The CHAIR (09:31): The committee is considering the amendment on sheet 8491 moved by Senator McKim. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (09:32): I won't respond too much to Senator McKim's contribution except to make the comment in passing that, according to Senator McKim, it was all an accident that the economy crashed in Tasmania under a Labor-Greens government and it was all to do with exchange rates rather than the disastrous antibusiness policies of the Labor Party and the Greens. That contribution was an interesting one. I don't think that many would find it particularly persuasive.

The government won't be supporting the Greens amendment. The government announced in the 2018-19 budget that it will extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off by a further 12 months, to 30 June 2019, for businesses with annual turnover of less than $10 million. This will improve cash flow for small businesses, providing a boost to their activity and investment for a further year. The Greens amendment would increase the threshold to $30,000 for assets relating to energy efficiency or clean energy, on an ongoing basis. The government's $20,000 instant asset write-off is widely supported by stakeholders and applies to all small businesses with an annual turnover less than $10 million. In extending the $20,000 threshold for a further year, the government has sought to strike a balance between helping small businesses' cash flow and investment and the revenue impact on the budget. We therefore don't support the amendment.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (09:33): It is no surprise that neither the Labor Party nor the LNP will be supporting this amendment, because we know that they are fully owned—lock, stock and smoking barrel—by the fossil fuel industry in this country. They both receive massive donations from fossil fuel companies. This amendment would encourage and incentivise small businesses to invest into infrastructure and assets that would result in an energy-efficiency dividend for small businesses, which would bring Australia's emissions profile down as well as improve the bottom line of small businesses. It would also encourage and incentivise small businesses to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to fuel-switch from gas to electricity. So it's no surprise at all that what we're getting from those political parties that accept large corporate donations is, once again, backing in of the fossil fuel sector and voting against an amendment that would ultimately deliver a more energy-efficient country, a more energy-efficient small business sector, and a country and a small business sector that would actually reduce their greenhouse emissions. Senator Seselja's been rewriting history once again in here this morning in regard to what happened in Tasmania. I had to put him over my knee last night when he tried to do that, and I'm going to do the same thing to him again this morning. I didn't hear everything he said, because I've just come from a meeting of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, but my friend and colleague Senator Whish-Wilson informs me that Senator Seselja's been at it again. Despite being schooled last night, he's going to have to be schooled again this morning.

Firstly, I want to make it clear that, in fact, the period of government between 2010 and 2014 in Tasmania was government for grown-ups. It was a government that Liberal leader and current Tasmanian Premier, the Hon. Will Hodgman, could have actually participated in, if he'd had a bit of spine, backbone and courage. Of course, on election night in Tasmania in 2010, Mr Hodgman got up and made a victory speech, and a fine victory speech it was, too. There was only one problem with it. Ten seats out of 25 doesn't give you a majority. In fact, he hadn't won; he'd lost. We all remember that speech, and Senator Bushby, I'm sure, remembers that speech as well. He might even have been there. I don't know. I was there when Mr Hodgman gave that speech, and I was having a good old giggle at it because I knew that 10 out of 25 does not equal 50 per cent. I knew that, but Mr Hodgman didn't know that, and he thought he could walk into government with 10 seats in a 25-seat lower house in Tasmania. History proved me right and proved him abjectly wrong and exposed his lack of understanding of basic mathematics.

What did happen, ultimately, is the Greens and Labor got together and engaged in a government for grown-ups. What that government for grown-ups did was massively put the budget back on track. It engaged in taking on the forestry issue in Tasmania, something that successive majority governments had consigned to the too-hard basket for decades. And do you know what? We actually landed that issue—something that had split our community apart and resulted in violence in our community and resulted in arrests, including my arrest back in the 1980s for protesting at Farmhouse Creek. Other people were arrested there and in other places. We were arrested defending our magnificent, globally unique forests, defending the carbon in those forests to ensure that it wasn't emitted and would contribute to the disruption of the climate that we are seeing today, and defending those forests on behalf of the people who actually own them, which is the Australian and Tasmanian people, not the governments of the day. Governments of the day are only ever temporary trustees of any public asset. We did it to stop the transfer of wealth from public to private, because, of course, for many decades in Tasmania, the more trees you chopped down, the more money you lost. That still applies today, with a massively subsidised and, in fact, mendicant forest industry in Tasmania.

In landing the Tasmanian forest agreement, in getting it through parliament—albeit in an imperfect way, because the upper house took the chainsaw to it when they had the opportunity—what that government did was deliver hundreds of millions in investment into Tasmania, thanks to the federal government. That's hundreds of millions of dollars of investment that the Liberal Party is now running around trying to claim credit for. That's hundreds of millions of dollars that set Tasmania up for the future, with investment into tourism, investment into everything from cut flowers to berry production, and investment into transitioning the Tasmanian economy out of an overreliance on the old 'dig it up, chop it down' mentality that the Liberal Party love so much and into an economy that could thrive and prosper in the 21st century. When you look at Tasmania now, you see—and it's generally accepted—that our economy is moving forward in a more beneficial way not only for Tasmania but also compared to the rest of the country. And what's the major reason that is happening? It's that shot in the arm that was given to small businesses, tourism operators and primary producers in Tasmania, thanks to the hundreds of millions of dollars that flowed in through the Tasmanian Forest Agreement that the Liberal Party opposed. Senator Seselja has again displayed his extreme level of ignorance with regard to anything Tasmanian. I would have thought that Senator Bushby might have known a bit better, but clearly not. He should have advised his colleague Senator Seselja about the facts of the matter. I place on the record that I'm proud of the role the Greens played in that government. We delivered stable government. We addressed the primary challenges facing the state at the time.

The CHAIR: Senator McKim, I draw your attention to the amendment. You started off talking about the amendment. You have come close, and I appreciate that it's a wide-ranging debate, but perhaps you could focus more on the amendment before the Senate.

Senator McKIM: I am, I believe, speaking in the main about small business, and, obviously, this amendment is with regard to providing more incentives for small business to become more sustainable. But just to complete the thought that I was engaged in: that period of government was government for grown-ups. It was a government that the Tasmanian people voted for comprehensively at the 2010 election, it was a government that took on all of the hard issues that had been left in the too-hard basket by majority governments of both political stripes in the past, and it was a government that, as I said, could have involved the Liberal Party, had Mr Hodgman had the backbone and courage to take it on. But instead, he had to sit there for four years on the opposition benches and impotently gnash his teeth every time the Labor-Greens government conducted itself in a way with which he disagreed. All of this was within the context of very difficult economic times for the whole country and particularly for Tasmania, the most export-exposed economy in the country, with a very high exchange rate between the US dollar and the Australian dollar.

It is very disappointing that neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party are prepared to support this amendment, but, as I said earlier, it is not surprising at all, because this is an amendment that is beneficial to small business, and we know that the Liberal and Labor parties are the parties of the big corporates, big business and the top end of town. The small business community, I might add, support the Greens' move for this scheme with a higher expenditure limit for renewable assets. That's important to place on the record, and has been placed on the record by Mr Peter Strong from COSBOA. As I said, it's disappointing but not surprising that the major parties in this place—who accept those tens of millions every year in corporate donations—are not prepared to support an amendment that would not only help small business but also help bring Australia's emissions profile down.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:43): I rise to urge the Senate to support Senator McKim's amendment, and make the point very clearly that the Greens have been the leaders on small business policy in this place over the last six years. You may not want to acknowledge that, Minister—through you, Chair. We brought the most comprehensive small business policy package to the 2013 election. That included a cut for real small businesses with a turnover of under $2 million, which make up the big bulk of my state of Tasmania's economy, that needed a leg-up. We worked with the small business community and COSBOA on accelerated depreciation and another 11 policies, and we took that package to the 2013 election. After the 2013 election, Senator McKim, my colleagues in this place, and I were all proud to vote for a tax cut for small business, and for accelerated depreciation for small business. There's a really important history here, Senator Seselja—through you, Chair. You should be taking this amendment seriously.

While we're talking about how the Greens delivered for Tasmania, it's seldom acknowledged that the price on carbon, which is the international gold standard for action on climate—and Senator Bushby would know this—delivered billions of dollars in windfall to Hydro Tasmania, who then paid a dividend to the Tasmanian government which funded schools, hospitals, policing and national parks. In fact, the Greens pretty much provided a lifeline to Tasmania's Treasury through a price on carbon. That has never been acknowledged in any public comment by the Liberal Party, who came in here and recklessly ripped up action on climate and billions of dollars of revenue to the Tasmanian government and to the Tasmanian people. That has never been acknowledged. Had that price on carbon gone into its final phase, after three years of being a carbon trading scheme, which is what it was set up to do, we would have had an official price on carbon. And we were that close to getting offsets for Tasmania's forests that would have been in the billions. The forests that Senator McKim, in his time in government, saved for the Tasmanian people, were eligible for offsets under the additivity principle, and there were advanced negotiations for the Greens to deliver billions of dollars to the Tasmanian economy. That was ripped up by the Liberal Party, with their cavalier attitude towards climate and the Tasmanian economy.

So, Senator Seselja, if you want to talk about economy-wrecking policies of the Greens, you should have a look at yourself and what you've done to my state of Tasmania. The hundreds of millions of dollars that we delivered through the diversification funds in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement—which I'm proud to say my colleague Nick McKim played a role in delivering—have gone towards setting up mountain bike paths that are now leading the charge in the diversification of the Tasmanian economy. That is another win for the Greens, and for the Tasmanian people. In fact, I could go on and on all day about our 20-year vision for the Tasmanian economy that's come to pass.

In 1992, previous senator Christine Milne and the Green Independents put together a policy for Tasmania. This did include a policy for small business, because they knew back then that small business was the backbone of the Tasmanian economy. They knew that the big businesses that were tied to global commodity cycles would, unfortunately, likely fail in a changing world of globalisation. They predicted the demise of price-taking industries that had no control over their future, and they were right. They said governments should be investing in small business, incentivising small business, and focusing on the competitive strengths of Tasmania—what we have that is unique, that the rest of the world wants and will come and see and will pay good money to see. And we were right.

The only thing that's held Tasmania back for decades—it's benefiting from this now—is the Liberal Party and the Labor Party and their anti-Greens rhetoric and the action they have taken to do everything they possibly can to put us out of business. But I say to Senator Seselja that we were right about small business and the importance of small business in Tasmania.

Senator Bushby, I urge you to support this amendment of Senator McKim's, because you know how important small business is to Tasmania. You have small business interests in your family. You know both my wife and I have run small businesses in Tasmania, and we're just like the tens of thousands of Tasmanians that have small businesses. They work really hard; they employ the majority of Tasmanians. This is exactly the kind of amendment that you should support, to support Tasmanians.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (09:48): A few points that were made by the previous two contributors to this debate need some comment. Senator Whish-Wilson was just talking about the so-called windfall to the hydro-electric corporation in Tasmania as a result of the so-called carbon tax that was introduced by the previous Labor government. There is no doubt that they did have an opportunity to make extra money at that time. But that money didn't come from nowhere; that money was coming because they were able to charge higher energy prices to Tasmanians—to Tasmanian households and to Tasmanian businesses—because, as part of the National Electricity Market, the carbon tax had increased the national price of energy and therefore they were able to charge more for their energy. That meant that Tasmanian households and Tasmanian businesses were paying higher energy costs and that Hydro, because it's renewable and was not having to contribute the same degree of cost through the carbon tax, was making a windfall. But make no mistake: that windfall was coming at the expense of Tasmanians and Tasmanian businesses—Tasmanian small businesses, which Senator Whish-Wilson is saying this amendment will assist. I think there was also a mention of mountain bike paths as one of the magnificent things that were delivered by the previous Tasmanian state Labor-Green government. Most of the mountain bike paths that exist in Tasmania—that have been built—have been funded in large part by the federal Liberal government since 2013.

The fact is that, by most economic metrics, prior to March 2014 Tasmania was languishing at the bottom of the pack relative to other states. We were seen as the poor cousin right across the nation, no matter which metric you looked at. That turned around after March 2014. There was an immediate improvement in business confidence just because of the election of the majority Hodgman Liberal government. There was an immediate improvement in confidence that resulted in an immediate increase in business and other investment, which led to Tasmania now being around the middle or higher in those same economic metrics.

So let's not pretend and try to rewrite history that the Labor-Green state government was somehow a miraculous government that just happened to miss out on all the good things showing up because it lost the March 2014 election but all the good things that they did came out afterwards. The reality is that it was the election of the majority Hodgman Liberal government that provided confidence for businesses in Tasmania to make the investments.

The CHAIR: Senator Bushby, I appreciate the passion of the Tasmanians in the chamber this morning, but, in the same way that I cautioned Senator McKim, I have been listening very closely to your contribution, and we are discussing the amendment that's been proposed.

Senator BUSHBY: I did mention small business, which is what the amendment is about.

The CHAIR: You mentioned small business once. Could you focus particularly on the amendment before the chamber.

Senator BUSHBY: I think I've sufficiently corrected the record to make sure that Hansard adequately doesn't record unchallenged those incorrect assertions that were made by previous speakers.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (09:51): If anyone wants to talk about incorrect assertions maybe we should look at what Senator Bushby has just said. You elect a Liberal government in Tasmania and, whoosh, everything changes—magic takes place. It doesn't work like that. Economics doesn't work like that.

Senator Bushby interjecting—

Senator CAMERON: I know you've got an economics degree, but I've never seen it really deliver much in this place. You haven't really filled me full of faith that you've got any understanding of economics if you think an election suddenly and immediately makes changes.

I want to come back to the issue. I don't know what it is with the Greens this morning, and I don't know what it is with the Liberal Party, but maybe it's because you are both doing so badly in Tasmania. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you've just got to get up here and not worry about the depreciation bill that we're talking about for small business. I simply say: let's get this bill up and help small business and stop the nonsense and squabbling that's going on here between the senators from Tasmania—the Greens, who will never be in government, and the Liberal Party, who are just about to lose government.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (09:53): I won't hold the chamber up much more, because as Senator Cameron rightly points out this is an important piece of legislation, and, in fact, is going to be passed with the LNP voting for it, the Labor Party voting for it and the Greens voting for it. The problem that we face is that neither the LNP nor Labor are going to vote for the amendment that's currently before the Senate. Remember, this amendment would incentivise small business to invest in energy efficiency and to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. That position is not surprising, given the massive donations that both the LNP and the ALP get from the fossil fuel sector—tens of millions of dollars a year straight into their parties' coffers so they can run campaigns to get re-elected. Of course, those donations buy the fossil fuel industry policy outcomes, and we're seeing that play out on the floor of the Senate this morning.

I just want to be clear on this amendment: Senator Bushby and every other Liberal and National senator from Tasmania are voting against an amendment that would encourage small businesses, through an instant asset write-off threshold increase, to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which would help those small businesses bring their bottom lines into a more favourable state, because it would bring their energy costs down. Every single LNP and Liberal senator is about to vote against that and vote against small business in Tasmania. The same applies for every single ALP senator from Tasmania. They're about to vote against every small business in Tasmania being able to receive a more favourable tax treatment for assets they invest in, up to a threshold of $30,000, which would allow them to invest in energy efficiency, to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to fuel switch from gas to electricity.

Climate disruption, the disruption of our climate that we're seeing today, is by a long way the pre-eminent public policy challenge facing humanity. As part of that, all senators ought consider it the pre-eminent public policy challenge facing Australia and facing this parliament. We're in a situation where the new Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, is washing his hands of responsibility to act on the disruption of our climate; to bring Australia's emissions profile down; to show global leadership and show other countries that as a rich, developed nation we can step up and fulfil our moral obligations to the rest of the world.

I'm glad Minister Payne is in here to hear it. At the Pacific Islands Forum, Minister Payne managed to give a speech which didn't mention climate change. How absurd is that? Last week she went over to Nauru and gave a speech that didn't mention climate change to a Pacific Islands Forum.

Senator Payne: You'd be completely wrong, Nick.

Senator McKIM: If that's the case, I'm happy for you to correct the record. If you believe that I am wrong, I'll have a look at your speech.

Senator Payne: What speech did I give to the Pacific Islands Forum?

Senator McKIM: I have seen reports—

Senator Payne interjecting—

Senator McKIM: No, you can get up in a minute, Minister. You don't get the chance to talk over me when I'm on my feet and you're not.

The CHAIR: Senator McKim, please resume your seat.

Senator McKIM: I have seen—

Senator Payne interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order! Senator McKim has the right to be heard in silence. Senator McKim, please direct your remarks to the chair.

Senator McKIM: Thank you, Chair. I've seen reports that one of Minister Payne's speeches to that forum did not mention climate change. Pacific island nations have shown global leadership on this issue, because some of them are going to disappear this century, Minister. It's not good enough for you and your government not to take the issue of emissions reduction seriously. Australia should be a global leader in showing the way forward on this issue. It is a disgrace that we have a Prime Minister who basically said this week that Australians are not interested in climate change. He's wrong. The polls show he's wrong. It's part of the reason why he's going to be ignominiously turfed out of government next year, along with Minister Payne and all his colleagues. He is misreading the mood of the nation.

Australians want strong action on climate change. They want far stronger action than even the Australian Labor Party are proposing on climate change. In fact, it is the Greens who are proposing setting a pollution standard for power stations and progressively shutting them, starting with the worst first. It is only the Greens in this place who oppose the Adani coalmine. The Queensland Labor government wanted to give free coal, free water and free money to one of the most corrupt corporations in the world, the Adani Group. That's exactly what they were doing. The Liberal National Party—

The CHAIR: Senator McKim—

Senator McKIM: Oh, we've hit a nerve here now, haven't we!

The CHAIR: please resume your seat. Senator Cameron on a point of order?

Senator Cameron: A point of order: we are dealing with an amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation for Small Business Entities) Bill 2018. It's not for me to argue that everyone should be on point every time in here but, come on, can we get this bill done. Senator McKim, basically what you should do is go back to Tasmania and see if you can get more votes. Stop trying to get them here.

The CHAIR: On the point of order, Senator Cameron is quite correct. Senator McKim, you were absolutely focused on the amendment. You'd started to drift away. I was waiting for you to come back to the point before I drew your attention to the amendment.

Senator McKIM: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your drawing the amendment to my attention. In continuing my contribution, I would draw the Senate's attention to the fact that our amendment is actually all about reducing emissions, at least in part, as well as helping the bottom line of small business. Senator Cameron wrote the book on digressing from the topic at hand in this Senate, in my experience, so I'm very happy to take his counsel on that!

It is extremely disappointing that we're not going to get support for this amendment, because ultimately it would show leadership on climate action and it would help small businesses drive an investment into their operations which ultimately would help them bring their emissions profiles down and improve their bottom line. It would give the opportunity for every small business in this country to thrive and prosper to a greater degree than will be the case when this amendment fails.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Marshall ): The question is that amendment (1) moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:08): Well, we finally made it! The Senate can finally consider the government's Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017. It's been nearly four years in the making, but the government has finally put forward some legislation that might meaningfully give effect to equity crowdfunding in Australia. The problem is that the government have been so diverted by the muppets across the chamber, so diverted by the extremists in their own party, that they really can't get on and deal with the issues that are important to the Australian economy and to the Australian people. Taking four years to get a bill to the Senate floor on crowdfunding just demonstrates how incapable this government is of actually focusing on the real issues of government.

This bill removes a range of government imposed regulatory blocks stopping proprietary companies, especially start-ups and small businesses, from using crowdsourced equity funding. By way of brief explanation, equity crowdfunding uses the internet to harness the financial support of investors to back a business, and in return those investors get a stake in that business. I open by referencing the tortuous journey this reform has been forced to experience under the coalition. It is worth recalling some history. In government, Labor tasked the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee to start scoping out a framework for equity crowdfunding in May 2013. A full year later in May 2014, following the change of government, CAMAC handed its report to the new coalition government, and all action subsequently stalled due to endless rounds of further consultation throughout 2014-15 and endless self-recrimination within the Liberal Party, which is stuck in an absolutely chaotic position—a government that has been incapable of governing.

Meanwhile various reports continued to identify the potential of equity crowdfunding to improve access to finance for small to medium enterprises: for example, the government's Industry innovation and competitiveness agenda report, released in October 2014; the final report of the Murray inquiry into Australia's financial system, released in December 2014; the Business set-up, transfer and closure Productivity Commission draft report, released in May 2015; the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda, released in December 2015; and the government's own fin-tech statement, released in March 2016—more reports, more analysis, less action. That has been this government through and through.

The government eventually introduced its bill in 2015, but it was roundly criticised for being too cumbersome for the sector. After ultimately withdrawing that bill, those opposite introduced a new version in 2016 with roughly similar flaws. This is our government: you point out the problems; it looks at the bill and brings it back with the same problems still in it—totally incompetent. No wonder the Prime Minister describes his own party as the muppets!

Finally in March last year the government used its numbers to force the bill through and sign into law an equity crowdfunding framework that it knew full well would have to be fixed before the year was out. The reality was that the current framework was racing towards one milestone and one milestone only: extinction. Sure enough, here we are in 2018 considering yet another attempt by this dysfunctional government, a government of muppets, to fix mistakes of its own making. The title of this bill is worth noting. It is the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill—2017! The bill has been stuck in parliament for a year because the government couldn't be bothered bringing on debate and getting this bill moving. Not only that; those opposite have had their own internal little problems in the meantime, carving each other up, knifing each other, changing the Prime Minister—complete dysfunction, complete chaos. This country needs a government that can focus on the issues that are important for the Australian people, and it is not the muppets sitting across the chamber. It is taking a new Treasurer to make it happen. The incompetence of this government is extraordinary.

In the other place the former Treasurer, now Prime Minister, lamely attempted to paper over this by suggesting his hand had been forced by shareholders to bring in new changes to its flawed equity crowdfunding framework. He said:

Submissions expressed widespread support for the extension of the crowd-sourced equity funding framework to proprietary companies.

This is not a surprise. This is not a new revelation. Stakeholders have said this for years. That is because the government was repeatedly told that its equity crowdfunding regime was highly restrictive and unlikely to get business support. They were told they needed to bring in a regime that would be usable by proprietary companies. They were warned of this years ago by a range of people.

The most damning assessment, provided by the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales, argued that the 2015 bill and its successors excluded, and I quote:

… over 99.7% of companies from accessing CSF.

…   …   …

… the current proposed model in front of the Parliament is too restrictive and excludes the majority of Australian companies from relying on CSF.

The government get up here and lecture everyone on how they know about business, how they can really push business along in this country and, at the same time, they can't even get the basics right in a very simple bill. They are a bunch of frauds. They are a bunch of muppets. Even their own Prime Minister has got the adjective right about them—absolute muppets; economic incompetents and absolute political incompetents. This is a government well past its use-by date.

The assessment by the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law was made years ago, but it remained the biggest criticism that confronted the government's botched reforms in this area. It is worth remembering that, even last year, speaking in response to the government's 2017 bill, business was critical of the government's efforts, with tech firm Veromo's Andy Giles stating:

… the thought of switching to a public company to avail ourselves of a potential wider investor base is unthinkable.

So businesses are saying that the proposition from this government, who claim that they are the government of business, was 'unthinkable'. What a bunch of amateurs on the other side!

Not embarrassed by criticism that they were continually dragging their feet on this reform over the last four years, the government introduced this bill here in September last year and we debated it 12 months later. Now the government have come up with a bill to plug the gaps they left in March last year. The opposition is largely supportive of the bill. It provides some new allowances in its current form. For example, it permits that investors who acquire shares through crowdfunding offers not be counted towards the shareholder cap currently applied to proprietary companies. The bill exempts proprietary companies with shareholders who acquire shares through a crowdfunding offer from the takeover rules in chapter 6 of the Corporations Act. To provide some safeguard to investors, the bill also contains a regulation-making power. This will give the government the capability to respond quickly by imposing additional conditions on this exemption, if required.

The question remains: is 'quickly' something the government are capable of doing? Well, in some things, the answer is yes. They can quickly get rid of a Prime Minister. They can stab a Prime Minister in the back. They can demolish their own credibility very quickly. They can do all of those things. They can quickly turn on each other. The Liberal Party can turn on the National Party. The National Party can turn on the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party can turn on each other. They can do that very quickly, but can they do anything that supports progress in this country? Not really. They talk a big game and they do nothing.

The bill also intends to impose additional obligations on companies who opt in to the equity crowdfunding regime. For example, proprietary companies with crowdfunding shareholders will be required to provide additional reporting to ASIC, provide information on the company register, prepare financial reports and statements for audit when over $3 million has been raised through crowdfunding offers, and have a minimum of two directors to assist with succession planning.

Again, while we largely support this bill we are mindful of the start-up community's criticisms concerning the further delays baked into the bill by this incompetent government. Notably, the government's current bill would force businesses to wait yet another six months after royal assent before they could access this regime. In our consultations with the sector they called for this delay to be significantly reduced, which is why we pushed for this on behalf of small business and innovative enterprises forced to wait for the new regime. Given the bulk of the regulatory changes that have been put in place, and the extraordinary length of time people have been made aware of the likely arrival of equity crowdfunding, we believe that one month after royal assent is long enough for the government.

To their credit—and I don't give them much credit; they don't give themselves much credit, so let's give them a little bit of credit—the government has taken on board the opposition's concerns and has indicated its willingness to scale back the wait time to one month. While we would have preferred no delay back in May, as the fin-tech sector called for, we recognise this does present challenges for the responsible regulators, so we accept the need to amend the start date accordingly. Having said that, just imagine if the government had scheduled this debate sooner. We may well have had the new regime start earlier. I commend our amendment to the Senate and urge the crossbench to support our commonsense proposition.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:22): I rise today to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017. It is an absolute joy and a privilege to speak on this bill in the chamber today, particularly after my colleague from across the chamber Senator Cameron—Senator 'Bagpipe Happy Chap'—quite clearly supports this bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Senator Hume, that is not appropriate language to be used in the Senate chamber and I'd ask you to withdraw it and refer to senators by their correct titles.

Senator HUME: My apologies. Senator Cameron is always good-natured and always cheerful! This is a bill that the opposition actually supports, and he was miserable giving his not quite 20 minutes to the chamber today on the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017. This is a man who, quite clearly, didn't understand the content of the bill. He peppered it with bile, spewing forth throughout, reading the contents of his speech today in the chamber. Quite clearly, Senator Cameron is a man who has invested in nothing in his life. He has taken no risks in investment in his life other than, potentially, investing in whatever might give him a comfortable retirement.

I would like to touch on four areas today: why I support this bill very enthusiastically; the specific provisions of the legislation and what the bill, in fact, does; the broader contribution of crowdfunding, generally, to Australia's economic prosperity; and how this builds on the work that the coalition is doing to support small businesses and start-ups in Australia.

Why would the government support this particular bill? In Australia we are not simply a nation of dreamers, we are a nation of doers. To provide my colleagues with some context to this: in June 2016 there were 2.2 million businesses trading across Australia. The number of new start-ups in the year prior to that was up 1.2 per cent. Indeed, the coalition's innovation agenda ushered in the promise of easy access for start-ups to crowdsourced equity funding, funding for incubator support programs, and tax incentives for investors.

Prime Minister Morrison has said that those in this country willing to have a go should get a go, and that is fairness. He has been very clear that this bill forms part of the coalition's determination to deliver on that promise. This is in step with many other advanced economies that have embraced crowdsourced equity funding in support of business growth, from the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, which provides compelling and renowned alternatives for funding business development, to Singapore, which has recently made similar changes of its own to ensure a more streamlined and simplified framework for businesses to start up and to invest.

So the legislation that we are discussing today is very much some of the metal behind that vision that the government has set out in that initial work on the innovation agenda. While the title of this bill doesn't sound particularly exciting, it will have an impact on thousands of businesses and individuals who aspire to bring ideas to the market. They will have more access to money to do so and will have their chance to have a go and make their dreams come true. That is truly exciting.

So that's why good government matters. It's about making the changes that genuinely, really count, rather than just whining and complaining all the time and finding something to be miserable about. Extending that good framework for crowdsourced funding is a key example of the former. I honestly think that Senator Cameron has spent way too much time in opposition. I think five years of opposition is beginning to take its toll. He has nothing good to say anymore, even about a genuinely good piece of legislation. Crowdsourced funding enables start-ups and small to medium sized businesses to raise money from the public to finance their businesses. These can be very small amounts from a broad range of investors. There may be quite a large number of investors. Companies that have less than $25 million in assets and annual revenue can raise up to $5 million a year using crowdsourced funding. When I became a senator, I stood in this chamber and said that in 20 years I wanted to be able to look my children in the eye and assure them that my generation did all that it could to create a prosperous and productive Australia. If we get this right, those born after 1992, currently aged 26 and under, not only will lead the entrepreneurial charge but will now be equipped to do so. Legislation like this will help ensure that future generations lead the charge for growth and business development in this country, the like of which we have never known.

Let's talk very briefly about what this bill actually does. Under the existing law, companies must use a crowdsourced funding, or CSF, platform, usually online, to make their investment offer. This is run by an intermediary that must have an Australian financial services licence authorising them to provide crowdsourced funding services. The intermediary acts as a gatekeeper between the company and investors and checks the company and the investment information that the company provides before the offer is placed on the website. For example, the crowdsourced funding website must have a warning for investors about the risks of investing through crowdsourced funding, as well as copies of the offer documents for each investment, which have important information about the business making the offer. The website must also have an online portal that potential investors can use to ask the company and the intermediary questions about the investment.

The bill we're discussing in the chamber today makes an essential legislative amendment to the Corporations Act by extending the legislative framework for crowdsourced equity funding beyond public companies to proprietary companies as well. It builds on an already established crowdsourced funding equity framework for public companies which commences at the end of this month.

'What is crowdsourced funding?' I hear you ask, Acting Deputy President. Crowd-sourced equity funding is a relatively new and innovative concept. It enables businesses to source capital from a very broad range of investors online. Typically, each investor will contribute a small amount of money in return for an equity stake in the business. The coalition consulted at length on this extension of the policy to proprietary companies, and the submissions received as part of this consultation expressed widespread support for extending the crowdsourced equity funding model and framework to proprietary companies. Extending the framework to proprietary companies builds on the existing framework for public companies and, as such, will incorporate many of those existing features of the public company framework that I mentioned earlier, such as the obligations for intermediaries and the process of making crowdsourced funding offers.

In Australia, private companies or proprietary companies are limited to 50 non-employee shareholders, so, to ensure that proprietary companies can effectively access the framework without breaching that cap of 50 non-employee shareholders for proprietary companies, investors who acquire shares through crowdfunding offers will not be counted in that shareholder cap. Subsequent transfers by crowdfunding investors who onsell their shares will also be exempt if the company is not listed on the financial market.

Crowdfunding priority companies will be exempt from takeover provisions, also consistent with the light-touch regulatory approach of the equity crowdfunding regime. The takeover rules are in fact very complex and would be very, very costly for proprietary companies using crowdsourced funding to understand and comply with. Recognising that this is in fact an extension is a new approach to the proprietary company framework in Australia. These companies will face some additional obligations, such as a minimum of two directors, financial reporting in accordance with reporting standards, and restrictions on related party transactions. This demonstrates the robust nature of the safeguards contained in the legislation before the chamber today while still embracing new start-up and business ventures and allowing them to grow, to expand and, hopefully, to thrive.

In addition, it is important to know that proprietary companies that raise $3 million or more will also be required to maintain audited financial statements. To ensure consistency with the proprietary company framework, the bill also increases the audit threshold for eligible public companies from $1 million to $3 million. Finally, the bill removes the temporary new public company concessions in the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Act 2017. These concessions will be grandfathered for companies that register with a public company status prior to the bill taking effect after royal assent. These changes will not blur the lines between public and proprietary companies. It is perhaps worth noting that 98 per cent of Australian registered companies are in fact proprietary companies, and start-ups in particular adopt this structure. An inflexible approach would result in a much higher regulatory burden that deters business growth.

I'd like to touch on the contribution of crowdsourced funding to the economy. I've already outlined the specific impact of this legislation and the changes in detail. As mentioned, crowdsourced funding enables start-ups and small to medium-sized businesses to raise money directly from the public to finance their businesses and can be sourced from a variety of investors. We're seeing significant good-news stories already in Australia as a result of crowdsourced funding techniques. Indeed, since the equity crowdfunding framework was originally passed, in March last year, Australia has seen its first crowdsource-funded power retail company launched, a company called DC Power Co. It's hoped that this particular company will tap into almost two million solar households, and potentially six million by the year 2050. This solar energy disruptor has claimed a world record for the most people ever around the world participating in a crowdfunded equity raising, with over 17,625 retail investors taking part. It's a brilliant example of the contribution crowdsourced funding can make to Australia's economic prosperity. This particular company intends to seek investment from up to 95,000 people in order to raise a total of $4.75 million. So it's not the future of raising capital; in fact we're already facing the reality of how capital is raised, and this is what this bill specifically acknowledges.

When we look at the bigger picture, crowdfunding offers a foundation for start-ups that automatically creates more job opportunities, which are of course essential to a growing economy. Moreover, generating a buzz around a forthcoming product or service often leads to more sales and more revenue generated. So crowdsourced funding can be a marketing tool as well as an equity-raising tool. The coalition thinks this is a good thing, and the coalition is delivering on legislation to make it possible. Business thinks this is a good thing. Entrepreneurs think this is a good thing. Innovators think this is a good thing. So the coalition thinks this is a good thing too.

There are other ways small businesses and start-ups are being supported by the coalition. Let me turn now to talk about some of those other ways in which small businesses are being supported. The government's support of small businesses and start-ups does not start and end with crowdsourced funding; although it does make it easier, it's only one part of the puzzle. There are a range of initiatives already in place that make entrepreneurship and small business easier in Australia. Let me talk first about the Entrepreneurs' Program, which helps businesses increase productivity and competitiveness, linking them with funds and access to a national network of private sector advisers and facilitators across Australia. This is the government's flagship initiative for business competitiveness and productivity. It provides a range of grants, offering ventures up to 50 per cent of expenditure on a particular project, and applicants can seek free expert advice on ventures to address their knowledge gaps.

Another initiative is the CSIRO Kick-Start program, which is driving innovation by supporting local start-ups. It focuses on the research and testing of companies that have a new idea, a novel product or a service. It gives small to medium enterprises that are in the start-up phase access to the CSIRO's research expertise and capabilities and helps them grow and develop their businesses. Eligible companies have to be registered in Australia for GST, have an annual turnover of $1.5 million or less in the current and past two financial years and have been registered as a company for fewer than three years. They receive dollar-matched funding to research, develop or test a product or a process with commercial potential.

Another one of my personal favourites is the Biomedical Translation Fund, which supports start-ups operating in the area of health and wellbeing. It was established originally as part of the coalition's National Innovation and Science Agenda, and it's armed with over $250 million of Commonwealth capital and an additional $250 million from private sector capital. So far, ten investments have been made through the Biomedical Translation Fund, the BTF, including $7.5 million in a start-up company called Global Kinetics in April this year. Global Kinetics is an extraordinary company. It creates watches that measure movements, whether they be tremors, dyskinesia or other movement disorder symptoms. They collect data on the frequency and severity of those movements, which can change the lives of patients with Parkinson's disease.

We also have the R&D tax incentive to help all businesses stay ahead of the curve through a tax offset and encourage innovation, even in the smallest of ventures. From 1 July 2016, companies with an annual turnover of under $20 million can claim a 43.5 per cent refundable tax offset against R&D expenditure that amounts to $100 million or less. All other eligible companies can claim a 38.5 per cent non-refundable tax offset. For R&D expenditure under $20,000, companies can only make a claim if it was undertaken with a research service provider or a cooperative centre.

There are a number of other programs run by the government that can provide incentives, whether they be financial or otherwise, to help young companies get off the ground, like the Venture Capital Limited Partnerships program in Australia, which attracts foreign investors to Australia and boosts the local venture capital market with tax benefits. To be eligible for that, funds must register as a venture capital partnership under the Venture Capital Act 2002 and make commercial, non-property, non-construction or non-infrastructure investments and hold them for at least 12 months. Those investments must be in ventures where the total assets are valued at under $250 million, 50 per cent of the assets are located in Australia and at least 50 per cent of the employees are in Australia. Tax benefits for VCLPs include flowthrough taxation treatment, exemption from capital gains tax on the share of profits made by the partnership and the ability to claim carried interest on the capital account instead of revenue.

Another program is the Austrade Landing Pads initiative, which aims to give Australian start-ups a leg-up in the global market by immersing them in one of five world-class innovation hubs. Start-ups accepted into Landing Pads in Singapore, Berlin, Shanghai, Tel Aviv or San Francisco benefit from an on-the-ground presence plus access to networks, talent, mentors and investors. To be eligible, start-ups must demonstrate a strong vision, scalability, traction and differentiation and explain how 90 days in a landing pad in one of those five markets could help their venture. Austrade provides workspace, an accelerator and free services, but participants have to fund their own travel, accommodation, living costs, visas, insurance et cetera. Austrade may also provide funding, potentially, for global start-ups in Australia through Export Market Development Grants.

Without doubt, the Morrison coalition government is doing significant work to put small business and start-up development at the core of its innovation agenda. It requires constant work. It's not something about which any government could afford to be complacent.

As credit becomes tighter, it impacts the viability of some businesses. So it is important—it is absolutely critical—that we, as a government, are constantly looking for better ways to help incentivise development and embrace the future, and crowdsourced funding goes such a long way towards that. It's not the only solution, and I think I've made that clear today. There are other ways to help and encourage young businesses, start-ups, small to medium enterprises, people with a good idea and people with a dream. How do we help them get a chance, get their first foot in the door, get a leg-up? How do we help their businesses grow and thrive and survive? Crowdsourced funding is part of the puzzle.

The Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill strives to balance supporting investment, reducing compliance costs and maintaining appropriate investor protections for proprietary companies as well as for public companies. I believe, and the coalition believes, that this legislation will go a long way to ensuring that Australia embraces crowdsourced funding—the concept of crowdsourced funding, and the opportunities that come with it—as a viable route by which small businesses and start-ups can establish themselves, grow, expand, flourish and, hopefully, employ more Australians, because, when it comes down to it, that's what it's all about. That's why we want businesses to grow. That's why jobs and growth are so important to the coalition. Jobs aren't ends in themselves; they're a means to allow society to grow and to flourish, to survive and to thrive.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:42): I rise to speak about the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017. After listening to the speeches in the chamber today, I can't wait to get out of here and go and sign up to some of these amazing crowdsourced equity projects. It's going to build the nation.

But let's be very clear: what we're talking about here is risk capital—in fact, some of the highest risk capital that we can see being raised through a retail offer. I've raised concerns about this in the past—in fact, this morning, going into this debate, I read my previous speech—and I have looked closely at the bill, and I will say that some of the concerns I have raised previously have been addressed in this bill. But we're talking about risk capital here. We're talking about entrepreneurs raising money—to the $10,000 limit—from an unlimited number of Australians, up to their subscription level. Ten thousand dollars might not be a lot to people in this chamber, or to some people in this chamber, but it is a lot of money to an individual Australian.

Unfortunately, my experience, from having worked in equities markets both here and overseas, is: I've seen the best and the worst. I've seen the kind of unscrupulous behaviour that leads to severe hardship and loss of money. I campaigned, and my party campaigned, for four years to get a royal commission into misconduct in the banking and financial services sector. That's happening now, and we've seen a whole range of examples raised of how things can go wrong—and they're not necessarily even in high-risk products; quite often they're in things like superannuation and insurance. But what we're dealing with here is the highest risk spectrum of fundraising for retail investors.

In the past, before crowdsourcing became a thing in recent years, entrepreneurs who had a risky project at a very early stage of development—which, by definition, often makes it risky—would go to angel investors. Angel investors are highly sophisticated investors. They understand risk. They understand that the majority of these projects will never be commercialised. They will never be commercialised. Some of them aren't designed to be commercialised, I agree with that. In my first speech on this bill, I gave the example of a honey-making technology in Byron Bay—a friend of mine was involved in that. That was designed to create a backyard honey-making operation. It wasn't really designed to make a lot of money, but it's been quite a successful crowdsourcing venture.

I've seen what happens when you let sharks into the pool. There's plenty of burley being thrown in the water here with this legislation, let me tell you. I've seen, in particular, the high-risk end of the equities market. I've seen unscrupulous company directors mining shareholders for many years, continually raising equity capital on the promise that they were going to deliver high returns—blue-sky mining at its best. I'm concerned that the same kind of people that continually make a living out of being shysters—and it astounds me how they keep coming back—will look at this structure before us and will say: 'Yes, I'm going to participate in this. I don't need to have my accounts audited until they're at $3 million.' There is a list of things they'll have to comply with, but at the end of the day we are talking about blue-sky projects; we are talking about things at the early stages of development, which, who knows, may or may not get up. If an investor understands the risk—an investor is diversified, and they're happy to put $10,000 into a project that they either support on a personal or a philosophical level, or they don't mind losing $10,000 if it doesn't get up—that's fine. If they put in the $10,000 and they understand they may lose it but also that they might potentially get a very high return in the future, that's also fine. But, once again, whether it was the FOFA laws that we debated in here years ago, or the long and winding road to a royal commission, we can't make the assumption that investors will get that asymmetric information and a whole range of other things we looked at in detail in committees.

I have a few questions, if I get to be around when we go in committee, Acting Deputy President Bernardi, but I may be sitting in your chair, so it may not happen. So I would like to put on record the things I don't believe have been addressed in this bill. I'm still very concerned about secondary markets for these, let's call them, parcels or investment units in crowdsourced funding operations or companies. Whether it's a public company or a proprietary company, what is the secondary market? Is there one for these investments? We know that there's an appointed intermediary who has to have a licence and that they are going to be regulated by ASIC, but, once again, I ask people to look at the landscape here. We're getting a lot of revelations from the royal commission about how difficult it is for our regulators to get on top of these issues, even in big, well-respected blue-chip corporations.

Once again, we are dealing with extremely high risk equity capital here—the highest risk financing that I can see in the spectrum. So, putting aside any doubts I might have about whether ASIC have the resources and the powers to do their job properly in relation to these kinds of things and whether they will, I'm still very concerned that one of the key indicators of risk in any investment is liquidity. How will I get out of my investment if I choose to? Who will price that? Am I locked in, in perpetuity? What is the exit strategy for an investor in these businesses? Is it that, because they're investing in something, they can receive a unit of it, like the physical delivery of a product in the case of the honey-making product that my friend in Byron Bay was involved in? People invested their money so that they could actually get a unit of it. It was like a down payment on getting it once it was produced. Is it an investment to purely make a capital return? If so, how do I trade out of my shares, my units in these investment companies? If the company goes public—and, I think, in a diversified portfolio of high-risk angel investors, you might expect one in 20 or 30 companies to be successful. If my company were successful and it went on to become, for example, a listed company on the stock market because the technology had taken off, who prices the original unit holders? How is that process enacted? Do unit holders get access to an IPO? What happens if the company that has been set up through CSF decides that it wants to sell the company or sell the asset? I understand there are restrictions here on takeovers, but what if the company voluntarily decides to sell its technology to a third party, which quite often happens? Who prices the exit strategy for those CSF investors in that business?

This is a very immature market. As Senator Hume outlined, we really are at the beginning of a bountiful period, where these kinds of vehicles are going to facilitate entrepreneurial flair and develop the industries of the future. If that's the case, then I would say today that we need to watch this very closely. While the intentions of a lot of people in the fin-tech industry who are trying to do the right thing may be very good, it will attract sharks. Unfortunately, that's a sad fact of life. So how do we actually manage these risks? Is there going to be a secondary market? Do the financial intermediaries—the licence holders—provide any advice to investors? Will they be doing any research? They're handling the transactions. Having been a broker myself, it's very hard to handle transactions, if there is any kind of secondary market, without providing advice. And will that also be regulated under the Corporations Act and by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission? We're dealing with high-risk capital here and with the potential for investors to be ripped off. I'm sure there's potential for investors to be happy and to realise long-term returns but, given how immature this market is, I certainly would like to see answers to these questions.

On that note, I hope that I'll get a chance to ask some of these questions in committee and I will say that the Greens will be supporting this bill primarily because issues like the audit limit are subject to review. There is flexibility built into the legislation to allow these things to be changed as we fine-tune this and watch it very closely, but I do want some confidence in liquidity and the risk that poses to future investors.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:52): I'd like to thank all those senators who have contributed to this debate. This bill gives effect to the government's commitment to extend crowdsourced equity funding to proprietary companies in Australia. Extending the crowdfunding framework to proprietary companies will allow these companies to access an alternative form of finance, with additional obligations in place to protect investors.

Alternative forms of finance are particularly important for innovative, early-stage businesses that may have difficulty accessing funding from traditional sources. As part of this bill, proprietary companies wanting to access equity crowdfunding will no longer have to convert to public company type, with its more onerous obligations. Instead, founders will be able to crowdfund while retaining the greater flexibility of the proprietary model. This extension will enable proprietary companies to access the existing regime that passed the parliament in March 2017. Providing one framework for both public and proprietary companies will reduce complexity, as proprietary companies will use the existing offer document processes and licensing regime for crowdsourced equity funding intermediaries. Investors in crowdfunding proprietary companies will benefit from the intermediary obligations and minimum requirements of the offer document, as set out in the existing crowdfunding framework.

Crowdfunding proprietary companies will be exempt from the takeover provisions that usually apply once a company has more than 50 shareholders. The government listened to stakeholder feedback that the draft legislation's proposed exit arrangements would hamper legitimate capital raising. However, as it is common for proprietary companies to have tag rights in their constitutions, which allow smaller shareholders to participate in a buyout, the government proposes to include in regulations a requirement for companies to disclose these rights in the crowdfunding offer document.

Recognising that proprietary companies generally have lower reporting and governance obligations than public companies, investors in proprietary companies will benefit from appropriate additional protections. These include a minimum of two directors, financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting standards, and auditing of financial statements once a proprietary company has raised at least $3 million through crowdsourced equity funding.

Crowdfunding proprietary companies will also be subject to the related party transaction rules under part 2E of the Corporations Act 2001. These additional company obligations will promote investor confidence in the market by ensuring that companies have a minimum level of transparency with their crowd investors. Transparency of the online market enabled by technology also gives shareholders greater power. Confidence in the market will ensure the sustainability of the equity crowdfunding regime. This will help maintain a diversity of funding options that small businesses need in order to succeed. The government has consulted at length on the extension of this policy to proprietary companies to seek an appropriate balance on the trade-off between the corporate governance and transparency measures that are necessary to protect retail investors and the cost of compliance for small innovative companies.

Submissions expressed widespread support for the extension of the crowdsourced equity funding framework to proprietary companies, although they have diverse views on the detailed design elements. The government has closely listened to this feedback and considers that the bill strikes the right balance between the need for transparency and good corporate governance and the costs of compliance. The extension of the crowdsourced equity funding framework in this bill will take effect six months after it receives royal assent, although I note the amendment from the opposition, which the government will be supporting and which will see the bill take effect earlier than was initially anticipated.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission received $4.5 million in the 2017-18 budget to implement and monitor the extension of the equity crowdfunding framework. This bill's introduction will enable proprietary companies to obtain the capital they need to turn good ideas into commercial successes while providing Australian investors with a larger pool of choice. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:57): If I can get straight to the point, Minister, around secondary markets: if I were to take my $10,000 allocation in a proprietary limited company that was set up, would I be able to sell my allotments through CSF intermediaries? I know that they actually are placing the book bill to get these things financed in the first place. But will they be playing a role in secondary markets—not just the primary capitalisation of these businesses? Will they play a secondary role? Will they be providing advice to investors? And will they do any research around the nature of these equity investments, whatever they be?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:58): I would say a couple of things in response. Obviously, by their nature, investments in small unlisted companies, including CSF companies, will be illiquid. All CSF offers must include a risk warning that discloses to investors the risk that their investment will be illiquid. However, the bill includes provisions to allow CSF shareholders to transfer their shares to other people without counting towards the 50-shareholder cap that exists for proprietary companies if that transfer occurs before the company is listed on a financial market. This provides some flexibility for CSF shareholders who may wish to exit their investment. If over time a secondary market for CSF shares develops, the operator of that market will need to obtain an Australian market licence and comply with relevant consumer protection requirements.

Internationally we see secondary markets emerging, firstly by trading between existing shareholders. In addition, I think you asked whether financial advice could be provided. Crowdfunding intermediaries are not allowed to provide advice on crowdfunding offers. This is to mitigate potential conflicts of interest between the intermediary and investors.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:59): That's pretty much what I was told last time when we had a committee stage on this—that potentially there may be a secondary market and financial intermediaries may provide a brokering function. You said there's been some development of these kinds of markets overseas. Have any existing financial licence holders in Australia shown interest in registering for this? Does it have to be a separate registration? For example, can an existing stockbroking equities company now take on a role of buying and selling share parcels in these CSF companies? Have they expressed any interest in it? How will that be regulated?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (11:00): I am advised that it is in a formative stage and that there hasn't been interest expressed as yet but that any brokers in future would obviously have to have an Australian market licence.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:01): I understand that. But there are obviously a lot of them that do, and they will buy and sell pretty much anything—such as movie tickets, concert tickets or whatever—and they will charge commission. So this is something I am going to watch very closely. It is, as you say, very high risk. It's illiquid.

I am also concerned about the exit strategies. What kind of requirements will there be for companies that set up and decide to list publicly or sell their assets or even their entire company to a third party? How will the contributions of unit holders, especially early unit holders, be valued in relation to the sale of the assets? I am also very interested on a personal level in how that would occur in relation to the existing shareholders, the ones who have already set up these businesses. How do their contributions get valued compared to new CSF shareholders?

I will give you an example. I've set up my honey business. I've worked on it for five years. It is my idea. I put the original capital in to make the prototype. I know it works. I then set up a CSF company. I raise $5 million. I have to come up with a value for issuing those CSF parcels to individual investors. How do we look at the interaction between how I value my own shares, because I set it up, and other shares? Is it preliminary to the CSF stage of development? When it gets to the next stage—if it ever gets to the next stage—where it is commercialised and monetised through the share market or for a sale, what requirements will there be to make sure that initial investors get looked after and get an adequate return? If there is no secondary market, how do you price that?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (11:03): Once a proprietary company has a successful CSF offer, without a specific exemption the general takeover provisions would apply as the company would have more than 50 shareholders, whether CSF, employee or other. An exemption from the takeover provisions is consistent with a light-touch regulatory approach to the CSF regime. The takeover rules are very complex and would be difficult and costly for proprietary companies to understand and comply with. While there will be no legislative provisions on takeovers, it is common for proprietary companies to have tag rights in their constitutions which allow smaller shareholders to participate in a buyout. Proposed revisions to regulations for the CSF regime will ensure that the existence or not of these rights is disclosed in the CSF offer document. In terms of sale of assets, related party rules would apply.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:04): I know there are a whole range of motivations as to why people put their money into these things. Sometimes they just want to see them happen and be successful for philosophical reasons or whatever. But an investor has to know their exit strategy and their pathway. I think that needs to be very clearly spelt out such that they are going to get fair and equitable treatment in the valuation of any exit strategy, whether they sell on a secondary market or whether they get bought out.

You said takeovers there. I did listen to that carefully and I read it in the explanatory memorandum, but sale of an asset can be quite different to a takeover, and a takeover can be hostile or it can be nonhostile. So I am a bit confused as to what we are dealing with here. I understand if it's a hostile takeover why you would want to exclude them, but in terms of the sale of their business or their asset to a third party is that also what you're classifying as a takeover?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (11:05): I've laid out in terms of takeovers and I also added in the answer that in terms of sale of assets, in the circumstances you've outlined, that that's where the related party rules would apply.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:06): I would like to continue to prosecute this, but I don't feel I am going to get the answers or the detail today. I will just make the point that I will be watching, and the Greens will be watching, this very closely to see how it develops. We hope it's very successful, that it raises lots of money and that it does the right thing, but I remain sceptical until proven otherwise.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:06): I move the Labor amendment in my name on sheet 8386:

(1) Clause 2, page 2, (table item 2, column 2), omit "day after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day", substitute "28th day after".

Labor is proposing this amendment to reduce the time it will take for proprietary companies to access the crowdfunding source equity regime from six months after royal assent of this bill to 28 days after royal assent.

I note that Senator Seselja has indicated government support for that amendment and I thank him for that. Previously, there had been no explanation from the government as to why they had built these delays in. Given the government has indicated support, I might just leave my comments at that. I commend our amendment to the crossbenchers as a sensible proposal.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (11:07): Just briefly, as I indicated earlier, the government will be supporting the opposition amendment. The government is committed to fostering a more innovative and creative Australian economy, and crowdfunding enables start-ups and early-stage businesses to access the funding they need. Of course, in order to secure legislative passage and to implement this important reform as soon as possible the government agrees with this amendment.

Since this bill was introduced, the CSF framework for public companies has been implemented, intermediaries have been licensed, offers successfully made and preparation for the extension to proprietary companies has been advanced considerably. The government has conducted consultations on the draft regulations needed to support this extension and is ready to put them in place promptly following the passage of the bill.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (11:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:10): The Airports Amendment Bill 2018 amends the Airports Act 1996 to streamline processes for the development at and around federally leased airports. The Commonwealth is the consent authority for major developments at airports, which is unusual for infrastructure projects. Nineteen of the 21 federally leased airports are required to submit a master plan every five years for approval by the minister. Each master plan sets out strategic development over a 20-year period. The master plan process requires community consultation. Specific major projects require federal approval or a separate major development plan.

In its original form, the bill made the following changes: all airports will be required to submit master plans, which will be removed from a five-year cycle to an eight-year cycle; an updated Australian noise exposure forecast will be required for each of the master plans; there will be a money trigger for the separate major development plans that will arise; there will be 15 days for the minister to consider reduced consultation periods for the major plans with deemed approval if that time frame is not met; there will be a proposal to enable the minister to extend, more than once, the period during which major developments are required to be substantially completed; and, finally, airport operators will be allowed to notify the minister of exceptional circumstances that mean a major development cannot proceed. The government claimed that these changes removed inefficient outcomes and onerous administrative burdens for the industry.

This bill is being debated at a time of considerable development at our nation's major airports. It also occurs at a time of considerable growth in air transport. Over the past 20 years, international passenger movement has grown at an annual average rate of some 4.5 per cent. That is slightly above the GDP growth in aviation. Labor has made it very clear that we support broad consultation with local communities, proper assessments of community impacts and reasonable mitigation measures to reduce those impacts when it comes to the question of airport development. We've had some concerns about the original form of this bill, but the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Mr McCormack, was prepared to work with the shadow minister to resolve these issues in a bipartisan manner and make this a better bill. Firstly, as the bill originally proposed increasing the monetary trigger for requiring the development of a major development plan from $20 million to $35 million, the government agreed to a lower trigger of $25 million. This figure, in our judgement, more accurately reflects the recent increases in construction costs.

Secondly, the initial bill introduced into the House proposed inserting a new subsection that would have provided that, if an airport makes a request for a shorter consultation period for a major development plan and the minister doesn't make a decision on the request within 15 business days, the minister is deemed to have approved that shorter period. Labor could not have supported such an amendment. Of course, the amendment undermined the right of local communities to actually have a say. In the words of the Bills Digest, which were prepared by the Parliamentary Library:

This amendment seems to raise the possibility that the Minister could simply not decide on the request, and then be deemed to have approved the short period, even if the development is inconsistent with the airport master plan, or raises issues that have a significant impact on the local or regional community.

It should be well within a minister's capability to consider any request for reduced consultation within 15 business days, and that's why we welcome the government's decision to accept Labor's amendment which will deem any request for a shorter consultation period not approved by the minister within the 15 business days as being refused. This will achieve the right balance. And if we don't get the balance right in these tragic circumstances, I think it is of great disadvantage to local communities.

Now, we saw the situation that occurred in my locality—I'll make this point. I've actually lived underneath a flight path with regard to Essendon Airport. I no longer live under a flight path, I'm pleased to say, but I do still live in Pascoe Vale in Melbourne, a few minutes from Essendon Airport. The circumstances that arose with regard to the events in February 2017, where a Beechcraft Super King Air B200 crashed into the DFO shopping centre in Essendon, has stuck quite dramatically in the minds of the local community.

The circumstances of this incident, I acknowledge, are still under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. But I am reminded that that shopping centre is within, I think, 170 metres of the runway. It is an extraordinary thing to actually visit that shopping centre and see just how close it is to the runway at Essendon. This crash was described at the time as 'Victoria's worst civil aviation accident in 30 years,' and it caused concern for residents and businesses surrounding the airport. I make the point that not only is that runway very close to the DFO but it's also very close to the freeways that run parallel to the airport and cut across the flight path of that runway.

Having received an overwhelming volume of calls and correspondence from local constituents, Mr Khalil, the federal member in the seat of Wills, and Mr Shorten, the federal member adjacent to the airport in the seat of Maribyrnong, hosted, in December 2017, a community forum at Strathmore Heights Community Hall, which is just around the corner from where I live. Hundreds of local residents attended, as well as representatives of the Victorian government and considerable media. It reflected the concerns of residents. The points that were raised by Mr Khalil and Mr Shorten had been presented in a letter to Mr Chester in October 2017, saying that until the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has published its findings about the fatal crash that occurred on 21 February 2017 questions remain unanswered about the safety of the airport, especially given the proximity of commercial and residential developments.

This tragic event at Essendon and incidents at other airports like Moorabbin highlight the need to get the planning balance right—that is, the balance between community safety and airport operations. I've long held the view that it's not unreasonable to suggest that the primary purpose of airports is aviation, not retail. I think the balance has been lost in the planning decisions that have been taken at a number of airports around the country.

I make the observation that Labor has had a look at the second reading amendment to this legislation proposed by the Greens. We won't be supporting that amendment, but we do readily acknowledge the concerns of community groups and individuals who are affected by airport noise. We acknowledge that policymakers and agencies that oversee these issues have to pursue practical measures to minimise the impacts that airports have on communities that live around them. It is a simple proposition that airports are not islands. They have grown up in circumstances where the communities around them have changed over time. We have to acknowledge, however, that a proper balance needs to be set.

That is why the last Labor government developed and implemented Australia's first-ever national aviation white paper, which strengthened the community consultation requirements and put in place transparent public oversight developments at Commonwealth leased airports. These measures include requiring all Commonwealth leased airports to establish community aviation consultation groups to address planning and development issues and a range of other operational matters, such as aircraft noise; establishing an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman; banning older, noisier aircraft flying over residential areas; obligating Commonwealth leased airports to submit more detailed master plans; and introducing a new major development plan trigger that is activated by any development with a significant community impact, regardless of the size or cost, ensuring communities get the opportunity to scrutinise developments which may be contentious within a local area, including proposed new flight paths.

Lastly, Labor supports the April 2018 recommendations that were made by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, following her investigations into the complaints about the introduction of the new flight paths in Hobart, including that Airservices access external expertise in community consultation to develop a 'more detailed community engagement strategy'. Labor also supports the ombudsman's recommendations that would strengthen Airservices' complaint management processes so as to ensure that the concerns of affected residents are managed effectively. These measures would benefit not only those who make complaints but also Airservices itself.

I think Australians generally acknowledge the importance of our aviation infrastructure. Labor have certainly always supported investment in Australia's aviation infrastructure. We are committed to supporting the growth of the industry, but growth must be underpinned by compacts between airports and local communities. The amended form of this bill, in our judgement, will help to ensure that airport planning processes remain transparent, while giving the industry the certainty to plan and invest for the longer term.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:23): The Airports Amendment Bill 2018 is evidence of the government going in entirely the wrong direction. It is not a particularly bad bill, like many that we see in the Senate, nor is it a particularly punitive bill, like some we have seen this week—such as the cashless welfare card bill—but it is a bill that is going in the wrong direction. It is yet another example of government being entirely wedded to making things easy for incumbent businesses and those with access and power, rather than looking after the interests of ordinary people in the community.

I want to go through the changes that this bill makes. It wants to raise the threshold for airports needing to release major development plans. We already did this. In 2007, this parliament amended the act to raise the threshold from $10 million to $20 million. Why do we need to do it again?

What evidence does the government have that doing this is in the overall interests of the community? The major development plan process is a critical time for communities to be involved in the direction of airports and the impact that airports are going to have on them. It allows communities to see, comment on and engage with the activities of an airport and to ensure that their interests are protected. Why does the threshold need to be higher? It's only been a decade since we doubled the threshold, and here we are increasing it again. The government was proposing an increase to $35 million. It's good to see that it has been brought back to $25 million by amendments in the House. But the question remains: why are we going in this direction? What is the rationale for doing this?

It's the same with the airport master plans. The development of master plans, like with the major development plan process, is one of the very few periods where we as members of a community get to see the direction that an airport is heading in. It is our key chance to make comments and to have input into that vision. This is so important for local communities, local residents and, in fact, local governments which co-exist with airports. But here we have the government trying to extend the period for when airports need to issue master plans, which basically will make it more difficult for the community to engage and it will be less frequent.

I suppose, yes, we should be grateful that the legislation doesn't require the major airports in our four larger cities to have their master plan cycle changed from the current five-year cycle. But why do we need to extend it to eight years for all of our other federally leased airports? Okay, it's in the interests of the airports, but it is not in the interests of the local communities that are affected by those airports. The government, of course, says that it has consulted on these changes. For a bit of discussion about this I turned to the Bill's Digest, and we are told that in 2014, quite a while ago now, the then Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development circulated a discussion paper on efficiency proposals for the master plan and major development plan processes under the Airports Act—that is, this was the beginning of the process underpinning what this legislation is enacting today. This discussion paper was apparently distributed to a range of stakeholders who fed into a second discussion paper for consultation in May 2015. The second discussion paper set out a number of recommended better regulation proposals, many of which are contained in this bill.

So where are these discussion papers? Where are the submissions? They certainly don't seem to be publicly available. Why does the explanatory memorandum not mention this consultation process or show any details of that consultation, particularly given that consultation now happened over four years ago and it has taken this long to get to this stage of enacting the results of the recommendations in legislation? Given the lack of documentation it's impossible to confirm this, but perhaps it's actually not useful for this government to have such a smoking gun of them listening entirely to the interests of the industry over the interests of the community.

Although the government has wisely decided not to go ahead with this proposed change, the worst idea in the original bill was to allow a proposed reduction in the public comment period from 60 days to 15 days in the event that the minister merely remained silent rather than the minister actively having to decide to allow a shortened comment period. We note that the minister currently has the power to do this, but only when the development is consistent with the airport master plan and doesn't raise any issues that have a significant impact on the local or regional community. How ridiculous would that have been, that simply by standing to the side and remaining silent the minister could create a 75 per cent reduction in public comment time? It's very illustrative of the regard that this government has for community consultation. It's very telling who they are really serving. It's the big business, the aviation industry, over the interests of local residents. We know that from the fact that that measure could even have been proposed. So we're glad to see that amendments that passed the House removed this proposed change.

This attitude—governing in the interests of business, vested interests, political donors and their mates—feeds the alienation that's driving our politics. Average members of the public are feeling that the deck is stacked against them and that the people who government are really listening to are big business and their corporate mates. We hear a lot from this government about red tape and regulation driving up the cost of doing business. I've got news for this government: community consultation and public and social licence are not red tape; they're the very stock of goodwill that underpins our democracy. When we destroy the ability of the community to be informed and have their say we are building the basis for community discontent, public backlash and, ultimately, the politics of division and anger.

Recently, I was part of a Senate inquiry into my private senator's bill which would have amended the Air Services Act to require a much higher degree of consultation by airports and aviation operators, and which would have better protected communities from air noise. We developed the bill because, currently, communities affected by airports feel disempowered, left out and that their concerns are just being paid lip service to. They feel that the current consultative mechanisms do not achieve the aim of communities' concerns being listened to and acted on.

I want to share a few choice comments from the witnesses at the hearing we had in Melbourne. Frank Rivoli, from the Hume Residents Airport Action Group, said:

The issues we raise are dismissed by the airport operator, stakeholders, the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities and Airservices, on the basis that the airport is an important piece of infrastructure and economic driver.

Frank said that since 2014, when he's been on the Community Aviation Consultation Group:

… it's made no recommendations which result in any worthwhile things for community, apart from some of the proposals to challenge some building proposals.

He continues:

Our concerns are not being addressed seriously. Aircraft noise answers are usually on the basis that there's nothing that can be done about aircraft noise. It's a product of aviation. Airservices says, 'We're doing our best to manage but our responsibility is to the safety of air travellers and so on'. They're the sorts of things.

It's just become too much for us. I resigned from this committee—

The consultative committee—

about three or four weeks ago on the basis that there is no point since that committee has removed the public from its deliberations.

'No point'. I know Frank, and I have met with him often about his concerns about the impact of Melbourne Airport on his community, on the suburbs of Gladstone Park, Tullamarine, Westmeadows and Broadmeadows. I know how genuine Frank is about acting for the benefit of his community. He's just the sort of person that governments and agencies rely on to give up their time and energy to be a conduit between them and the community. Our whole democracy relies on people like Frank. We know people are feeling disempowered about politics. They're cynical about politics. They're tuned out because they don't feel that anything they can do will make a difference. They feel that they lack agency.

When you have a person like Frank, who tries his best to be involved, to be active and to participate in our democracy, and he says: 'There's no point. I'm resigning from the community consultative committee,' and gives up after so many years of trying to be meaningfully involved, that is serious. It's particularly serious for communities such as those that Frank represents. They are working-class communities, very multicultural communities and very diverse. The people are often doing their best to juggle working and surviving on low incomes, struggling with unemployment and feeling isolated and unvalued by the broader community. To have people like Frank say that there is no point engaging is a travesty. To have people like Frank standing up to represent the communities is a gift to us.

Before standing for election to the Senate, I worked for a few years for Hume City Council, which covers the airport environs. I worked in the strategic planning department and I know how difficult it was to get people involved with the work that the council was doing. We ran workshops. We had leadership programs. We ran empowerment and community engagement programs to get people involved, to build social capital and to give them the sense that it was worthwhile engaging and that you could make a difference by being involved with activities that government was doing.

To trash that social capital by so-called community engagement—community consultation which is nothing of the sort—is an absolute travesty. It is running so-called community consultation exercises where people put themselves out to give their opinions and then find that nothing changes. Yes, they're asked to give their opinions, but those opinions aren't listened to. That damages our democracy immensely. It's the very thing that builds cynicism, builds resentment and builds a sense that the voices and the needs of ordinary people don't matter and that decisions of government are made because of the interests of the rich and powerful, the big corporations, not because of what's in the interests of ordinary people. In so many circumstances, that perception of people that they're not being listened to is absolutely accurate. Their voices are being ignored and bad things are happening to their communities. They are being deafened by unacceptable aircraft noise day and night, because the airports, the airlines and the aviation industry in general are the ones who hold all the power and who determine what happens.

I'll share with you another quote from our hearing into my private senator's bill, my bill which would have changed that and would have required more meaningful consultation. In short, it would have given the community more power. Joe Biviano from the Moorabbin Airport Residents Association had this to say about the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman:

When they get complaints about noise, they will defer that and say: 'That's not our responsibility. You need to speak to the airport.' Their role, as they see it, is to deal with the complaint-handling process. So if the complaint-handling process is not done effectively, they will look at that; they do not actually deal with noise issues or try to address the root cause of what a noise issue may be.

This simply isn't good enough. We can't have consultation that's just a tick-and-flick exercise. In particular, the consultation that occurs around the times of major development plans and the airport master plans is critical. That's what has got to be done well. It has got to be at that time, because that is when you can have meaningful engagement and you can actually change the shape of what's going on at the airport so that these noise issues are ameliorated and reduced, reducing the impact on local communities.

The committee report into my private senator's bill noted that it was clear to the committee that there are significant noise impacts that affected communities are facing which are not being considered, let alone addressed, within the existing consultation frameworks. Yet this bill is taking us backwards by reducing the requirements, and the time frames for community engagement on them, at the most significant time when there needs to be consultation: the major development plan and the master planning processes. It's in these processes that we should be upping engagement, not reducing it. That's why I want to foreshadow that the Greens will be moving a second reading amendment to the bill as follows:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the government to develop and implement better consultation and community engagement standards for federally leased airports, to mitigate the impact of air noise on communities under major flight paths."

If my second reading amendment were passed and implemented, it would go some way to addressing the serious issues that I have outlined this legislation is ignoring.

Before I finish, one thing I will say is that the Greens do welcome the requirement to include new air noise exposure forecasts in each master plan. This is a good change. But that alone is not sufficient to garner our support for this bill. This is a bill that deserves to go back to the drawing board. Although it looks like it is going to pass here today, we call on other parties and the crossbench to support our amendment as a call to action to the government to look after impacted communities instead of helping big business ride roughshod over them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, I believe you had a second reading amendment? Are you moving it now?

Senator RICE: I thought I had done that, but formally, yes, I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the government to develop and implement better consultation and community engagement standards for federally leased airports, to mitigate the impact of air noise on communities under major flight paths."

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (11:39): It is a pleasure to join my colleagues in speaking to the Airports Amendment Bill 2018. There are obviously a lot of important issues to consider in the context of laws relating to our airports and the impact they have on communities. Senator Rice was discussing that, and that is something I will touch on later. It is something I know Senator McKim is aware of in our home state of Tasmania. In fact, there's probably an affected residence on the Tasmanian peninsula. But that's something I will touch on a little later on.

Obviously airports right across our country are critical pieces of infrastructure for our economy, for the movement of people around our country to conduct their business, for leisure and also for freight of goods. That is something I know only too well in the state of Tasmania, where you have two options to get on and off the island: to go by boat or to go by plane. I think about 90 per cent of those coming in and out of our state come and go by air. So I know only too well how important it is that the legislative arrangements that relate to the future developments of our airports and the safeguards that are in place with regard to community consultation et cetera are as strong as possible. I believe this bill goes a long way towards doing that.

Noting that airports are important pieces of community infrastructure that we are all reliant on, this bill puts in place a number of elements that enable us to ensure that the works planned, proposed and done have appropriate scrutiny and appropriate consultation as well. As has been pointed to by the former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Mr Chester—and I had a quick look at his second reading speech in the other place—when works are proposed at federally leased airports across the country, under the act dating from 1996 airports are required to prepare a master plan every five years and to establish a strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport as well as prepare major development plans for significant major on-air developments. Back home in Tasmania, a lot of things are on the radar for the Hobart International Airport that probably put it in the category we're talking about. I'll talk more about that little bit later on.

The act sets out what the required content of each plan is to be and has prescriptions around the public consultation process that any lessee company must undertake prior to submitting the plan to the minister for final consideration. As was stated by the former minister, on average the current legislative process requires an airport lessee company to expend significant resources, and it can take a company two years on average to develop a plan. That's a huge undertaking, with a massive amount of resourcing going into ensuring that the plans comply with the requested standards as set out in legislation. It can take two years to develop and consult. As one would imagine through a two-year process, for a private organise entering into this process there would be a degree of inefficiency and imposition of administration and compliance costs which one would think to be quite unreasonable. So that's what this bill goes to, in some regards—dealing with some of those concerns.

I will just turn quickly to the elements of the bill and what it proposes to do with regard to the master plan submission cycle for federally leased airports. I'm sure others have touched on this, but I will go over some of these details as well. When you look to the major airports, which include those in the cities of Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Sydney west, they will maintain the current five-year submission cycle. Then the remaining airports of Adelaide, Alice Springs, Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Canberra, Darwin, Essendon, the Gold Coast, Hobart, Jandakot, Launceston, Moorabbin, Parafield and Townsville will prepare a master plan every eight years, which I think is probably in keeping with the amount of development and growth that occurs at these particular airports.

The bill, as I'm sure has already been canvassed by previous speakers in this debate, also mandates the inclusion of a new Australian noise exposure forecast in each new master plan. I will talk in a little more detail about this later on, but obviously, with the increasing frequency of air traffic over residential areas—in the case of Tasmania, it is over less densely populated areas but still an increase in traffic—it is something that we should be taking into account as plans are developed. Of course, growth is forecast, and we have to make sure that the amenity, the lifestyle, of those who live under these flight paths will be taken into consideration appropriately.

The bill also proposes to increase the current monetary trigger, which is set at $20 million, to $25 million, and of course to include an indexation mechanism to allow for increased building costs in the future, as benchmarks set in place today obviously will not be appropriate a decade hence. As I'm sure has been noted in this debate by previous speakers, there has been a good degree of negotiation between the government and the opposition on the monetary threshold trigger and also around provisions for approved requests from airports for shortened public consultation periods for major development plans. Now, if the minister doesn't make a decision within 15 days of the receipt of the request, the request is taken to have been refused.

So, as I noted previously, there are some provisions that will go a long way to reducing the administrative burden on, and the associated cost to, proponents of developments—the lessee companies. In the context of clients, users of airports, passengers and freight companies, this can only be a good thing. They will have an improved service at an improved facility. And one would hope that, when costs are not being borne by those who run, maintain and own these airports, the cost isn't being passed on to airport users, be they the airlines, their passengers or the freight clients.

I turn now to some local issues. I have mentioned the Hobart airport, which is one of the federally leased airports. Senator Rice has touched on a number of issues with regard to noise. In Tasmania, we've recently had a significant amount of consternation over the issue of flight paths in and out of Hobart airport. The residents of the Tasman Peninsula, and communities just south-east of Hobart, in southern beaches that Senator Bilyk would be well familiar with, at Sorell and Midway Point, have all experienced significant changes around the flight paths. Airservices Australia, who are in charge of managing and regulating our air traffic and ensuring that it operates safely and in order, went through a process which, to the local community, was less than satisfactory. In short, the flight path of air traffic coming in—over communities like Sorell and Midway Point, closer to the major population of Hobart—was moved, to go out to the east and then to circle in over the Tasman Peninsula.

There was a very limited degree of public consultation around those changes, and of course that resulted in a great degree of consternation on the part of community members. Senator Bilyk and of course Senator McKim, who was present in the chamber earlier, would be well aware of that. There was the lack of consultation and then, all of a sudden, a great many flights overhead, in communities that were previously almost deadly silent when it came to air traffic noise. That has had a significant impact on members of those communities.

So Airservices, who have acknowledged that the consultation process was more than deficient and could have been done better, have conducted further consultations. I was pleased to be able to attend one of the community consultation sessions in Sorell, which was well attended. Airservices convened quite a number of these throughout the communities affected. It is important to note that, wherever a flight path is going to be located, someone is going to be impacted.

The feedback at the community forum reflected that there were some people who were very satisfied with the change of flight paths—those living in the communities of Midway Point or Sorell. As some of the people who got up and spoke at the forum said, they'd been living with planes flying overhead from approximately 6.00 am through to 11.00 pm every day for a great many years. They were pleased with the change because they now don't have planes flying overhead. They can sit out in their backyard and have a barbeque without having to yell at guests when a plane was flying overhead. A different story was relayed by those who live in the communities of Dunalley, Carlton, Dodges Ferry and some other Tasman Peninsula communities. They felt very aggrieved that all air traffic has now been redirected over their once peaceful communities.

As I said, Airservices has been conducting extensive consultations, and they recently released the work that has come out of those consultation sessions. Airservices will continue to work with the communities affected and provide, I hope, some relief, because it is important to ensure that, when changes are proposed, people's lives are taken into account. In fact, there was one example of an individual wanting to start a new business just north of the community of Dunalley. It's been publicly reported that, until this issue is resolved, this individual will not be setting up his new business because of the impact of the noise on the amenity in the area he is situated in and where he intended to set up his business. So, this bill, as discussed earlier, is going to require every new master plan to include an Australian noise exposure forecast, and it will specify that the forecast must be renewed each time. That is good news, I think, for those who have been impacted previously.

Hobart Airport, which is the one that is of most interest to the state of Tasmania, is going through extreme growth. Anyone who is aware of Tasmanian matters will be aware of the fact that Hobart Airport only recently opened its extended runway, in March this year. There was a huge investment in that airport. I think around $40 million was invested in the airport, predominantly from the Australian government. That investment was for a number of reasons. We have a growing visitor economy in Tasmania—I'll return to the numbers shortly. We also have increasing demand for our fresh produce, so, of course, there's been a great degree of interest in setting up, establishing and maintaining a direct freight link with parts of South-East Asia so that they can have instant access to our fresh produce.

The other element to this, of course, is the fact that we have the status of being Australia's gateway to Antarctica, particularly East Antarctica. We recently saw the work being undertaken to create a paved, year-round runway in the East Antarctic region, which will enable us to have year-round access and not have to rely purely on sea access, which is incredibly important for our science community. There is a growing interest in Antarctic science and what it means for the world. These are major developments. They are costly. The changes that are being proposed, worked through and planned for at the airport will definitely be impacted by the need to create a major development plan as these works are proposed.

As stated, though, the extension to the runway does provide the opportunity for Hobart Airport to become home to some direct international flights. There's been talk of direct flights to New Zealand and to certain cities in South-East Asia. Some have also said we will be in receipt of direct flights to and from South America. They're all very exciting opportunities. But the increase in the number of passengers does put demand on infrastructure.

It was pleasing to see that Hobart Airport had originally planned for a certain amount of growth in terms of numbers. In their 2015 master plan, they had predicted that 2.6 million passengers would be passing through there each year by 2020. The problem was that, given the growth, the investments and the interest in Tasmania as a visitor destination, we've outstripped that prediction. You only have to look at the comments of the CEO of the Hobart International Airport corporation, Ms Sarah Renner. She said earlier this year that Tasmania would more likely see three million passengers a year come through the airport by the year 2022. That's a significant boost when you consider that we were in a state of decline when it came to visitor numbers. It means that Hobart Airport will have to factor in, amongst all the other major developments it is undertaking, some significant terminal works as well. The respected economist, Saul Eslake, has called on the airport to invest in aerobridges, for a start. There is the need to consider push-back mechanisms, like we have at our major airports, rather than the current arrangement at Hobart Airport where planes effectively turn on the spot. It will mean that we will have more efficient use of space. But, of course, these are all things that point to the need for proper management plans and making sure that we are appropriately planning for the future.

The board of the airport is considering its options in terms of major developments when it comes to a fresh produce export facility and exactly where on the site that will be. Again, it being federally-owned land leased to the Hobart International Airport lessee company, this facility will be, along with other works, I suspect, subject to a major development plan. Some experts in Hobart, like Mr Phil Pike and Mr Ian Locke, who is a Tasmanian fruit and vegetable export facilitator, predict that the fresh produce export side will grow by $15 million by the year 2021. This might sound like small change to some from bigger places, but in Hobart and in the state of Tasmania that's a significant amount of money, and that's a significant market we will be accessing through direct freight produce. Again, quoting Sarah Renner from Hobart International Airport, who is a proud supporter of the runway extension, having that direct freight link from Hobart to South-East Asian destinations means that you can have a punnet of berries being handpicked in the Coal Valley one day and then being shipped across and eaten in an Asian destination the next. The terminal itself will require internally significant upgrades to cope with the growing numbers, and aerobridges would require a second level. This would come at a significant cost to the proponents and to the owners of the airport as well.

All of these things are exciting to note. All of these things are very, very important to our community and to our economy. This legislation sets out how lessee companies are to proceed and how they are to take into account community concerns when it comes to things like aircraft noise, which, as I have said before, has been a significant concern in Tasmania and has been perhaps handled less than optimally in the case of the Hobart flight path. It is good to see some rules being set out and some efficiencies being found in how airport corporations are to move forward and exactly how they propose to undertake these developments, as well as some certainty and hopefully some efficiencies, which can only be a good thing for consumers. I am pleased to have spoken to this bill and I of course commend it.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (11:59): I rise to briefly speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2018. I support the remarks made by my colleague Senator Rice on this bill. This bill actually weakens planning regulations and community consultation processes for federally-leased airports. I'll get straight to the point: Western Sydney Airport in New South Wales. The Western Sydney Airport is a complete scam being foisted on the people of Western Sydney by the federal government and by the state government in New South Wales. The people of Western Sydney are being totally conned. They are being promised the world when the reality that this airport will bring will, really, be quite different.

Western Sydney is being held to ransom. The government are saying: 'You will get significant infrastructure upgrades. You will get jobs, you will get public transport, you will get better roads, but only if you agree to this 24/7 curfew-free aerotropolis in your backyard.' They did not listen to the community at all. Here we are today talking about further weakening community consultation processes. They did not take into account community interests, because the only thing that this government is interested in is its mates in the big end of town.

The Western Sydney Airport will cause significant environmental and human health impacts due to air pollution, due to noise pollution and due to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. That will exacerbate climate change. This is the crucial aspect of where this airport is being built. It will jeopardise the World Heritage listing of the unique Greater Blue Mountains area. Its environmental value will reduce and its quality will reduce. The economic benefits it brings to the local community will also reduce. The Blue Mountains City Council is opposed to the Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek due to the massive impact it will have on their local community, their quality of life and the environment. The government has totally ignored this while planning and developing the Western Sydney Airport.

Let's talk about jobs. The government now is claiming that there will be 120,000 jobs in Western Sydney at some undetermined point way into the future. The way governments manipulate job data is just shameful and it becomes so completely meaningless. It is almost Monty Pythonesque. They used to go around saying that Western Sydney Airport will create 60,000 jobs, and now they have unilaterally doubled it. Meanwhile, the 2012 joint study on aviation capacity puts jobs growth closer to just 10,000 additional jobs by 2040—not the 120,000 this government is touting.

The people of Western Sydney are being sold a lemon by the political elite, who are saying they must take one for the team. What team is this? This is the team with big pockets. This is the team that is part of this whole game of mates, corporations and governments working together to fill these really deep pockets. Jobs for Western Sydney will come from government investment that meets the needs of the community, that meets the needs of the workers and that meets the needs of the employers instead of meeting the needs of the capital markets. We need to invest in public transport, renewable energy, manufacturing and the TAFE education sector. It will come when the state and federal governments stop spending billions on their pet projects and unjustifiable aviation fantasies and start putting it into public transport that serves the people and not the corporations. But there is one thing that will be undeniably good for Western Sydney; it will be good for jobs, it will be good for climate and it will be good for commuters. That one thing is high-speed rail—instead of this new white elephant airport.

Labour market researcher Dr Ian Watson recently released a Jobs for the west report. Overwhelmingly, it shows that a strategy focused on high-speed rail could see Western Sydney become a manufacturing centre for this nation-building project. Dr Watson has said it would 'revitalise and stabilise manufacturing and construction in the region' and this would anchor other initiatives, including rebuilding the TAFE system to upskill the population and extending community banking to support small- and medium-sized businesses that join the supply chain. His report also shows that even on the government's own figures fewer than 120 jobs a year would go to Western Sydney locals during the construction phase of the Western Sydney Airport.

Imagine if we were a country that could dream big, that could construct nation-building projects like an east coast high-speed rail?

Two of the busiest air routes in the world are in Australia. Sydney to Melbourne is the world's second-busiest air route, with more than 55,000 flights a year, and Brisbane to Sydney is the eighth-busiest in the world, with more than 33,000 flights a year. The demand for high-speed rail is there. All we need is the political will. The people of Western Sydney deserve much better than having a 24/7 polluting airport foisted upon them.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Defence) (12:05): Thank you to those members who've contributed to the debate on the Airports Amendment Bill. The federal government regulates planning and development on federally leased airport sites through the Airports Act 1996. On 1 December 2016 the former minister, the Hon. Darren Chester MP, introduced the bill into the House of Representatives. The bill proposes several measures that were developed in consultation with key industry stakeholders to streamline certain administrative arrangements in the act relating to master plans and major development plans that are currently generating inefficient outcomes for industry as well as imposing unnecessary and onerous administrative and compliance costs. In particular, the bill proposes to implement a differential master plan submission cycle, therefore requiring the major airports, being Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney—that is, Kingsford Smith and Sydney West airports—to main the current five-year submission cycle, while the remaining airports will provide a master plan every eight years.

The bill also proposes to increase the current $20 million monetary trigger for a major development plan to $25 million. This monetary threshold will be reviewed and revised by legislative instrument every three years, having regard to changes in construction activity costs and associated indexations to ensure that the monetary trigger accurately reflects and keeps pace with economic and marketplace conditions. The bill reinforces the government's commitment to improving the capacity of our regulatory framework to ensure that it continues to deliver a proportionate and efficiency based approach that reduces administrative and compliance costs for operators, creates regulatory certainty for industry and maintains appropriate and effective regulatory oversight.

On 9 February 2017 the bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by March last year. Following an accident at Essendon Airport, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting, to 19 March this year. In March this year the committee recommended that the Senate pass the airports bill, and their report made it clear—just for the avoidance of doubt—that there is no linkage between the accident at Essendon Airport and the matters that are under consideration in this bill.

The government contends that the bill will bring about positive changes for the aviation industry and airport users while still maintaining appropriate regulatory oversight, and this bill should be supported. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Defence) (12:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:15): Please note that the Greens voted against it, but no division is required.

Bill read a third time.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:16): I rise to speak on the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is an invaluable resource for health policymakers in this country. For the last 30 years it has been Australia's principal source for health and welfare data. It produces accurate and trustworthy statistical information and reports that contribute a great deal to our understanding of our collective wellbeing. It's well respected across the health sector for its independence, professionalism and ethical integrity. It has a broad remit. In the past month alone it has produced reports on everything from eye injury and palliative care services to smoking rates and disability support.

In a sense, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is a diagnostic tool. It tells us precisely what's wrong with the nation's health so that we can put in place the policy and the prescriptions. Critically, it also tells us what we're doing right so we know where to double down. We think the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare does a terrific job. It provides a treasure-trove of accurate and reliable health data. Without the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare we'd often be flying blind, and the evidence based policy making in this country would be all the poorer for it. Labor values the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and wants to see it thrive. We want to see it continue to be as important and relevant as it has been for the last 30 years.

Having said all of that, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare exists in a radically different environment today than when it was established in 1987. It no longer enjoys the monopoly on the analysis of administrative health data. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has moved into this space as it has outgrown its traditional, narrow census-and-survey role. Policy agencies, like the Department of Health, are doing an unprecedented amount of their own in-house analysis. This all raises some pretty fundamental questions about the institute's role into the future, which is why the department commissioned a review of the institute in 2015.

The Nous Group review considered the institute's role, purpose, business model, product range, funding model, internal governance and organisation. The review made 35 recommendations, most of which do not require legislation. It recommended a change to the institute's funding structure, for better coordination between funding departments and better coordination with other information bodies. But its central finding was that the institute needs to undertake a major organisational transformation to secure its future as a leading information agency. That is primarily what this government bill aims to do. Labor is happy to support these changes.

The bill amends the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987 to make changes to the governance and administration of the institute. The bill's major provision is to establish a skills based board, replacing the current board structure in which members are selected based on the groups that they represent. Currently, the board includes representatives from Commonwealth departments, COAG committees and stakeholder groups, a structure which the review concluded had encouraged a focus on operational rather than strategic issues. The new board will have up to 12 members, including a chair, deputy chair, CEO—renamed from director—up to three members nominated by the states, and six others. Each of these members will be required to have skills or experience in public administration, education, Indigenous health and welfare, data statistics, performance reporting, financing and corporate management, consumers' interests and/or law. Board members will be appointed for up to five years.

The bill also reassigns responsibility for appointing board members from the Governor-General to the Minister for Health, a change intended to streamline the appointments and bring the institute into line with other health portfolio agencies. The bill also removes the requirement for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to seek agreement from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to collect health and welfare related data, instead requiring it only to consult with the ABS as necessary. The bill also includes a number of other minor provisions—for example, setting out probity requirements for board members and procedures for board meetings.

These are not radical changes by any means, but Labor supports any measures that will help the institute reposition itself so that it remains relevant and even indispensable for the decades to come.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Defence) (12:22): I rise to sum up on the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018. The bill amends the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987. The bill will modernise governance arrangements at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare by implementing a board which collectively possesses skills or experience or significant standing in a range of different fields. Prescriptive eligibility requirements will be removed, as will ex officio positions and other representative positions.

The changes will ensure that the board has the necessary expertise to focus on the key strategic issues and challenges faced by the institute in a market that is increasing in contestability for its services. The bill will recognise jurisdictional interests, with up to three members of the board to be nominated by state health ministers. This is critical to ensuring the ongoing production of high-quality and relevant data and statistics. The bill will ensure that vacancies are filled in a timely manner, with the Minister for Health, rather than the Governor-General, being responsible for appointments to the board. Furthermore, the measures will bring greater stability to the board through membership terms of up to five years.

The bill also makes other amendments designed to improve the operations of the institute, including changing the title of the director to chief executive officer, assigning the board responsibility for appointing the chief officer and removing the need for ministerial approval of contract limits. The bill modifies the institute's functions in relation to data collection activities; the institute is to consult with, rather than seek agreement from, the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the collection of health and welfare related information and statistics. The bill also includes transitional arrangements to ensure that the chair and chief executive officer can continue in their positions for the balance of their current terms, along with clarification on delegation powers.

Through this bill, the board will be better equipped to focus on the strategic issues and challenges faced by the institute. The bill will also reduce the administrative burden associated with the appointment of new members to the board, resulting in greater stability and timely filling of vacancies. I thank members of the Senate for their contribution to debate on this bill and I commend the bill to this Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Defence) (12:24): I move government amendment (1) on sheet GR130 and seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

Leave granted.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment GR130 moved by the minister be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Defence) (12:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:26): The majority of this bill makes a number of minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments to legislation relating to civil justice. The many amendments to existing legislation in this omnibus bill are intended to improve the operation and clarity of civil justice legislation, primarily by modelling, simplifying and clarifying existing provisions and by repealing redundant provisions. Some more-substantial changes to the existing legislation are also included in this bill, and I will briefly discuss those amendments shortly. This bill amends the following acts: Acts Interpretation Act 1901; Archives Act 1983; Bankruptcy Act 1996; Domicile Act 1982; Evidence Act 1995; Family Law Act 1975; International Arbitration Act 1974; Legislation Act 2003; Marriage Act 1961; and Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

The bill was carefully scrutinised by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported on 10 May 2017. The committee received six submissions that commented on the proposed changes to five of these acts, and I will discuss these comments in more detail. The committee received no comments on the are remainder of the bill, which is not controversial. The committee made several substantial recommendations for improvement to the bill, subject to which the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Labor is pleased that the government is implementing those recommendations of the committee to make improvements to the bill and Labor is supporting the bill on that basis.

The first recommendation of the committee that the government will implement relates to the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. Schedule 3 of the bill will make an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that will clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act. Some submitters raised concerns about these amendments. The Law Council of Australia noted that the proposed amendments do not provide jurisdiction to the Family Court in bankruptcy in circumstances where a person has been discharged from bankruptcy, albeit that their estate remains vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. To remedy this, the Law Council recommended that the definition of 'bankrupt' and 'bankrupt party to a marriage' be clarified. The committee agreed with the Law Council and recommended that the bill be amended. Labor is pleased that the government has accepted the Law Council's advice and has acted on the recommendation of the committee by clarifying that a bankrupt includes a reference to a person who has been discharged from bankruptcy and whose property remains invested in the bankruptcy trustee under the Bankruptcy Act.

The second recommendation of the committee that the government has implemented relates to the amendments to the Family Law Act. The bill makes a significant change to Australia's response to international parental child abduction, clarifies the range of persons who may perform the powers of the registry manager in the Family Court or any other court and improves the consistency of financial and other provisions for de facto and married couples. The bill contains provisions that would create new offences regarding retaining a child outside Australia in the Family Law Act. The explanatory memorandum notes that these provisions would remedy a gap in the existing legislation. The Australian Human Rights Commission raised concerns that there are circumstances where it would be inappropriate to expose parents or others to criminal sanctions for taking, sending or retaining a child outside Australia—for instance, where there is evidence that children are taken or retained abroad by parents fleeing family violence.

An analysis of return and access applications under the Hague convention revealed that 70 per cent of child abductors were women and that the most common reason for the abduction was fleeing domestic violence. The committee formed the view that the bill should be amended to include a defence of fleeing family violence to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful transfer and retention of children abroad do not apply in the circumstances of family violence. Labor is pleased that the government has accepted this recommendation of the committee. Labor is firmly committed to responding to family violence and supports measures that reduce gender inequality. That is why we believe in supporting legislative reform to deal better with family violence, as well as measures to improve the capacity of the judicial system to deal with family violence. This amendment will ensure that victims of family violence who take their children overseas with them to flee their abuser will not be committing an offence.

There was considerable debate over some months between the government and the opposition about the most appropriate form of these new provisions. Most of that debate was quite technical in nature and I will not recite the many iterations of these provisions here, but I note that the final form of the amendments to several of the provisions of this bill dealing with children being taken overseas are acceptable to Labor.

The Family Law Act currently provides that a person who is authorised by the court to arrest another person has powers related to the use of reasonable force in making the arrest and the powers of entry and search for the purpose of arresting a person. In its submission, the Attorney-General's Department noted that the current arrest powers in the Family Law Act are subject to fewer limits than the arrest provisions available to other federal courts, that they are broader than the arrest powers available to police officers in the Crimes Act 1914 and that they lack limits and safeguards. The bill authorises additional persons to make arrests under the Family Law Act, including a marshal, a deputy marshal, a sheriff, a deputy sheriff, a police officer or the Australian Border Force Commissioner. The bill also provides that the power to arrest another person is conferred on an APS employee in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

The scrutiny committee considered this bill and asked whether the bill could be amended to require a certain level of relevant training to be undertaken by APS employees authorised to exercise these coercive powers. The Australian Human Rights Commission also shared the scrutiny committee's concern. On this basis, the committee urged the government to amend the bill to limit the delegation of arrest powers so that they only apply to employees of the Australian Border Force who have received appropriate training. Labor is pleased that the government has proposed amendments to the bill which limit the APS employees authorised to exercise these powers only to employees of the Australian Border Force in order to ensure that coercive powers are only being delegated to appropriate persons.

The bill also repeals section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which exempts discrimination against women in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. Labor fully supports this change, which removes gender restrictions from combat roles and is an important step towards equal opportunity for women. Labor is pleased to support the bill.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (12:35): I rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As Senator Polley has outlined, the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill is an omnibus bill which would amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, the International Arbitration Act 1974, the Legislation Act 2003, the Marriage Act 1961 and, finally, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It makes minor and technical amendments to modernise, simplify and clarify these pieces of legislation and repeal redundant provisions. The combined effect of these amendments—the changes to this range of bills—is to improve the efficiency and operation of the civil justice system in Australia, which, of course, is an ideal that I'm sure all in this place would agree with.

The government aims to make all Commonwealth legislation coherent, readable and accessible to the widest possible audience. To this end, this bill would amend the Acts Interpretation Act and the Legislation Act to clarify the validity of ministerial acts and the management of compilations of legislation on the Federal Register of Legislation. The government also aims to make Australia's archival record accessible to the broadest range of applicants possible. To this end, amendments to the Archives Act would assist the National Archives of Australia to appropriately manage requests for records from high-volume applicants.

The bill makes other minor and technical amendments to the act. The proposed amendments in the bill simplify the interpretation of the Domicile Act by specifying within the act the territories to which the Domicile Act applies. This would replace an existing specification of territories in the regulations, allowing that regulation to be repealed. Again, this is about streamlining the legislative framework in this area and making it much more simple to understand.

The bill also amends the Evidence Act to align the time frame for the presumed receipt of postal articles with current Australia Post delivery times. Obviously, legislation needs to keep up with the times and be reflective of the realities of the modern world. The bill also reflects the government's commitment to maintain its place in the international legal environment by amending the International Arbitration Act to help ensure that Australian arbitration law and practice are on the global cutting edge so that Australia continues to gain ground as a competitive arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Arbitration, whenever it is an option, is in the main much more cost-effective and has much better outcomes for all parties than having to go through lengthy and very costly legal proceedings.

The amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act would repeal obsolete provisions. The bill would repeal the combat duties exemption in section of 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act that allows discrimination against women in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. The exemption is no longer necessary, as the Australian government's policy to remove all gender restrictions from the Australian Defence Force combat roles was fully implemented on 1 January 2016. Repealing this provision is consistent with Australia's intention to withdraw its related combat duties reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This is something that's had a long genesis, and it's very good to see the final elements of the legislative framework in this area being delivered by this government.

We also see minor and technical amendments contained in the bill to improve the operation of the Family Law Act by clarifying existing laws, simplifying processes and eliminating some inconsistencies. This bill makes amendments to provide the same rights to de facto and married couples when instituting maintenance and property proceedings. The bill would also amend the Family Law Act to clarify the admissibility provisions in the Evidence Act relating to evidence obtained in an improper or illegal manner applying to evidence of disclosures of child abuse and communications between family consultants and family law litigants.

The bill would assist the operation of the Family Court of Australia in a number of ways. The bill would amend the Family Law Act procedure for appointing members to the Family Court of Australia Rules Advisory Committee to be consistent with the process for appointment of a similar committee advising the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Other amendments to the Family Law Act would clarify the range of persons who may perform the powers of the registry managers in the Family Court of Australia and any other court. The Bankruptcy Act would also be amended to clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a binding financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act.

This bill we are debating today also makes minor amendments to the Marriage Act. Many of these amendments are aimed at improving the operation of the Marriage Celebrants Program. These measures would enhance administrative efficiency by making improvements to the annual celebrant registration charge process. The bill also formalises an existing expectation that celebrants comply with any disciplinary measures that may be imposed by the registrar, and clarifies that the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants is a publicly available list published on the internet—again, keeping our legislative framework in line with the modern world.

The bill would provide that where state or territory employees are appointed according to their position title to perform functions under the Marriage Act, they may be referred to on the register by their position title rather than their name. Some definitions and terminologies will be updated to ensure consistency with other legislation. The bill also clarifies that certain instruments made under the act are not legislative instruments and it remedies a defect in the legislation to remake provisions in relation to the Registrar of Overseas Marriages that were repealed in 2002.

In conclusion, the intention of the bill is to make a number of minor and technical amendments to a number of acts to increase access to justice for all Australians by improving the operation and clarity of civil justice legislation. The amendments contained in the bill would improve the civil justice system by making it easier for individuals to understand and comply with the law. Thank you.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (12:42): The purpose of the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is to make minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments to civil justice legislation in order to improve its operation and clarity. I would like to thank the following senators for their contribution to the debate of the bill: Senator Polley and Senator Brockman.

The bill compiles minor amendments to civil law and justice legislation. Amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 would clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operation of provisions about the management of compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation.

Amendments to the Archives Act 1983 would provide the National Archives of Australia with an enhanced ability to appropriately manage high-volume applications requesting access to records and to make other minor technical amendments, including repealing outdated provisions that do not reflect the archive's current services or technological advances.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 would clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act.

An amendment to the Domicile Act 1982 would amend the act so that it applies to territories currently specified in the Domicile Regulations 1982.

An amendment to the Evidence Act 1995 would update the presumption about when postal articles sent by prepaid post are received to accord with changes to Australia Post delivery times.

Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 would strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction, clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court of Australia and improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto and married couples. The bill also includes amendments to update the arrest, entry and search powers under the Family Law Act and adds additional safeguards for the exercise of those powers. The amended arrest provisions are better tailored for the needs of— (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.

The Senate transcript was published up to 12:45. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.