The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a motion to require the attendance of a minister may be moved immediately and determined without amendment.
There had been a debate among the co-hosts, including Britain … as to whether Morrison should be approved to speak at the summit given the widespread view that Australia is a laggard on climate commitments.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [12:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [12:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.
The committee divided. [12:40]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020
Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020
Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020
Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020
Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020
Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020
Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020
Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020
Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020
Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020
Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020
Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020.
The Senate divided. [13:11]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [13:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020
The committee divided. [13:29]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
That these bills be now read a third time.
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I rise to speak on a Bill that continues our commitment to improve our welfare system and deliver a real difference to the lives of all Australians.
This Bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendments (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, establishes the Cashless Debit Card as an ongoing program in existing sites and provides for the transition of Income Management participants across the Northern Territory and Cape York region to the Cashless Debit Card.
The Government thanks the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on the Bill. The committee published the report on 17 November 2020, and recommended that the Bill be passed. The Government acknowledges the feedback and recommendation provided by the Committee, as well as the dissenting reports published by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens.
The report identified that the Cashless Debit Card program is delivering significant benefits for the communities where it currently operates. The program has the objective of reducing the amount of welfare available to be spent on alcohol, gambling and drugs, helping welfare recipients with their budgeting strategies and encouraging socially responsible behaviour.
The program is showing positive results.
Card participants were spending more of their welfare payments on essential items for themselves and their families, such as food, bills, clothes, household goods and fuel. This is confirmed by our card usage data that shows that spending at supermarkets is up almost 35 per cent and spending on household goods is up over 160 per cent. Over the life of the program, over $125 million has been spent at businesses that sell groceries and food, that could not be spent on restricted items like alcohol, drugs and gambling products.
Evaluations of the Cashless Debit Card show the program is working. The first independent evaluation released in late 2017 states that the card has shown 'considerable positive impact' in the initial trial sites, including:
The Bill will provide certainty for welfare recipients currently on the Cashless Debit Card, and see over 25,000 additional welfare recipients in the Northern Territory and Cape York region transition from Income Management to the Cashless Debit Card. Currently, these participants hold a BasicsCard, a card which directs welfare expenditure towards priority needs.
The Government recognises that the BasicsCard, while effective, can restrict an individual's ability of choice. Currently, the BasicsCard only works in stores that have signed a merchant agreement with Services Australia.
In comparison, the Cashless Debit Card works everywhere except when individuals try to purchase alcohol, gambling products, some gift cards and to withdraw cash. The Cashless Debit Card provides Income Management participants with greater consumer choice and autonomy while reducing red tape for businesses. For example, its provides interest on participants' funds, gives access to new technologies such as contactless payments, provides greater choice where participants can shop and enables participants to know when and how their money is being used just like you and I do every day with our bank cards.
The Government has trialled both Income Management, through the BasicsCard, and the Cashless Debit Card in different communities to improve financial management and reduce social harm.
While the Government recognises the effectiveness the BasicsCard has had on the communities in which it has operated, it is time to provide Income Management participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York region with the opportunities that the Cashless Debit Card brings.
You just have to look at the positive impacts the Cashless Debit Card has had across the current four program areas, from a reduction in drug and alcohol related presentation in the emergency wards and less police call-outs late at night through to a general feeling of improved safety on the streets of these towns.
Business leaders, local Indigenous leaders, elected members, police and from health officials and there is a consistent message—'The card must stay.'
This Bill gives these four communities, and the new regions of the Northern Territory and Cape York, further confidence about the Government's commitment to reducing the devastating effects of alcohol, drugs and gambling in these communities.
We must continue to support communities that put their hand up and drive positive change and improved outcomes for vulnerable individuals within those communities.
I commend the Bill.
Omit all words after "That", substitute: ", the bill be withdrawn and the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) thirteen years after the Howard Government's so-called Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory, broad-based income management works,
(ii) the Minister decided to make the Cashless Debit Card trial permanent before reading the independent review by the University of Adelaide, and
(iii) this proposal is racially discriminatory, as approximately 68 per cent of the people impacted are First Nations Australians; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) not roll out the Cashless Debit Card nationally, and
(ii) invest in evidence-based policies, job creation and services, rather than ideological policies like the Cashless Debit Card".
There is just not enough evidence that supports the view that this program is a game-changer for these communities and the individuals placed on it to justify the associated harm that it causes.
… to rob a person of their right to take responsibility for themselves, to strip them of responsibility and capability to direct their own futures, to make them dependent, is to deny them their liberty, and slowly that person will wither before your eyes.
We must restore the right to take responsibility, the right to make decisions, the right to step up …
There is a queue, and Australians are at the front of the queue.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to public statements made by the Prime Minister.
I am writing to inform you that in Question Time today, I made the following statement in response to a question from the Member for Corio in relation to Australians returning home during the pandemic, based on information I understood to be correct at the time.
I thank the member for his question and wonder why he' d want to bring personalities into this, given that Mr Rudd has done the same thing.
I have subsequently been advised that Mr Rudd has not travelled internationally during the pandemic, and was not one of the 95,525 individuals … who had been independently granted an exemption …
I also apologise to Mr Rudd for the statement and am pleased to correct the record.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 16 June 2020, of Mr John Joseph Madigan, former Senator for Victoria, places on record its appreciation for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
All I worry about at the end of the day is being true to myself, true to my family and friends and putting my head on the pillow at night. And when I leave parliament, whenever that may be, that I will walk out with my friends, my family and my faith intact.
He was a generous and compassionate man who gave his life to the greater good and had great faith in the people of Australia. He considered his time in Parliament a privilege and he sought always to discharge his duty to all Victorians, regardless of their political persuasion.
Minister, two of the things I believe in are that a country is what a country makes and that submarines are spaceships for the ocean.
The strength of our manufacturing sector is directly related to the strength of our jobs market.
…the Murray Darling Basin Plan is one of the largest negative, man-made impactors on our farming communities in the history of our country.
… we need to work towards enhancing the competitive advantage of Australian industry and not allow other countries to benefit at our expense through us supplying them with cheap energy at the expense of our manufacturers and food processors.
John stood up for the unborn child, the unemployed, the refugee. The little guy, in every sense, was John's major concern.
"Blacksmith, teetotaller, Democratic Labour Party Senator: he's a throwback to another generation, a time when things were done differently," …
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into nationhood, national identity and democracy be extended to 16 February 2021.
Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 gives the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Federal Police and, through them, the Australian Signals Directorate extraordinary powers in respect to online activities; and
(b) refers the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2021.
The Senate divided. [16:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Marise Payne, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 5 February 2021:
(a) all submissions received by the Council of Attorneys General's Age of Criminal Responsibility Working Group regarding raising the age of criminal responsibility;
(b) any reports, including interim and draft reports, from the Age of Criminal Responsibility Working Group, including recommendations, to the Council of Attorneys General regarding the age of criminal responsibility;
(c) any advice prepared by the Age of Criminal Responsibility Working Group to the Council of Attorneys-General regarding the age of criminal responsibility;
(d) any advice prepared (in the past twelve months) by the Age of Criminal Responsibility Working Group to the Attorney-General regarding the age of criminal responsibility; and
(e) any advice, including drafts, prepared by the Attorney-General's Department regarding the age of criminal responsibility.
The Senate divided. [16:48]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on average, women retire with superannuation balances 50% lower than those of men,
(ii) 40% of older single retired women live in poverty and experience economic insecurity in retirement,
(iii) an estimated 220,000 women miss out on a combined $125 million of superannuation contributions as they do not meet the requirement to earn $450 per month from one employer, and
(iv) the Government deliberately excluded consideration of systemic problems in the superannuation system for women from the terms of reference of its retirement incomes review, despite 100 prominent Australians in senior business roles writing to the Treasurer and calling on him to do so; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to help women achieve equality in retirement by responding to the inequality raised in the retirement incomes review's final report and look at the systemic issues that lead to inequality between men's and women's retirement incomes.
The Senate divided. [16:53]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That, if, by 12.45 pm on Thursday, 10 December 2020, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, and the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, have not been finally considered:
(a) the bills be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until concluded;
(b) if, after 1 hour, consideration of the bills has not concluded, the questions on all remaining stages then be put without amendment or debate, and
(c) paragraph (b) operate as limitation of debate under standing order 142.
The Senate divided. [16:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) robodebt was an unlawful scheme, which resulted in $721 million being stolen from 373,000 individuals and that the Federal Government has agreed to a settlement which will cost taxpayers up to $1.2 billion in total making it the biggest class action in Australian legal history,
(ii) this cost does not account for the psychological impacts that this scheme has had on thousands of Australians who were already vulnerable,
(iii) this scheme employed income averaging and reversed the onus of proof requiring people to disprove grossly overestimated debts relating to income periods older than seven years, and
(iv) despite being warned of its illegality from its inception, it took more than three years for the Government to stop this unlawful scheme and that was only as a result of a High Court decision;
(b) calls on the Government to acknowledge the failings of the robodebt scheme and the pain and anguish it unleashed on the Australian people; and
(c) urges the Government to call a Royal Commission so those responsible can be held accountable for their actions, and stop the mistakes of robodebt from being repeated.
The Senate divided. [17:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Murdoch University has proposed to cut its Indonesian language courses in 2021,
(ii) Latrobe University has proposed to cut its Indonesian and Hindi language courses in 2021,
(iii) Swinburne University has proposed to cut its entire language program, including Japanese and Mandarin in 2021, and
(iv) these cuts will reduce the number of Australian university students studying Asian languages for years to come, and are a result of the Government's tertiary funding cuts;
(b) further notes that:
(i) increasing Australia's Asia capability, including through the study of languages, is vital for Australia to engage with the Indo-Pacific region and support our economic recovery, and
(ii) the study of Asian languages is important for strengthening the people-to-people links that will be critical in diversifying Australia's economic relationships in the Indo-Pacific region; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to take urgent steps to:
(i) make the study of Asian languages a national priority, and
(ii) properly fund universities.
Successful language study involves the acquisition of both linguistic skills and cultural knowledge … the new funding system poses the risk of enforcing a language/culture divide.
The Senate divided. [17:12]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) asylum seekers Priya and Nades and their Australian-born daughters Kopika and Tharunicaa were forcibly removed from their community in Biloela, in regional Queensland, in March 2018,
(ii) the family was initially placed in detention in Melbourne but was flown to Christmas Island in August 2019 after moves to deport them to Sri Lanka were interrupted by a last-minute injunction,
(iii) despite continued calls from members of the Biloela community for the family to be returned to the regional town, Border Force Commissioner Michael Outram told Estimates in October 2020 that the family was being held on Christmas island for their 'safety, welfare and wellbeing',
(iv) three of the Tamil family have had their claims for asylum denied, and the family is awaiting the outcome for their three year old daughter Tharunicaa's protection claim, and
(v) the family has spent more than 1000 days in detention, including two Christmases on Christmas Island, separated from their supporters and their friends in Biloela; and
(b) calls on the Government to return the family to Biloela for Christmas, a place where they have consistent and committed community support and can live among friends while Tharunicaa's case is finalised.
The Senate divided. [17:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, 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.
Australia's offshore oil and gas is being given away for free, earning the federal government the wooden spoon , for its collection of revenue from oil and gas production.
The 150% exploration rebate introduced by the Howard government in 2004 and the 18% uplift on expenses has delivered a handful of companies $325 billion dollars in tax credits ensuring Australia will never be paid for oil and gas taken from the north west shelf.
Not only will these multinational companies have enough tax credits to never pay any income tax in Australia, but minimum wage workers will pay for all the government services on which these companies rely on to operate.
Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips are integrated oil and gas companies which means they engage in exploration, production, refinement and distribution of oil and gas. These companies started new businesses in Australia and consequently their investments have never been subject to government approval under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 or FATA.
Public servants and government Ministers have been comprehensively outwitted by foreign owned multinational oil and gas companies. These companies are like chess players who that play often, and usually win against opponents who have never played.
The government will not admit we have a problem. Well I am here to tell you there is a problem, when a handful of foreign companies can export $50 billion dollars of gas a year and we get $200 million.
The legal theft of our oil and gas needs to stop.
Today I am proposing the first step of what will be many steps towards Australian's benefitting from their vast reserves of offshore oil and gas. It is a baby step , but it is a move in the right direction.
If the government cannot support this Bill, then the people of Australia will know that the government has lost the will to collect payment for our offshore oil and gas taken from the north-west shelf off the coast of Western Australia.
If this Bill fails to gain government support the people of Australia should vote this government out at the next election and vote for a party willing to act in their interests.
My Bill proposes to add an object clause to section 3 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 or OPGGS, to ensure every part of this very important law is interpreted with the good of the Australian community in mind.
OPGGS establishes the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator or NOPTA, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority NOPSEMA and the Joint Authorities.
This new object clause I propose is a statement of the obvious, but what is obvious to most Australians' is not obvious to NOPTA and NOPSEMA or the Minister for Resources. We need all decisions to be made with the good of the Australian community in mind.
If this object clause passes into legislation, then 30-year-old oil and gas leases with proven and probable status currently being hoarded by multinational gas giants will become available for development.
If this object clause passes into legislation then the next floating liquefied natural gas platform (FLNG), like Shell's FLNG Prelude will have a domestic gas reserve condition placed on it, because the choice of an offshore rather than onshore processing and storing facility avoids the domestic gas policy in Western Australia.
It is a tragedy that the government and Labor have not reached a bipartisan position on dealing with multinational oil and gas companies in Australia.
Who would have thought it could be so hard? These foreign companies do not vote, they do not pay corporate income- tax and they employ small numbers of people over the life of the fields. The two big parties have the same policy on immigration, climate change, free trade agreements and funding the United Nations so what stops them uniting to get payment for our oil and gas?
I hope in the debate to follow the two big parties can justify the gift of billions of dollars to multinationals, money that should have gone to education, hospitals and raising the pension.
I now want to turn back the clock to the 23rd of April 2001 when Peter Costello, then Treasurer, announced he would block Royal Dutch Shell's bid to increase its shareholding in Woodside Petroleum Ltd from 34% to 56%. All the commentators said the decision by the Treasurer would reduce future foreign investment, but they were dead wrong.
They were wrong, because Australia has abundant conventional gas close to the markets, the most ineffective gas laws in the world and a foreign investment regime which did not capture integrated oil and gas companies.
Following the decision to block Royal Dutch Shell's bid, multinational gas giants invested $200 billion dollars in integrated oil and gas projects, which were not subject to foreign investment review.
Today these integrated oil and gas projects earn foreign owned multinationals $50 billion dollars a year in export earnings. I understand these export dollars are not profit, but these exports are profitable, because gas giants do not pay for the gas taken from Commonwealth waters. They also do not pay income tax on the profits made selling the gas.
These same companies are sitting on known gas reserve licenses so they can stop others from using them.
Shortly after I became a Senator, I asked the Reserve Bank 'how Australia benefits from the dominance of foreign owned multinational oil and gas companies.' They told me integrated gas projects had done a lot for the measures of investment, and GDP but little for jobs.
Chevron is the largest single investor in Australia, having spent about $80 billion dollars on developing its Gorgon and Wheatstone project. Most of this money was not actually spent in Australia because it involved undersea substructures made off-shore. Once the construction phase ended, very few people were employed in the following 40 years in oil and gas production. In the case of the Gorgon Project, about 350 people are employed directly or indirectly.
Helpfully the Reserve Bank suggested the way Australians could benefit from trillions of dollars of Australian owned natural gas off the coast of Western Australia was to either find a job in the sector or buy shares in these companies. If Australians must buy shares in Chevron to benefit from Australian oil and gas, then the government has comprehensively failed Australians.
Australia is now the only large gas producer in the world, where the international price of gas is lower than the domestic price. How did this happen? It is the result of the weakest gas laws in the world and a failure to implement a domestic gas reserve policy.
The government established an Inquiry into the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax in 2016, but none of the recommendations made by the Callaghan PRRT Review have been implemented. Why?
The government agreed to investor-state dispute resolution provisions in free trade agreements and now fears being dragged to an international tribunal by one or more of the gas giants claiming a change to the law is cause for compensation to be paid to them.
It is very frustrating the government lacks the spine to stand up for Australians.
If this modest object clause finds its way into law, then the gas cartel will hot foot it to their lawyers.
In 2011 Philip Morris took the government to a foreign tribunal claiming compensation in connection with tobacco plain packaging laws but we cannot live in fear of multinationals if we are to determine our own future.
The Productivity Commission told the government to avoid investor-state dispute settlement provisions in free trade agreements (1) but the government rejected the advice accepting ISDS provision in the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP-11. Foolishly the government did not follow New Zealand and exclude these provisions by way of side letters.
In 2018, One Nation voted against the enabling legislation for TPP-11, but our votes made no difference because Labor voted with the government
Instead of fixing weak laws which damage the Australian economy, the government finds itself pinned to the ground by multinationals, whose knees are pressed on the government's neck.
In this position of weakness, the government has decided not to take on the West Coast gas cartel, but instead divert attention by proposing a gas led strategy based on new gas production in Queensland.
This strategy involves the government sponsored mining in prime agricultural land, guaranteeing new production through take or pay multi-year contracts and lumping East Coast gas users with high prices.
With gas demand falling since 2014 it is inevitable taxpayers of the future will pay for gas, whether it is or is not needed- just , as the Northern Territory pays for gas it does not need from the Blacktip project.
One Nation's Senators are frustrated they cannot remove ISDS provisions from trade agreements nor can we introduce legislation to change gas tax laws, because all tax Bills must be introduced in the House of Representatives.
What we can do is propose the first step in the path to fair payment for our oil and gas reserves.
Failure to support this Bill will mean both the government and Labor have sold out future generations while saddling them with paying off the COVID debts.
I recommend the Bill to the Senate.
(1) Productivity Commission Trade and Assistance Review 2014-15. Box 4.1 p.49
(1) The Senate notes that on 13 May 2020 the Senate resolved to request the following documents be tabled in the Senate on the first sitting day after 1 June 2020 by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment:
(a) the minutes of the last 3 meetings of the PFAS Taskforce; and
(b) the dates of each meeting of the PFAS Taskforce, commencing from the first meeting after 2015.
(2) The Senate notes that these documents have not been tabled.
(3) The Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, to table those documents by 9.30 am on Wednesday, 9 December 2020.
(4) Should the documents not be tabled, the Senate further resolves to require the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, to attend the Senate at 9.30 am on Thursday, 10 December 2020 to explain why the documents have not been tabled.
(5) Any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (4).
(6) Any motion under paragraph (5) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the sharing of original Australian stories on our screens is an important way that we reflect a sense of community, identity and belonging in Australia,
(ii) Australian broadcasters are required to screen original Australian content in line with the Australian content requirements overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority,
(iii) online streaming services such as Netflix, Stan, Amazon and Disney+ are now extremely popular in Australia and have millions of Australian subscribers,
(iv) online video streaming services are not subject to requirements to screen Australian-made content, and
(v) the Minister for Communications recently announced changes to the Australian content quota system but did not extend the quotas to online streaming services; and
(b) calls on the Government to implement Australian content quotas for online video streaming subscription services to ensure that Australians are able to see themselves and their stories reflected on these platforms.
Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, 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.
The purpose of the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020 is to ban the importation of goods from Xinjiang Province in the People's Republic of China as well as goods from other parts of China that are produced in whole or part by forced labour.
The Australian Parliament has expressed strong support for international efforts to suppress modern slavery. Consistent with that the Australian Parliament needs to take a strong stand against the well documented abuse of hundreds of thousands of Uyghur people in Xinjiang in the People's Republic of China.
It would be a grave human rights failure if Australia, under our Free Trade Agreement with China, were to turn a blind eye to profiteering from what amounts to the massive use of slave labour.
The Chinese Communist regime's persecution of the Uyghur people is undeniable.
More than one million people have been rounded up and put in internment camps across Xinjiang. Mass surveillance, restrictions on free movement, and widespread persecution of the Uyghur people have been confirmed beyond doubt. Torture, other forms of gross abuse, coercion and population control have been widely reported and confirmed by credible witnesses and sources.
This terrible situation is widely recognised for what it is – nothing less than genocide.
The United States Government and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress have both acted in relation to the exploitation of detained Uyghur people.
The US Government has ordered the banning of imports of cotton, clothing and computer components from four companies and a manufacturing facility in north western China because of their suspected reliance on forced labour.
The US House of Representatives has voted by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in favour of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Bill to ban imports from China's Xinjiang region.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has recently launched a data project mapping Xinjiang's detention system with 380 sites of suspected re-education camps, detention centres and prisons that have been built or expanded since 2017.
In a previous research report published in March 2020 ASPI identified 83 Chinese and foreign companies, including many well-known international brands, benefiting directly or indirectly from the use of Uyghur detainees transferred to locations outside Xinjiang.
ASPI estimated that at least 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang and assigned to Chinese factories in a range of supply chains including electronics, textiles, and automotives. The report identified at least 27 factories in nine Chinese provinces that are using Uyghur labour transferred from Xinjiang.
The Canadian Parliament has also gathered much credible evidence of the gross human rights violations against the Uyghur people.
On 20 October 2020, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Canadian Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released its findings from a major inquiry into the human rights situation in Xinjiang.
The Subcommittee's report observed that the Chinese Government's mass detention of Uyghurs is "the largest mass detention of a minority community since the Holocaust."
The Subcommittee's report documents extensive and compelling evidence of gross human rights abuses including torture, extensive repression, mass surveillance and population control.
With regard to forced labour, the Subcommittee made the following observations and recommendations:
Witnesses noted that, starting in 2018, detainees from concentration camps began being transferred into different types of coercive labour, both in Xinjiang and to other regions of China, as part of a "poverty reduction" initiative. They warned that this forced labour is integrated into the supply chains of many large international corporations and contributes to the production of many products sold in Canada and other western nations. The United States of America recently issued a notice to companies warning that their supply chains potentially contain goods manufactured through the forced labour of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. The Government of Canada should issue to Canadian companies, whose supply chains are potentially exposed to the forced labour of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, a notice similar to the one issued by the Government of the United States of America for that reason. It is also important for the Government of Canada to investigate potentially problematic sources of consumer goods and to take a strong stand against the use of forced labour, particularly when it involves Canadian companies.
The Canadian Human Rights Subcommittee unequivocally condemned the actions of the Chinese Government and expressed the view that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party constitute genocide as laid out in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide .
The Canadian Human Rights Subcommittee further emphasised that the international community has a responsibility to protect Uyghurs under the international norm of the Responsibility to Protect, of which the objective is to ensure the international community prevents mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
The Human Rights Subcommittee of this Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has also received extensive submissions and testimony from members of the Uyghur diaspora in Australia and human rights organisations relating to human rights violations in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China that are entirely consistent with the findings of the Canadian inquiry.
The massive and systematic oppression of the Uyghur people by the Chinese Government is undeniable. The exploitation of detained Uyghurs as a captive labour force is clear.
If Australia is to be true to the democratic values we hold, we need to leave the Chinese Government in no doubt that its conduct is unconscionable and unacceptable.
This Bill will achieve that objective through the imposition of an absolute prohibition on the importation of all goods produced or manufactured in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China, and all goods produced or manufactured in China through the use of forced labour as defined by the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Section 270.6 of the Criminal Code definesforced labour as the condition of a person, the victim, who provides labour or services if, because of the use of coercion, threat or deception the victim would not consider himself or herself to be free to cease providing the labour or services, or to leave the place or area where the victim provides the labour or services.
That definition will fully cover China's exploitation of Uyghur forced labour. The importation of any goods found to have been produced in Xinjiang, or elsewhere in China by forced labour, will then by subject to the same penalties that apply to the importation of other goods designated as prohibited imports by regulations made under the Customs Act 1901 .
This is a very necessary measure that supports Australia's longstanding commitment to internationally recognised human rights.
It would be a grave failure on the part of the Australian Parliament if we do not call out and act to limit the massive abuses of human rights by the Chinese Communist regime.
That today:
(a) the hours of meeting be midday to adjournment;
(b) the order of government business for the remainder of the day and the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm be consideration of the following bills only:
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020
Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020
Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020 and a related bill
Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia’s National Security) Bill 2020 and a related bill
Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020 and related bills
Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and a related bill
(c) divisions may take place after 7.20 pm for the purposes of the bills only;
(d) if by 9.30 pm consideration of the bills has not been completed, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(e) paragraph (d) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(f) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the bills, or when a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
That the question be now put.
The need for the government to apologise immediately to the families of the victims and create a compensation scheme, hold the military chain of command to account for their role, bring the individual perpetrators to justice and, in future, ensure there is political accountability for sending our troops to war in response to the Brereton report which alleges there were 39 murders and two instances of 'cruel treatment' carried out by Australian Special Forces soldiers and that some of the victims were children.
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the government to apologise immediately to the families of the victims and create a compensation scheme, hold the military chain of command to account for their role, bring the individual perpetrators to justice and, in future, ensure there is political accountability for sending our troops to war in response to the Brereton report which alleges there were 39 murders and two instances of 'cruel treatment' carried out by Australian Special Forces soldiers and that some of the victims were children.
The Inquiry has found no evidence that there was knowledge of, or reckless indifference to, the commission of war crimes, on the part of commanders at troop/platoon, squadron/company or Task Group Headquarters level, let alone at higher levels such as Commander Joint Task Force (CJTF) 633, Joint Operations Command, or Australian Defence Headquarters. Nor is the Inquiry of the view that there was a failure at any of those levels to take reasonable and practical steps that would have prevented or detected the commission of war crimes.
The Senate divided. [18:26]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Griff)
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the reports.
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Targeted Sanctions inquiry
Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ' s inquiry into the use of targeted sanctions to address human rights abuse
HON SENATOR DAVID FAWCETT
CHAIR, JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
CANBERRA 8 December 2020
Mr President, it is my pleasure as the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to present the Committee's report, led by the Human Rights Sub-Committee for the inquiry into the use of targeted sanctions to address human rights abuse.
Australians are proud global citizens. We are committed to our democracy, and the importance of upholding human rights, both within Australia and abroad. Through my long involvement with the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have watched an increase in community awareness and engagement with Human Rights matters. This is reflected in our government's contribution to international efforts to uphold human rights, through international treaties, our own diplomatic missions, our support for aid and development programs and collaboration with our allies.
There has also been a growing awareness that country- or sector-wide sanctions often impact innocent parties disproportionately, and a new way to instigate consequences for unacceptable behaviour is required. It has long been the case that kleptocrats and other perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption have transferred assets to enjoy in Western countries with safe, stable democracies and secure financial systems, such as Australia.
While it would be preferable for the perpetrators of human rights abuse and corruption to face penalties in their home countries, and reparations made to victims, this is often not what happens.
A number of jurisdictions have recognised this problem. Inspired by the compelling experience of Mr Sergei Magnitsky, and advocacy for justice on the global stage by Mr Bill Browder, the efforts of international human rights experts and frontline organisations have focused on advocating for targeted sanctions regimes with the effect of introducing tangible consequences for perpetrators and beneficiaries of serious human rights abuse and corruption.
The Human Rights Sub-committee has heard evidence of Australians, and their families, being threatened, and instances of human rights abusers investing the proceeds of their crimes in Australia, gaining access to Australian education and healthcare systems. This is simply unacceptable.
We have heard that in other countries, targeted sanctions legislation has allowed governments to tackle this issue. Travel bans and seizing assets has prevented perpetrators from enjoying, with impunity, the proceeds of their crimes, and most likely deterred other would-be perpetrators from attempting to do the same.
Implementation of this report's recommendations will give Australia the option to impose travel bans and freeze assets. Working in concert with other countries, we will close the gap of opportunity for perpetrators, and ensure there are consequences in cases where they were otherwise lacking.
The Committee has recommended the enactment of a standalone, Magnitsky-style targeted sanctions Act, during the 46th Parliament. Members agreed that taking swift and decisive action will allow Australia to not only play our part in the Global Magnitsky movement, but to take the lead in developing a best practice targeted sanctions regime.
This inquiry was conducted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges presented by stay-at-home orders and ongoing health concerns did not deter witnesses or the Sub-committee. The level of commitment to this inquiry, despite those challenges, clearly demonstrated the significance of the issues under consideration, and determination of all involved to see matters addressed.
This inquiry received evidence from a diverse range of sources, including thoughtful and informed contributions from concerned Australian citizens, Australian diaspora groups, human rights advocacy groups, international parliamentary colleagues, and internationally renowned human rights legal practitioners. This diversity of perspectives greatly strengthened the Committee's appreciation of the subject matter.
I thank the Chair, Hon Kevin Andrews MP and members of the Human Rights Sub-committee for their full and collaborative engagement, their thoughtful consideration of the issues and contributions throughout the inquiry. I also thank the staff of the Committee Secretariat for their diligent work to support the inquiry and report. I particularly want to thank Inquiry Secretary, Sonya Fladun.
It is my hope that the implementation of this report's recommendations will send a strong and clear signal to perpetrators of human rights abuse and corruption about the values of Australians.
Implementation of the report's recommendations will play a significant role in reducing the incentives for engaging in human rights abuse and corruption. I also hope that this report is received as a message of solidarity by Australia's allies, and of support to victims of human rights abuse and corruption everywhere.
Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.
… if you have a vessel pull alongside and the crew walk off that vessel, then it's going to be very difficult to move that vessel away from the wharf, which therefore causes difficulties with regard to the export or import supply chain … It wouldn't take very long … if we had a number of these vessels falling into this situation, whereby ports could simply come to a grinding halt.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020
That this bill be now read a third time.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020
… we are also likely to see an increase in very extreme fire weather days. That is one of the effects of climate change that was documented again by the Bushfire CRC, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO in 2007, when they said that very extreme fire weather days now occur on average once every two to 11 years at most sites, by 2020 they may occur twice as often and by 2050 they may occur four to five times as often. And this is science that is two years old.
This anomaly will be aggravated by proposed s 123AA of the Defence Act. It will provide immunity to all members of the Defence Force, both regulars and reserves, when acting in the performance of their duties if the duties are in respect of the provision of assistance to prepare for or respond to a natural disaster or other emergency. But this raises the question of when such matters are within the member's duties, which goes back to the question of whether there is constitutional power to deal with such matters.
But the problem here is that the immunity is tied to the word 'duties' in the legislation, and these duties would not formally exist if they're not supported adequately by the constitutional powers. So I think in that respect the immunity is actually probably in many cases just not effective.
… if you wish to confine the legislation in a way that makes it clear that the type of actions and duties relating to civil aid to the community are not to involve coercive action—which indeed is clear in DACC—then you could well say so in the legislation if you so chose.
If the Commonwealth Government has not yet worked out a means of instantly contacting all members of the Federal Executive Council to inquire of their immediate availability for a meeting, then it is an indictment on its management. Getting a person to sit down and ring each of them in turn is, frankly, absurd. It is hardly an excuse for changing the legislation. Rather, it should be a reason for changing communication methods. In any case, to state the obvious, if the situation is so urgent that there is no time to go through the system to organise a meeting of the Federal Executive Council, the Minister could be legitimately satisfied that there are other—
I would like to thank all Senators who contributed to the debate on this important Bill.
Substance of Bill
This Bill makes changes to Defence legislation that will enhance the Commonwealth's ability to prepare for, and respond to, natural disasters and emergencies of national scale.
Schedule 1 amends the Defence Act 1903 to streamline the process by which advice is provided to the Governor-General regarding a call out of the Reserves, including for the purposes of responding to natural disasters or emergencies.
Streamlining this process allows the Minister for Defence, after consultation with the Prime Minister, to advise the Governor-General on the need for a call out of the Reserves, in all circumstances and not just for reasons of urgency.
The changes provide the Chief of the Defence Force the ability to determine the nature and period of Reserve service provided under a Reserve call out order.
This will deliver the ADF the flexibility required to integrate the Reservist effort in a manner that best supports the broader Defence response and individual members' circumstances.
These changes will improve consistency in the treatment of Reserve members who are providing assistance during a disaster or emergency, regardless of whether they have volunteered their service or have been called out to serve.
The changes will also enable more flexible service options for Reservists while allowing alignment with the nature and requirements of a specific Reserve call out order.
Schedule 2 will amend the Defence Act 1903 to provide immunities to those Defence personnel supporting disaster preparedness, recovery and response efforts.
The immunity will apply where the Minister is satisfied that:
a. the nature or scale of the natural disaster or other emergency warrants the provision of ADF capabilities and makes it necessary, for the benefit of the nation, for the Commonwealth, through use of the ADF's special capabilities or available resources, to provide the assistance; and/or
b. the assistance is necessary for the protection of Commonwealth agencies, Commonwealth personnel or Commonwealth property.
This will see our Defence personnel being provided with immunity from civil and criminal liability when they are performing their required emergency response duties in good faith, similar to immunities provided to state and territory emergency services personnel.
Schedule 3 will make amendments to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991 , theAustralian Defence Force Superannuation Act 2015 , and theAustralian Defence Force Cover Act 2015.
These amendments will ensure Reserve members who provide continuous full time service under a Reserve call out order will receive commensurate superannuation and related benefits to those Reservists who provide the same service on a voluntary basis.
This Bill originates from Defence's experience in providing assistance to the civil community in response to natural disasters from Operation BUSHFIRE ASSIST 2019-2020.
The Bill accords with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements.
Operation BUSHFIRE ASSIST
The primary responsibility to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies rests with the States and Territories.
Disaster relief is not the ADF's primary role – the ADF is not an auxiliary emergency service.
However, the ADF has for many decades provided assistance to State and Territory authorities in their response to major natural disasters.
Operation BUSHFIRE ASSIST 2019-2020 was the Australian Defence Force's most significant civil assistance operation in our history.
Over 8,000 ADF personnel served on Operation BUSHFIRE ASSIST 2019-20.
At its peak, 6,500 ADF members provided support as part of emergency relief, response and recovery operations. This included 3,000 Reserve members.
In addition, eight nations provided direct assistance to the ADF.
This included members of the:
On behalf of all Australians, I thank those friends and the military personnel who provided support in our nation's time of need.
At the conclusion of Operation BUSHFIRE ASSIST, Defence's capabilities were called on to assist the Australian community.
To date, over 9,000 personnel have been deployed on Operation COVID-19 ASSIST, with over 3,500 personnel deployed at its peak.
On behalf of the Australian people, I extend my thanks to the men and women of Defence and our friends from other nations who helped Australians in our times of need.
Lessons learned
Defence reviewed the lessons from the 2019-2020 bushfires and set about putting in place the necessary improvements.
These include:
Royal Commission Recommendations
This Bill also implements recommendation 7.3 of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements.
The Royal Commission recommended that the Government afford appropriate legal protections from civil and criminal liability to ADF members when undertaking activities under an authorisation to prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural disasters.
Defence has undertaken non-legislative activities to address the remaining recommendations.
Senate Committee Inquiry
The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee has conducted an inquiry into this Bill.
The Committee recommended that the Bill be passed without delay, with amendments to the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify the intention and operation of the Bill.
These amendments:
a. Clarify that the Bill does not alter, expand or otherwise change the Government's existing legal authorities to deploy the ADF;
b. Clarify that the operative provisions of the Bill, including the proposed immunities, relate to Defence Assistance to the Civil Community tasks and do not authorise the use of force (beyond self-defence);
c. Provides examples of 'other emergencies' referred to in the immunity provision; and
d. Clarifies that the requirement for a direction from the Minister is intended to provide a check on the proposed immunity and does not grant a new authority to the Minister to direct the deployment of Defence personnel.
I thank the members of the Committee for their comprehensive and diligent work in its inquiry into the Bill.
The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation in full.
The Explanatory Memorandum has been amended to clarify the intention and operation of the Bill in line with the Committee's recommendations.
Summary
The amendments in this Bill make three important, practical and fair changes:
1. provide greater flexibility in implementing a call out of the Reserves,
2. enable greater consistency in the treatment of our Reserves
3. and ensure that our Defence personnel have appropriate legal protections when serving our nation in good faith.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), omit "notifiable instrument", substitute "legislative instrument".
(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (line 14), before "emergency", insert "prescribed".
(2) Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (line 19), before "emergency", insert "prescribed".
(3) Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (line 21), before "emergency", insert "prescribed".
(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (after line 34), after subsection 123AA(3), insert:
(3A) The regulations may prescribe:
(a) a particular emergency event as a prescribed emergency for the purposes of this section; or
(b) a kind of emergency as a prescribed emergency for the purposes of this section.
(3B) However, regulations made for the purposes of subsection (3A):
(a) may only prescribe as an emergency or kind of emergency, an event or occurrence that does not require a protected person to use force or other coercive powers against a person; and
(b) must not prescribe protest, dissent, assembly or industrial action as an emergency or kind of emergency.
The committee divided. [20:55]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)
Sheet 1143
(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (after line 28), after subsection 123AA(2), insert:
(2A) Before making a direction under subsection (2), the Minister must:
(a) if the assistance is proposed to be provided in relation to a State or Territory, or State or Territory authority or agency—notify the State or Territory of the proposed direction and consult with the State or Territory about:
(i) whether the State or Territory agrees to the proposed provision of assistance; and
(ii) the form and manner in which the assistance is proposed to be provided; and
(b) take into account any views of the State or Territory provided under paragraph (a).
Sheet 1144
(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 9 (lines 3 to 8), omit all the words from and including "any of the following" to the end of subsection 123AA(4), substitute "an APS employee or other employee of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority or agency".
Sheet 1148
(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 9 (after line 21), at the end of section 123AA, add:
No use of force permitted
(9) A protected person must not use force against persons or things in relation to the provision of assistance mentioned in subsection (1).
… any participation by foreign military or police forces in any domestic civil emergency would remain contingent upon the receipt and acceptance of an appropriate offer by the Commonwealth, as is normal practice. As such, the Bill in no way provides for the automatic participation of foreign forces in domestic civil emergencies. Extension of the proposed immunities to foreign forces would likewise not be automatic and be contingent upon the issuing of a direction by the Minister.
… there are significant concerns regarding the use of the limitation of ‘good faith’ contained in the immunity provision. Good faith has been widely used in immunity provisions, however academic commentators have highlighted that the exact scope of the term is unclear, with few cases having applied the test in relation to immunities. At its widest the immunity may protect anyone who subjectively believes they are acting in good faith. Alternatively, in some cases courts have considered competing policy considerations to weigh up whether an action should fall within a good faith exception. It is unclear which standard would be applied were the application of immunity contained in s 123AA challenged. This leads to the situation where it is unclear when an individual could rely on the immunity, a position that is at odds with the stated justification of the amendment.
The committee divided. [21:16]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 6 (line 5), to be opposed.
(2) Schedule 2, page 7 (line 1) to page 9 (line 21), to be opposed.
The committee divided. [21:27]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)
Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020
Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020
That these bills be now read a first time.
Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020
That these bills be now read a first time.
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate notes the concerns and uncertainty around the implementation of this bill and the Coalition Government's broader failures on foreign investment."
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the definition of a notifiable national security action in the Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020 includes infrastructure defined as a critical infrastructure asset under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018,
(ii) the Department of Home Affairs is undertaking consultation on the Exposure Draft of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020, and
(iii) in respect of critical electricity assets, the Explanatory Document to the Exposure Draft states, "It is likely that an expanded set of generator assets will be captured, building on the existing approach in the rules.",
(b) calls on the Government to ensure that the threshold for critical electricity assets established under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 is set at a level that does not have a disproportionate impact on renewable energy".
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 5".
(2) Page 3 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:
4 Evaluation of operation of this Act and related legislation
(1) The Secretary must conduct an evaluation of the reforms implemented by this Act and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Act 2020 (the foreign investment reform Acts), including:
(a) legislative instruments made under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015 to implement the foreign investment reform Acts; and
(b) administrative changes made to implement the foreign investment reform Acts.
(2) The evaluation must start as soon as practicable, and in any event within 1 month, after this section commences.
(3) The Secretary must give the Treasurer a written report of the evaluation before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this section commences.
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the evaluation and report must consider:
(a) the impact that the foreign investment reform Acts and their implementation have had on foreign investment in Australia and the broader Australian economy; and
(b) whether the right balance is struck between welcoming foreign investment and protecting Australia's national interests.
(4) The Treasurer must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Treasurer.
(5) The Secretary must publish a copy of the report on the Department's website by no later than the day on which the report is tabled.
5 Delegation
(1) The Secretary may, in writing, delegate the Secretary's powers or functions under section 4 to a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 who is employed in the Department.
SHEET 1138
(1) Schedule 3, item 8, page 195 (after line 28), after subsection 130ZY(1), insert:
(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include statistics on the area, value, tenure and use of land in which there is a foreign interest.
SHEET 1139
(1) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 1), after item 80, insert:
80A After section 63
Insert:
63A Publication of exemption certificate
(1) For each exemption certificate given under Division 5 of Part 2, or under the regulations, the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after giving the certificate, publish on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the exemption certificate; and
(b) the reasons the exemption certificate was given, including the matters of which the Treasurer was satisfied before giving the exemption certificate.
(2) For each exemption certificate varied or revoked under section 62, the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after varying or revoking the certificate, publish on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the exemption certificate; and
(b) the reasons the exemption certificate was varied or revoked, including the matters of which the Treasurer was satisfied before varying or revoking the exemption certificate.
(3) The Treasurer may redact from each exemption certificate and reasons required to be published under subsections (1) or (2), any information that would be contrary to national security to publicly disclose.
(2) Schedule 1, item 126, page 48 (after line 3), after section 76A, insert:
76B Publication of no objection notification
(1) For each no objection notification given under sections 74 or 75, the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after giving the notification, publish on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the no objection notification; and
(b) the reasons the no objection notification was given, including the matters of which the Treasurer was satisfied before giving the no objection notification.
(2) For each no objection notification varied under sections 74, 76 or 79G or revoked under section 76A, the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after varying or revoking the notification, publish on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the no objection notification; and
(b) the reasons the no objection notification was varied or revoked, including the matters of which the Treasurer was satisfied before varying or revoking the no objection notification.
(3) The Treasurer may redact from each no objection notification and reasons required to be published under subsections (1) or (2), any information that would be contrary to national security to publicly disclose.
(3) Schedule 2, item 40, page 150 (line 26) to page 151 (line 10), omit section 101D, substitute:
101D Publication of undertakings
(1) If the Treasurer accepts an undertaking in relation to a provision mentioned in subsection 101C(1), the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after accepting the undertaking, publish on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the undertaking; and
(b) the reasons the undertaking was accepted, including the matters of which the Treasurer was satisfied before accepting the undertaking.
(2) If the Treasurer varies or withdraws an undertaking in relation to a provision mentioned in subsection 101C(1), the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after varying or withdrawing the undertaking, publish on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the undertaking; and
(b) the reasons the undertaking was varied or withdrawn, including the matters of which the Treasurer was satisfied before varying or withdrawing the undertaking.
(3) The Treasurer may redact from each undertaking and reasons required to be published under subsections (1) or (2), any information that would be contrary to national security to publicly disclose.
(4) A failure to comply with subsections (1) or (2) in relation to an undertaking does not affect the enforceability of the undertaking under Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as that Part applies in relation to the provisions of this Act.
Sheet 1131
(1) Schedule 1, item 132, page 75 (after line 16), after Division 5, insert:
Division 6—Benefit to Australia test
79Z Treasurer must consider the benefit to Australia
Application of this section
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the Treasurer receives a notice from a person stating that an action under Part 2 is proposed to be taken; or
(b) the Treasurer is satisfied that an action under Part 2 has been taken.
Note: Actions taken under Part 2 include significant action, notifiable action, notifiable national security action and reviewable national security action.
Benefit to Australia test
(2) The Treasurer must consider whether the action under subsection (1) meets the benefit to Australia test.
(3) The benefit to Australia test is met if the action will, or is likely to, result in one or more of the following:
(a) the creation of new jobs in Australia or the retention of existing jobs in Australia that would or might otherwise be lost;
(b) the introduction of new technology into Australia;
(c) the introduction of new business expertise into Australia;
(d) increased export operations (within the meaning of the Export Control Act 2020 ) for Australian exporters.
(4) The Treasurer must not give a no objection notification under section 74 or 75 unless, in addition to the requirements in the relevant section, the Treasurer is also satisfied that the action meets the benefit to Australia test.
(5) If the Treasurer is not satisfied that the action meets the benefit to Australia test, the Treasurer must:
(a) make an order under section 67 or 79D to prohibit the proposed action; or
(b) make an order under section 69 or 79E for the disposal of the interest if the action has been taken.
Sheet 1165
(1) Schedule 3, item 8, page 165 (line 18), omit the heading to section 130V, substitute "Disclosure and publication of information in the Register".
(2) Schedule 3, item 8, page 166 (after line 5), after subsection 130V(2), insert:
(2A) The Registrar must cause to be published, on a website maintained by the Department, all information in the Register in relation to:
(a) interests in agricultural land; and
(b) registrable water interests.
(3) Schedule 3, Part 1, page 198 (after line 6), at the end of the Part, add:
Register of Foreign Ownership of Water or Agricultural Land Act 2015
13A Section 17
Repeal the section, substitute:
17 Register to be published on website
The Commissioner must publish on a website this register.
Sheet 1174
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 207 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 4—Australian water entitlements
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975
1 Section 4
Insert:
Australian water entitlement : see subsection 47A(4).
2 After section 47
Insert:
47A Meaning of notifiable action —Australian water entitlement
(1) An action is a notifiable action if the conditions in this section are met.
First condition—kinds of action
(2) The first condition is that the action is to acquire an interest in an Australian water entitlement.
Second condition—action taken by a foreign person
(3) The second condition is that the action is or is to be taken by a foreign person.
Meaning of Australian water entitlement and related definitions
(4) For the purposes of this section, Australian water entitlement means any of the following:
(a) an irrigation right (within the meaning of the Water Act 2007 ) that relates to a water resource in Australia;
(b) a right (including an Australian water access entitlement) conferred by or under a law of a State or Territory to do either or both of the following:
(i) to hold water from a water resource in Australia;
(ii) to take water from a water resource in Australia.
(c) a contractual right to all or part of:
(i) a right referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or
(ii) a water allocation; or
(iii) a right of a kind specified in the regulations.
(5) However, an Australian water entitlement does not include:
(a) stock and domestic rights; or
(b) riparian rights; or
(c) water allocations; or
(d) a right of a kind specified in the regulations.
(6) In this section:
Australian water access entitlement means a perpetual or ongoing entitlement, by or under a law of a State or Territory, to exclusive access to a share of the water resources of an area in the State or Territory.
water allocation means the specific volume of water allocated to an Australian water access entitlement in a given period.
water resource means:
(a) surface water or ground water; or
(b) a watercourse, lake, wetland or aquifer (whether or not it currently has water in it).
An expression used in this definition that is also used in the Water Act 2007 has the same meaning as in that Act.
The Senate divided. [21:39]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Stoker)
The Senate divided. [21:43]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Stoker)
Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020
Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020
Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020
SHEET 1153
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 14), after "national security purposes", insert ", national broadcasting purposes".
(2) Schedule 3, item 76, page 43 (after line 16), after subsection (2F), insert:
(2G) For the purposes of subsection (2F), national broadcasting is in the public interest.
(3) Schedule 3, page 43 (before line 17), before item 77, insert:
76A After paragraph 130(3 ) ( a)
Insert:
(aa) must have regard to subsection (2G); and
SHEET 1154
(1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 13), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Schedule 11, page 217 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:
3 Subparagraph 103(4A ) ( c ) ( i)
Omit "31 December 2006", substitute "30 June 2024".
The Senate divided. [21:52]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Stoker)
Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020
Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.