax incentive more generally.
The R&D tax incentive will continue to provide generous, easy to access support for thousands of eligible companies in all sectors of the Australian economy.
If this measure were not enacted, the cut to the company tax rate would entail an increase in the benefit provided by the R&D tax incentive relative to the normal treatment of business expenses.
The gain to revenue and savings from this measure will be around $620 million over the forward estimates.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Australians are generous, choosing to donate over $2 billion every year to charity.
Donations made to organisations with DGR status are income tax deductible to the donor, so DGR status helps listed organisations attract public support for their activities.
Three organisations are being added to the DGR list.
Australian Schools Plus supports schools that face disadvantage to improve education outcomes.
The second DGR to be specifically listed is the East African Fund, which runs the School of St Jude in Tanzania.
Another organisation to be listed as a DGR is the Minderoo Foundation Trust, which supports three programmes: the Walk Free Foundation; GenerationOne; and Hope for Children Australia.
Full details of the changes to the DGR list are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Conclusion
The measures in this Bill are responsible. They represent another instalment in our Economic Action Strategy towards a stronger, better and more compassionate Australia.
This Bill might seem like a small chapter in this story – but it's a significant element in reducing our debt.
As a Government we recognise that we cannot continue borrowing $1 billion every month to pay the interest on Labor's debt.
The measures in this Bill will return around $1.4 billion to the Budget over the forward estimates.
These measures represent a careful and measured approach to re-prioritising government revenue.
This Government will continue to make the right decisions to position Australia for future opportunities and challenges.
I commend the Bill to the House.
The retrospectivity … is warranted as the amendments correct a defect in the operation of the Principal Asset Test that would otherwise prevent it from operating as intended.
These changes … do not negatively affect any taxpayer because the scope of the definition of taxable Australian property aligns with the intention of the original provisions.
That this bill be now read a third time.
…the Law Council is concerned that there is currently no definition of a ‘computer network’. In this respect, the Law Council notes that its own staff use computers on occasion through a remote access network which can be accessed from their homes. Using this example, it is unclear whether the information on staff’s home computers would be covered as part of the warrant in respect of a ‘computer network’.
The Law Council understands the need to ensure that processes associated with computer access warrants are efficient.
However, the Law Council considers that in order to protect privacy rights from undue intrusion, access to computers should be on the basis that there is a demonstrated sufficient nexus between the computers accessed and the nominated person of security interest.
Rule of law principles also demand that there is greater clarity as to the scope of conduct which will be permissible under the warrant.
For example, ASIO should not be able to seek a warrant to access the computers on a particular network, or at a nominated location unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person in relation to whom intelligence is being sought had a direct connection with computers other than his/her own on the network.
… that the proposed provisions relating to computer access warrants be amended, where the warrant will provide access to multiple computers, to require a more direct connection between the computer accessed and the nominated person of security interest, and to define key terms such as “computer network”.
Where a single warrant is issued in respect of multiple devices, consideration should be given to ensuring that the use each different device is justified.
… in the absence of a definition of ‘computer network’, the definition of computer could potentially capture every computer on a university or public service network, cloud or peer-to-peer network, home computers used to access work-related networks remotely, and, ‘taken to its logical extreme … any computer that is connected to the world wide web’.
Suggested improvements included a definition of ‘computer network’ that requires the individual computers in the network to be linked in a substantive way, such as having shared storage drives, or that is limited to local area networks.
… the laws and their amendments did not address concerns that they could enable agencies to tap, access and disrupt target and third-party computers and networks after getting just one warrant.
Professor Williams previously warned the parliamentary committee that the laws were too broad and could allow ASIO to monitor the entire Australian internet as a ‘‘computer network’’.
A network can essentially be anything from three computers on a Wi-Fi modem to potentially an entire corporate network or an entire internet service provider network or at the extreme end the whole internet
That the question be now put.
The committee divided [13:41]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
The committee divided. [13:53]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
(1) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 31), after item 28, insert:
28A After section 25A
Insert:
25B Collection of intelligence under computer access warrant
Despite anything in section 25A, a computer access warrant issued under that section may authorise access to a computer only to the extent necessary to collect intelligence in respect of the security matter specified in the warrant.
(2) Schedule 2, page 55 (before line 5), before item 46, insert:
46A Before section 32
Insert:
32A Notification requirements in relation to interference with computer use under warrant etc.
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a warrant was issued under section 25, 25A, 27A, 27C or 29; and
(b) a thing mentioned in subsection 25(5) or 25A(4), paragraph 27D(2)(h) to (k) or subsection 27E(2) was done under the warrant.
(2) The Director‑General must cause the Minister and the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security to be notified of any material interference with, or interruption or obstruction of, the lawful use by other persons of a computer or other electronic equipment, or a data storage device, that resulted from the thing being done.
(3) The notification must be given:
(a) in writing; and
(b) as soon as practicable after the thing was done.
(3) Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (after line 22), after section 35C, insert:
35CA Sunsetting
A special intelligence operation authority must not be granted after the end of 30 June 2025.
(4) Schedule 3, item 3, page 69 (lines 30 and 31), omit "or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation".
(5) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (lines 2 and 3), omit "or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation".
(6) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (line 14), at the end of subsection 35P(3), add:
; or (e) of information that has already been disclosed by the Minister, Director-General or Deputy Director-General; or
(f) made reasonably and in good faith, and was in the public interest.
(7) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (after line 16), after subsection 35P(3), insert:
(3A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:
(a) the person informed the Organisation about the proposed disclosure at least 24 hours before making the disclosure; and
(b) the disclosure did not include information on the identities of participants of a special intelligence operation, or on a current special intelligence operation; and
(c) the information concerns corruption or misconduct in relation to a special intelligence operation.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection—see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(8) Schedule 5, items 9 and 10, page 74 (lines 4 to 19), to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 5, item 14, page 79 (lines 1 and 2), omit subparagraph 1(1A)(a)(i).
… the Commonwealth … will continue to cover 50 per cent of people's … education.
What the Prime Minister said is that the figure is an average.
The reality is that public trust is so low, public expectations are so low, yet public demand for advice is so high that we have to acknowledge that self regulation has failed and we need to go to government and independent regulation.
…build trust with their own customers—
I have no problem with the medical use of cannabis, just as I have no problem with the medical use of opiates.
If a drug is needed for a valid medicinal purpose though and is being administrated safely, there should be no question of its legality.
My basic contention is that something that has been found to be safe in a reliable jurisdiction shouldn't need to be tested again here
It is simply not possible to maintain the standards that students expect or the international reputation that Australia's university system enjoys without full fee deregulation.
Membership is offered to gentlemen only, based upon the criteria of good fellowship and shared interests.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
Australian Government response to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Report 441:
Inquiry into Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 Rules Development
September 2014
Inquiry into Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 Rules development (No. 441 of 2014)
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance review all Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 guidance material to improve consistency in:
The Government agrees.
Since the JCPAA inquiry, Finance has revised all guidance material and engaged an independent technical expert whom has assessed the guidance for overall comprehensiveness, coverage and clarity. Finance has also engaged professional editors to check the guidance for consistency and clarity. Final guidance, which clarifies mandatory requirements and matters that can be considered as good practice, has been progressively released on the Finance Public Management Reform Agenda website.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the following additional guiding principle be included as one of the guiding principles for the Public Management Reform Agenda:
The Government agrees.
The additional guiding principle has been adopted and will be reflected in future reforms. For example, the submission from the Department of Finance to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment Bill 2014 (PGPA Amendment Bill), on 6 June 2014, adopted this additional guiding principle on page 3, as did the Government's second reading speeches in both chambers in relation to this Bill.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance work to ensure that any necessary amendments are made to the Auditor-General ' s Act 1997 such that the Australian National Audit Office has the power to audit the full planning, performance and accountability framework under thePublic Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 .
Response
The Government agrees.
The PGPA Amendment Act 2014 modified the PGPA Act to add a note to Section 40 to put beyond doubt the continuing powers of the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit of a Commonwealth entity at any time.
Recommendation 4
The Committee does not recommend a change to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) at this time, to address the potential confusion from dual coverage with thePublic Service Act 1999 (PS Act). Instead, the Committee recommends that the Department of Finance and the Australian Public Service Commission work together to draft the necessary amendments to the PGPA Act and/or the PS Act to remove overlaps and reduce potential confusion from dual coverage, and that amendment proposals be put to the Parliament.
Response
The Government agrees.
Finance has worked with the APSC and the Department of Parliamentary Services to draft amendments to the PGPA Act, PS Act and Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to achieve greater alignment in the duties of officials and to reduce the potential for confusion.
The PGPA Amendment Act 2014 made the necessary changes to the PGPA Act. Reciprocal changes to the PS Act and the Parliamentary Services Act were made through thePGPA Consequential and Transitional Provisions Act 2014 . This suite of changes, taken together, brings about closer alignment between these pieces of legislation.
Finance will continue to work with the APSC and the parliamentary departments to consider the need for any future changes or guidance to address the JCPAA's concerns.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance (Finance) amend the draft guidance to s17 and s28 of the draft Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 to emphasise that nothing in the draft rule precludes the chair, chief executive officer and chief financial officer of a Commonwealth body from attending audit committee meetings as an observer. Finance should also widely communicate this point.
Response
The Government agrees.
Finance has amended the guidance for audit committees ( RMG 202 — Audit Committees for Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies ) to emphasise that the chair, CEO and CFO of a Commonwealth entity can attend audit committee meetings as an observer (for example, see paragraph 14 of that guidance).
The final guidance is available from the Finance website.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that draft rule s18 (Approving commitments of relevant money) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 be amended to explicitly place an obligation on all individual officials to consider proper use and management of public resources before approving commitments of relevant money.
Response
The Government agrees in part.
Both Section 18 of the PGPA Rule and the guide to the section have been amended in response to this recommendation.
Section 18(2) of the Rule now reads that an "official must approve ...[a] commitment [of relevant money], and record the approval, consistently with any written requirements (including any requirements relating to the proposer use of that money and spending limits) specified by the accountable authority ...".
The accountable authority can impose conditions, give directions or give instructions to officials about proper use, and may, by written instrument, issue instructions under section 20A that in and of themselves becomes part of "finance law' (as defined in section 8).
All officials must act in accordance with instructions pertaining to finance law, by virtue of their general duties under the PGPA Act—section 25 requires officials to act with care and diligence and section 26 requires that they act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the issue of commitments of relevant money, and the appropriateness of spending limits and associated documentation requirements set by accountable authorities, be included by the Department of Finance in the first independent review of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 .
Response
The Government agrees.
The PGPA Act requires the Finance Minister, in consultation with the JCPAA, to undertake an independent review of the operation of the Act and the Rules (section 112). This issue will be considered as part of that review.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the draft guidance material supporting s18 (Approving commitments of relevant money) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 be amended to include discussion of the reasonable use of, and the risks involved in, officials approving aggregate expenditure proposals.
Response
The Government agrees.
Finance has amended its resource management guidance RMG 400: Approving commitments of relevant money. The guidance now includes discussion of the reasonable use of, and the risks involved in, officials approving aggregate expenditure proposals (refer to part 3).
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance continue its consultation process with stakeholders on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 rules development for the post July 2014 rules and the broader Public Management Reform Agenda, based on the comprehensive consultation approach taken to date.
Response
The Government agrees.
Finance will continue its consultation process with stakeholders post July 2014. To give one example, since the JCPAA hearings in April 2014, the cross-agency Planning and Reporting steering committee met on 17 June 2014 to consider the Commonwealth Performance Framework project and the Rules for Financial Reporting project.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance prepare and communicate a plan clearly outlining the anticipated dates for development and consultation of all future rules and guidance materials under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and the broader Public Management Reform Agenda.
Response
The Government agrees.
Finance will communicate the plan relating to future elements of the Public Management Reform Agenda.
For example, a plan on the development of the Commonwealth Performance Framework was circulated on 19 June 2014—it is available through the PMRA website.
That Senators Macdonald and Smith be appointed to the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, and that Senators Back, Bernardi, Bushby, Canavan, Edwards, Fawcett, Heffernan, McGrath, McKenzie, O’Sullivan, Reynolds, Ruston, Seselja and Williams be appointed as participating members.
That the Senate calls on the Government to establish a National Independent Commission Against Corruption, delivered through an integrity commissioner, to ensure Australia is equipped with a national framework for the comprehensive prevention of corruption and misconduct, and to restore faith of the Australian people in the integrity of our democracy.
…knew federal channels were being used to subvert NSW laws banning political donations from property developers.
'Brian Loughnane has agreed that for the time being the Fed Sec will operate on the policy … in effect, there is no benefit for a NSW donor to donate via the Fed Sec, unless they are a property developer,' said federal Liberal executive Colin Gracie in a 2010 email to Simon McInnes, the finance director of the NSW Liberal Party.
This week ICAC's hearings produced a telling email between NSW Liberal Party finance director Simon McInnes and his federal colleague Colin Gracie—
In it, McInnes raises the matter of a potential donor 'will who want [sic] to donate towards the NSW campaign (Banks) for this federal election but don't want to be disclosed in detail under NSW disclosure laws'.
In recent years, in New South Wales we have seen: a Minister of the Crown gaoled for bribery; an inquiry into a second, and indeed a third, former Minister for alleged corruption; the former Chief Stipendiary Magistrate gaoled for perverting the course of justice; a former Commissioner of Police in the courts on a criminal charge; the former Deputy Commissioner of Police charged with bribery; a series of investigations and court cases involving judicial figures including a High Court Judge; and a disturbing number of dismissals, retirements and convictions of senior police officers …
The Government's approach to preventing corruption is based on the premise that no single body should be responsible. Instead, a strong constitutional foundation (the separation of powers and the rule of law) is enhanced by a range of bodies and government initiatives that promote accountability and transparency.
… … …
This distribution of responsibility creates a strong system of checks and balances.
Labor's defence of Peter Slipper did not pass the pub test. The true test of leadership is to uphold a standard even if it is at a cost to your own side. Anything else is rank hypocrisy.
Any investigation of NSW state finances inevitably involves some scrutiny of federal fund-raising. It’s done by the same people, the same structures, there are constant crossovers.
Gunns's donations to the major parties have long been contentious in Tasmania. The company gave $70,000 to the state division of the Liberal Party and the Liberal-linked Free Enterprise Foundation between November 2004 and April 2005.
TIMBER company Gunns donated $56,000 to the Liberal Party in the weeks after the Howard government gave conditional approval for the company's $2.2billion Tasmanian pulp mill.
Annual political donation returns released by the Australian Electoral Commission yesterday reveal Gunns donated $64,750 to the national and Tasmanian divisions of the Liberal Party in the 2007-08 financial year.
Of this, $56,700 was donated to the Liberals in the time between then-environment minister Malcolm Turnbull's conditional approval for the mill on October 4, 2007, and the federal election on November 24 of that year.
The donations were made in six payments ranging, from $900 on October 12—
to $25,000 on November 13.
… Bob Brown said the funds raised serious concerns and questions about "the influence of political donations". "You have to wonder why Gunns gave not just one lump-sum donation to the federal Liberal Party between the announcement of the go-ahead for the pulp mill and the election, but a series of donations … Couldn't Gunns make up their minds? Or was there some flow of information between the party and the company?"
We do have an expectation, because we had bipartisan support prior to the last election that these things would happen.
Corruption is one of the greatest challenges of the contemporary world. It undermines good government, fundamentally distorts public policy, leads to the misallocation of resources, harms the private sector and private sector development and particularly hurts the poor. Controlling it is only possible with the cooperation of a wide range of stakeholders in the integrity system, including most importantly the state, civil society, and the private sector. There is also a crucial role to be played by international institutions.
Any investigation of NSW state finances inevitably involves some scrutiny of federal fund-raising. It’s done by the same people, the same structures, there are constant crossovers.
It is disappointing that the inquiry rejected the opportunity to place caps on election expenditure, to place a total ban on corporate donations …
The best way to restore trust in the democratic process is to restrict political donations to only those made by individuals and bequests. This would ban businesses and lobby groups from using donations to push an agenda while allowing individuals on the electoral roll to give a limited amount of money.
… Mr Wood said his donation was motivated by disappointment with Labor and Coalition policies on climate change and the environment.
… perhaps more important than the functions of making laws and debating matters of public interest, is to conduct inquiries into such matters of public interest and into the conduct of government.
If evidence contains allegations of criminal conduct, and those allegations could be investigated, or contains matter relevant to a criminal investigation in progress, the committee may invite the submittor to provide the evidence to the police or other investigating authority. If the evidence contains matter relevant to a criminal trial or a civil action in progress, the submittor may be invited to have the evidence put before the courts.
The very act of establishing a dedicated anti-corruption body is a meaningful public acknowledgement by government that the corruption, either systemic or opportunistic, is a problem that must be taken seriously. By fostering greater awareness and education, the introduction of a new body also provides an important moment around which cultural change within government can occur. A dedicated anti-corruption body provides a means of discovering corruption across all facets of government and parliamentary administration. It provides systemic oversight, education and coordination for the existing mechanisms.
That the Senate take note of the document.
While the committee considers that POAAL appears to have a somewhat difficult negotiating position, there are other matters which raise questions in the committee's mind as to its competence. The committee notes that, in some instances, the evidence provided by POAAL was less than satisfactory. Mr Kerr, CEO of POAAL, appeared to lack an in depth knowledge of POAAL's membership, the structure of its subsidiary company, POAAL Services Ltd, and was less than helpful to the committee in relation to some matters it wished to pursue.
In its dealings with licensees, POAAL also showed a lack of sound administrative practices. For example, the committee received evidence that letters addressed to POAAL at its post office box were returned to the sender as they had remained uncollected. Indeed, one of the committee's letters sent to POAAL suffered this fate.
The committee also sought information in relation to POAAL's financial statements. The committee considered that this information was important to its inquiry as POAAL represents LPOs not only in direct negotiations with Australia Post but also during meetings with the responsible Minister.
In relation to the information sought by the committee, POAAL had four opportunities to provide the information the committee requested following the March 2014 hearing. While the committee eventually received a response in relation to POAAL's 2012–13 financial statements, no other information was forthcoming. The committee considered the use of its powers to call for documents and persons. Ultimately, the committee agreed not to use these powers as it considered that it already had sufficient evidence that called into question the effectiveness of POAAL as an organisation advocating on behalf of licensees.
… all the submitters who support the outsourcing of services provided by Centrelink and Medicare to Australia Post rely on the prospect of additional revenue for Australia Post and LPO operators as justification for the measure.
The Government not outsource any functions of the Department of Human Services to Australia Post.
Despite anything in section 25A, a computer access warrant issued under that section may authorise access to a computer—
only to the extent necessary to collect intelligence in respect of the security matter specified in the warrant.
(1) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 31), after item 28, insert:
28A After section 25A
Insert:
25B Reporting by Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(1) The Director‑General must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year and in any case within 28 days, give the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security a report setting out the total number of devices accessed in accordance with a warrant under section 25 or 25A during the financial year.
(2) The Inspector‑General's annual report referred to in section 35 of the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 for the financial year must include the number.
(3) The number included in accordance with subsection (2) must not be deleted from the report before it is laid before each House of the Parliament.
(3) Schedule 6, page 85 (after line 27), after item 5, insert:
5A Subsections 92(1) and (1A) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
(4) Schedule 6, page 103 (after line 29), after item 19, insert:
19A Subsection 41(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
(1) Schedule 4, items 1 to 3, page 72 (lines 5 to 14), to be opposed.
(2) Schedule 4, item 7, page 72 (lines 24 to 29), to be opposed.
(1) Schedule 3, item 3, page 62 (after line 32), after subparagraph 35C(2)(e)(i), insert:
(ia) constitute torture; or
(2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 67 (after line 20), after subparagraph 35K(1)(e)(i), insert:
(ia) constitutes torture; or
(1) Schedule 2, page 55 (after line 4), after item 45, insert:
45A After section 31
Insert:
31A Notification requirements in relation to the use of force under warrant
(1) This section applies if a warrant issued under this Division authorises the use of force against persons to do the things authorised by the warrant.
(2) The Director‑General must cause the Minister and the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security to be notified if such force is used against a person in the execution of the warrant.
(3) The notification must be given:
(a) in writing; and
(b) as soon as practicable after such force is used.
(2) Schedule 2, page 55 (after line 33), after item 46, insert:
46A Section 34
Before "The", insert "(1)".
46B At the end of section 34
Add:
(2) If:
(a) the warrant was issued under section 25, 25A, 27A, 27C or 29; and
(b) a thing mentioned in subsection 25(5) or 25A(4), paragraph 27D(2)(h) to (k) or subsection 27E(2) was done under the warrant;
the report must also include details of anything done that materially interfered with, interrupted or obstructed the lawful use by other persons of a computer or other electronic equipment, or a data storage device.
(3) Schedule 2, item 47, page 56 (before line 12), before paragraph 34AA(2)(a), insert:
(aa) a warrant issued under section 25, but only if the warrant authorises the doing of acts or things referred to in paragraph 25(5)(a), (b), (c) or (d), and only with respect to those acts or things; or
(4) Schedule 2, item 47, page 56 (line 14), before "section 25A", insert "subsection 25(5) or".
(5) Schedule 2, item 47, page 56 (line 17), after "authorised under", insert "paragraphs 27D(2)(h) to (k) or".
(6) Schedule 2, item 47, page 57 (line 35), after "section", insert "25,".
(7) Schedule 3, item 1, page 60 (lines 7 to 9), omit the definition of authorising officer .
(8) Schedule 3, item 1, page 60 (after line 10), after the definition of engage in conduct , insert:
IGIS official (short for Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security official) means:
(a) the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security; or
(b) a member of the staff referred to in subsection 32(1) of the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
(9) Schedule 3, item 3, page 61 (line 18), omit "An ASIO employee may apply to an authorising officer", substitute "The Director‑General, a senior position‑holder or an ASIO employee may apply to the Minister".
(10) Schedule 3, item 3, page 62 (lines 4 and 5), omit paragraph 35B(4)(b), substitute:
(b) give a copy of it to the Minister.
(11) Schedule 3, item 3, page 62 (lines 10 to 12), omit paragraph 35C(1)(b), substitute:
(b) the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds on which to believe that the matters in subsection (2) exist;
(12) Schedule 3, item 3, page 62 (line 13), omit "authorising officer", substitute "Minister".
(13) Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (lines 4 and 5), omit "authorising officer", substitute "Minister".
(14) Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph 35C(4)(b), substitute:
(b) if the Minister is satisfied there are reasonable grounds on which to believe that the delay caused by giving a written authority may be prejudicial to security—orally in person, or by telephone or other means of communication.
(15) Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (lines 10 to 13), omit subsection 35C(5), substitute:
(5) If a special intelligence operation authority is granted in accordance with paragraph (4)(b), a written record of the special intelligence operation authority that complies with section 35D must be issued within 7 days.
(16) Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (line 31), omit "general".
(17) Schedule 3, item 3, page 64 (lines 12 and 13), omit all the words from and including "as long as" to the end of subsection 35D(2), substitute "as long as the person's identity can be matched to the assumed name, code name or code number".
(18) Schedule 3, item 3, page 64 (lines 24 to 27), omit subsection 35F(1), substitute:
(1) The Minister may vary a special intelligence operation authority on application by the Director‑General, a senior position‑holder or an ASIO employee.
(19) Schedule 3, item 3, page 64 (line 29), omit "paragraph (1)(b)", substitute "subsection (1)".
(20) Schedule 3, item 3, page 65 (line 4), omit "(1)(b)", substitute "(2)(b)".
(21) Schedule 3, item 3, page 65 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph 35F(3)(b), substitute:
(b) give a copy of it to the Minister.
(22) Schedule 3, item 3, page 65 (lines 9 to 16), omit subsection 35F(4) (not including the heading), substitute:
(4) The Minister must not vary the special intelligence operation authority unless the Minister:
(a) is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds on which to believe that the special intelligence operation, conducted in accordance with the special intelligence operation authority as varied, will assist the Organisation in the performance of one or more special intelligence functions; and
(b) considers it is appropriate to do so.
(23) Schedule 3, item 3, page 65 (lines 22 and 23), omit "authorising officer", substitute "Minister".
(24) Schedule 3, item 3, page 65 (lines 24 to 27), omit paragraph 35F(6)(b), substitute:
(b) if the Minister is satisfied there are reasonable grounds on which to believe that the delay caused by giving a written variation may be prejudicial to security—orally in person, or by telephone or other means of communication.
(25) Schedule 3, item 3, page 65 (lines 28 to 31), omit subsection 35F(7), substitute:
(7) If a special intelligence operation authority is varied in accordance with paragraph (6)(b), a written record of the variation must be issued within 7 days.
(26) Schedule 3, item 3, page 66 (line 5), omit "An authorising officer", substitute "The Director‑General or a Deputy Director‑General".
(27) Schedule 3, item 3, page 69 (after line 23), at the end of subsection 35P(1), add:
Note: Recklessness is the fault element for the circumstance described in paragraph (1)(b)—see section 5.6 of the Criminal Code .
(28) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (after line 4), at the end of subsection 35P(2), add:
Note: Recklessness is the fault element for the circumstance described in paragraph (2)(b)—see section 5.6 of the Criminal Code .
(29) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (after line 14), after paragraph 35P(3)(d), insert:
; or (e) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to the special intelligence operation; or
(f) to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 ; or
(g) by an IGIS official in connection with the IGIS official exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under that Act.
(30) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (after line 22), after section 35P, insert:
35PA Notifications by Director ‑General
(1) The Director‑General must cause the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security to be notified if a special intelligence operation is authorised under this Division.
(2) The notification must be given:
(a) in writing; and
(b) as soon as practicable after the special intelligence operation authority is granted.
(31) Schedule 3, item 3, page 71 (after line 8), after subsection 35Q(2), insert:
(2A) A report under subsection (1) must report on whether conduct of a participant in a special intelligence operation:
(a) caused the death of, or injury to, any person; or
(b) involved the commission of a sexual offence against any person; or
(c) resulted in loss of, or damage to, property.
(32) Schedule 3, item 3, page 71 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 35R(1), substitute:
(1) The Minister may issue a written certificate signed by the Minister setting out such facts as the Minister considers relevant with respect to the granting of a special intelligence operation authority.
(33) Schedule 6, item 2, page 81 (line 9), omit "Subsection (1)", substitute "Subsection (2)".
(34) Schedule 6, item 2, page 81 (after line 13), after subsection 18(2A), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2B) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person communicates the information or matter to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2B) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(35) Schedule 6, item 4, page 82 (after line 29), after subsection 18A(2), insert:
Exception—Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person deals with the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(36) Schedule 6, item 4, page 84 (after line 22), after subsection 18B(2), insert:
Exception—Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person makes the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(37) Schedule 6, item 4, page 85 (after line 25), after section 18C, insert:
18D Offences against section 18, 18A or 18B—IGIS officials
(1) A person does not commit an offence against subsection 18(2), 18A(1) or 18B(1) if:
(a) the person is an IGIS official; and
(b) the relevant conduct is engaged in by the person for the purposes of exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, as an IGIS official.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection 18(2), 18A(1) or 18B(1), the defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) of this section, despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(38) Schedule 6, item 6, page 86 (before line 4), before the definition of record , insert:
IGIS official (short for Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security official) means:
(a) the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security; or
(b) a member of the staff referred to in subsection 32(1) of the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
(39) Schedule 6, item 11, page 86 (after line 27), after subsection 39(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person communicates the information or matter to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(40) Schedule 6, item 14, page 87 (after line 13), after subsection 39A(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person communicates the information or matter to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(41) Schedule 6, item 17, page 87 (after line 26), after subsection 40(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person communicates the information or matter to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(42) Schedule 6, item 18, page 88 (after line 35), at the end of section 40A, add:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person communicates the information or matter to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(43) Schedule 6, item 18, page 89 (after line 34), at the end of section 40B, add:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person communicates the information or matter to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(44) Schedule 6, item 18, page 91 (after line 2), after subsection 40C(2), insert:
Exception—Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person deals with the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(45) Schedule 6, item 18, page 92 (after line 12), after subsection 40D(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person makes the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(46) Schedule 6, item 18, page 93 (after line 28), after subsection 40E(2), insert:
Exception—Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person deals with the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(47) Schedule 6, item 18, page 95 (after line 6), after subsection 40F(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person makes the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(48) Schedule 6, item 18, page 96 (after line 20), after subsection 40G(2), insert:
Exception—Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person deals with the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(49) Schedule 6, item 18, page 97 (after line 32), after subsection 40H(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person makes the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(50) Schedule 6, item 18, page 99 (after line 13), after subsection 40J(2), insert:
Exception—Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person deals with the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(51) Schedule 6, item 18, page 100 (after line 24), after subsection 40K(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person makes the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(52) Schedule 6, item 18, page 102 (after line 6), after subsection 40L(2), insert:
Exception—Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person deals with the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(53) Schedule 6, item 18, page 103 (after line 15), after subsection 40M(2), insert:
Exception—communication to the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person makes the record for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising a power, or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(54) Schedule 6, item 21, page 104 (after line 23), after section 41A, insert:
41B Offences against this Division—IGIS officials
(1) A person does not commit an offence against an information offence provision if:
(a) the person is an IGIS official; and
(b) the relevant conduct is engaged in by the person for the purpose of exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, as an IGIS official.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence against an information offence provision, the defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1), despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(3) In this section:
information offence provision means subsection 39(1), 39A(1), 40(1), 40A(1), 40B(1), 40C(1), 40D(1), 40E(1), 40F(1), 40G(1), 40H(1), 40J(1), 40K(1), 40L(1) or 40M(1).
(2) Schedule 2, page 55 (before line 5), before item 46, insert:
46A Before section 32
Insert:
32A Notification requirements in relation to interference with computer use under warrant etc.
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a warrant was issued under section 25, 25A, 27A, 27C or 29; and
(b) a thing mentioned in subsection 25(5) or 25A(4), paragraph 27D(2)(h) to (k) or subsection 27E(2) was done under the warrant.
(2) The Director‑General must cause the Minister and the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security to be notified of any material interference with, or interruption or obstruction of, the lawful use by other persons of a computer or other electronic equipment, or a data storage device, that resulted from the thing being done.
(3) The notification must be given:
(a) in writing; and
(b) as soon as practicable after the thing was done.
(1) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 31), after item 28, insert:
28A After section 25A
Insert:
25B Collection of intelligence under computer access warrant
Despite anything in section 25A, a computer access warrant issued under that section may authorise access to a computer only to the extent necessary to collect intelligence in respect of the security matter specified in the warrant.
(2) Schedule 2, page 55 (before line 5), before item 46, insert:
46A Before section 32
Insert:
32A Notification requirements in relation to interference with computer use under warrant etc.
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a warrant was issued under section 25, 25A, 27A, 27C or 29; and
(b) a thing mentioned in subsection 25(5) or 25A(4), paragraph 27D(2)(h) to (k) or subsection 27E(2) was done under the warrant.
(2) The Director-General must cause the Minister and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to be notified of any material interference with, or interruption or obstruction of, the lawful use by other persons of a computer or other electronic equipment, or a data storage device, that resulted from the thing being done.
(3) The notification must be given:
(a) in writing; and
(b) as soon as practicable after the thing was done.
(3) Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (after line 22), after section 35C, insert:
35CA Sunsetting
A special intelligence operation authority must not be granted after the end of 30 June 2025.
(4) Schedule 3, item 3, page 69 (lines 30 and 31), omit "or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation".
(5) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (lines 2 and 3), omit "or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation".
(6) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (line 14), at the end of subsection 35P(3), add:
; or (e) of information that has already been disclosed by the Minister, Director-General or Deputy Director-General; or
(f) made reasonably and in good faith, and was in the public interest.
(7) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (after line 16), after subsection 35P(3), insert:
(3A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:
(a) the person informed the Organisation about the proposed disclosure at least 24 hours before making the disclosure; and
(b) the disclosure did not include information on the identities of participants of a special intelligence operation, or on a current special intelligence operation; and
(c) the information concerns corruption or misconduct in relation to a special intelligence operation.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection—see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(8) Schedule 5, items 9 and 10, page 74 (lines 4 to 19), to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 5, item 14, page 79 (lines 1 and 2), omit subparagraph 1(1A)(a)(i).
(3) Schedule 3, item 3, page 69 (lines 19 to 23), omit subsection 35P(1).
(4) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (line 6), omit "Subsections (1) and (2) do", substitute "Subsection (2) does".
(5) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (line 20), omit "(1) or".
a person will commit an offence if he or she:
The maximum penalty for the offence will be imprisonment for five years.
The insertion of proposed section 35P could potentially see journalists jailed for undertaking and discharging their legitimate role in a modern democratic society—reporting in the public interest. Such an approach is untenable, and must not be included in the legislation.
This alone is more than adequate reason to abandon the proposal as the proposed provision significantly curtails freedom of speech and reporting in the public interest.
This is particularly so as the proposed section 35P prohibits any disclosure of information relating to an SIO, not just reporting in the public interest.
In addition, SIOs by their very nature will be undisclosed. This uncertainty will expose journalists to an
unacceptable level of risk and consequentially have a chilling effect on the reportage of all intelligence and
national security material. A journalist or editor will simply have no way of knowing whether the matter
they are reporting may or may not be related to an SIO. We express this as information that ‘may or may
not be’ related to an SIO because:
The disclosure of secrets or secure areas to risk through inadvertence or carelessness can result in just as much damage to the national interest as can result from espionage or sabotage.
The insertion of proposed section 35P could potentially see journalists jailed for undertaking and discharging their legitimate role in the modern democratic society—reporting in the public interest. Such an approach is untenable and must not be included in the legislation.
Of the 20 public reports of the Inspector-General (as at 31 July 2014), nine appear to have been triggered directly or indirectly by media disclosures.
The unfortunate case of Dr Mohamed Haneef was largely brought to light by the media.
… the provisions deal with disclosures from ‘a person’, they have the potential to capture the work of journalists and potentially limit the right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the ICCPR. The HRC has stated that:
the media plays a crucial role in informing the public about acts of terrorism and its capacity to operate should not be unduly restricted. In this regard, journalists should not be penalized for carrying out their legitimate activities.
(1) Schedule 3, item 3, page 69 (after line 23), after subsection 35P(1), insert:
(1A) A court must, in determining a sentence to be passed or an order to be made in respect of a person for an offence against subsection (1), take account of whether or not, to the knowledge of the court, the disclosure was in the public interest.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not limit Division 2 (general sentencing principles) of Part IB of the Crimes Act 1914 .
A court must, in determining a sentence to be passed or an order to be made in respect of a person for an offence against subsection (1), take account of whether or not, to the knowledge of the court, the disclosure was in the public interest.
(2) Schedule 6, item 1, page 81 (lines 4 and 5), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 6, item 10, page 86 (lines 17 to 19), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 6, item 13, page 87 (lines 3 to 5), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 6, item 16, page 87 (lines 16 to 18), to be opposed.
(6) Schedule 6, item 18, page 88 (line 29), omit the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(7) Schedule 6, item 18, page 89 (line 28), omit the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(4) Schedule 3, item 3, page 69 (lines 30 and 31), omit "or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation".
(5) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (lines 2 and 3), omit "or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation".
(6) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (line 14), at the end of subsection 35P(3), add:
; or (e) of information that has already been disclosed by the Minister, Director-General or Deputy Director-General; or
(f) made reasonably and in good faith, and was in the public interest.
(a) in connection with the administration or execution of this Division—
(b) for the purposes of any legal proceedings arising out of or otherwise related to this Division or of any report of any such proceedings; or
(c) in accordance with any requirement imposed by law; or—
(d) in connection with the performance of functions or duties, orthe exercise of powers, of the Organisation.
(7) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (after line 16), after subsection 35P(3), insert:
(3A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:
(a) the person informed the Organisation about the proposed disclosure at least 24 hours before making the disclosure; and
(b) the disclosure did not include information on the identities of participants of a special intelligence operation, or on a current special intelligence operation; and
(c) the information concerns corruption or misconduct in relation to a special intelligence operation.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection—see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(8) Schedule 5, items 9 and 10, page 74 (lines 4 to 19), to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 5, item 14, page 79 (lines 1 and 2), omit subparagraph 1(1A)(a)(i).
…the lack of such joint training poses an unacceptable danger to ASIS officers and agents … as ASIS officers are permitted at law to co-operate with certain agencies and use weapons and self-defence techniques to protect themselves and their partner agencies, it is reasonable for ASIS to be able to train with those same partners in the self-defence techniques and with the weapons that are intended to save their lives.
(6) Schedule 6, items 1 and 2, page 81 (lines 4 to 13), to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 6, item 4, page 81 (line 16) to page 85 (line 25), to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 6, item 24, page 106 (lines 3 and 4), to be opposed.
(10) Schedule 6, item 26, page 106 (lines 9 to 11), to be opposed.
The necessity for increasing the penalty has become apparent through recent domestic and international incidents involving the unauthorised disclosure of security intelligence-related information.
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided [21:31]
(The President—Senator Parry)
I would like to work with the Foreign Minister and with the Australian side to have an in-depth discussion on a new definition for our strategic partnership, a new blueprint for our trade and investment cooperation and a new plan for our people-to-people and cultural interactions.
I would like to note the Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, discussed opportunities to strengthen our education ties with China during a recent visit to the country. He highlighted the opportunities for Chinese students as part of our higher education reforms which will help us to attract the best and brightest students from across the world, and our New Colombo Plan which will expand to include China next year.
China is our largest source of overseas students and continues to be Australia's most important education partner.
Securing a free trade agreement with China has been a priority for the Abbott-Truss government and we are getting close to achieving that. As a regional senator, I feel strongly that our dairy farmers, and other producers are delivered a positive outcome. But it must be an outcome that is ultimately in the national interest.