The CHAIR (09:47): The committee is considering the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 and amendments on sheet MY124 moved by Senator Reynolds. Senators will recall that yesterday we split this matter. Last night just prior to adjournment we dealt with the first two amendments on sheet MY124. We are now dealing with the second part. The question is that items 41 and 58 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: I'm in the hands of the chamber. There are other amendments here. If no-one is going to move them—

Senator Whish-Wilson: Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the chamber.

The CHAIR: I believe we have a quorum, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) (09:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (09:51): I rise to speak in favour of this bill. It has been the subject of a fair amount of discussion between the minister's office and ours. I just want to be clear that I am speaking to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018.

This bill and the following bill, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018, have their origins in the Mabo decision of 1992, which recognised that terra nullius was a myth and that traditional title to land, custom and law had survived in many parts of Australia. It also found that, to our great sorrow—that is, the First Nations people's great sorrow—native title had been legally extinguished by the actions of successive Australian governments in many parts of Australia. In response, the Keating government established the Native Title Act, which defines native title and establishes a process for its recognition in the places that could prove that there had been no extinguishment.

The land fund, now officially known as the land account, was the second part of the negotiated agreement. The land account sets up a mechanism for compensation for the dispossession of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples since 1788. It sets up a new statutory authority created at the same time as the land account. The Indigenous Land Corporation, the ILC, has used the land account to purchase property for the use and enjoyment of Indigenous Australians whose native title has been legally extinguished. In 2018, the government, after a review period, introduced two substantive pieces of legislation and one piece of consequential legislation to alter the functions and governance of the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Indigenous land account. These are the bills in front of us today.

The first bill gives the ILC functions in relation to water related rights. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations can acquire rights to water. Assistance can be provided to acquire water based rights. Management actions can be taken on Indigenous waters, and assistance can be provided for those management functions. In other words, what the ILC could previously do on land it can now carry out on Indigenous owned and managed areas of water. It is important to understand that what was previously recognised as land rights has evolved in recent times to include sea rights. Those of us who are from the saltwater country have rights, responsibilities and commitments to care for the areas of salt water and fresh water that form our traditional lands and country. For example, the Yawuru people in my part of the world have management plans in place that support our traditional use of resources along the coast and in the waters of Roebuck Bay. It is timely that our roles to protect and manage our saltwater country should be recognised and supported.

The bill does not create any new rights, and the ILC, the Indigenous Land Corporation, is still required to exercise its functions in a manner that is consistent with the rights and interests of other persons or international law. The bill does allow for the change of the name of the ILC to the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, to better reflect the expansion of its functions. The ILC has conducted extensive stakeholder consultations in relation to changing its remit. According to their consultation report summary, there was overwhelming support for change from those participants. Labor supports the intention of this legislation. We support the expansion of the remit of the fund to cover water and support native title holders to exercise these rights. We support this bill.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:56): I rise today to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018. The Indigenous Land Corporation, as was just articulated, was established in 1995 following the Mabo No. 2 High Court decision and assists First Nations peoples to acquire and manage land for the benefit of First Nations people. The bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to expand the remit of the functions of the Indigenous Land Corporation, the ILC, to include water related rights to enable it to support First Nations people to care for, manage and benefit from freshwater and sea country, something the Australian Greens very strongly support. The establishment of the ILC's remit beyond land based activities is consistent with the developments in native title case law and is something which, through various inquiries, we've heard many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples call for.

The ILC held consultations in the second half of last year with First Nations peoples across Australia about the potential for the expansion of its remit to include functions relating to waters. The majority of those consulted supported these reforms. This bill will also amend the name of the Indigenous Land Corporation, which will become the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, consistent with the expansion of the Indigenous Land Corporation's functions. The Australian Greens support the bill.

During the committee inquiry into the provisions of this bill—and the other two that are coming on, one of which we'll be debating next—it became apparent that the bill failed to give the Indigenous Land Corporation management functions of all waters for which it has water related rights. The Australian Greens are pleased to see that the bill was amended in the House of Representatives to rectify this omission in line with recommendation 1 of the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill and the additional comments from the Australian Greens.

We will be supporting this bill. We think it's a very important progression of the role of what will soon become the former ILC and it's something that, as I said earlier, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been calling for.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:59): I thank senators for their contribution to this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018. This bill represents a significant step forward in Australia's land rights journey. I'm immensely proud that the government has brought forward this legislation. The Indigenous Land Corporation was established as part of the government's response to the High Court's decision in Mabo No. 2. The Indigenous Land Corporation was established to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to acquire land and manage Indigenous-held land to provide economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is in recognition that many Indigenous people will be unable to benefit under the Native Title Act 1993, principally through dispossession not allowing them to be able to demonstrate continued connection with country.

Developments in native title case law following the establishment of the Indigenous Land Corporation have clarified that common law is capable of recognising native title rights in relation to water. These developments in the law acknowledged that, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, land and water are inseparable parts of country. Whenever I was able to be with Aboriginal people, wherever I was, there was a notion, from my very earliest connection, of sea country or saltwater country and saltwater people. That very strong connection wasn't reflected in a Westminster approach to the sea or the ocean particularly. The Westminster system said that it ended at the high-water mark and whatever was seaward of that was common property, or some notion of the like.

This bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to extend the functions of the Indigenous Land Corporation to include all of those water related rights. It allows the Indigenous Land Corporation to acquire and divest water related rights to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations in the same way that it currently is able to acquire and divest land. The bill also enables the Indigenous Land Corporation to carry out management activities in relation to Indigenous water or waters in which the Indigenous Land Corporation has water related rights.

The bill further enables the Indigenous Land Corporation to provide assistance in the form of grants, loans and guarantees for the purpose of management activities in relation to Indigenous waters. In the same way as the ILC can acquire a property—invariably because that property could never be acquired through the native title process, because of dispossession—it can also acquire and take interest in, for example, fishing rights. If you're going to use a pastoral lease, you need to keep the cows in one place, so you need infrastructure like fences or yards. In the same way, if you want to manage, utilise or harvest fish, you need jetties, boats and those sorts of things.

The bill also renames the Indigenous Land Corporation the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation to reflect the expansion of its remit now to include saltwater and freshwater country. These reforms follow extensive consultation with Indigenous stakeholders. A clear majority of stakeholders support these changes to expand the remit to include freshwater and saltwater country. We've listened and we've acted. By expanding the roles of the Indigenous Land Corporation, this government is realising its commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I thank senators for their contributions and for their assistance in formulating this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (10:03): As no amendments to this bill have been circulated, I don't intend to go into Committee of the Whole unless any senator now requests that we do so. There being no such requests, I now ask the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (10:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (10:04): I rise to speak to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 and related bill. The bills establish a financial asset fund, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, to support additional payments to the ILC, the Indigenous Land Corporation. I think it'll be called the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation now. The fund will replace the Indigenous land account. Funds currently allocated will be managed by the Future Fund's board. The fund will be credited with amounts equal to the balance of the land account's special account and the value of the investment of the land account. The fund's special account will then be debited to provide an annual payment to the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation to be credited to and paid from the ILC funding special account.

The finance minister and Indigenous affairs minister may also determine, once in a financial year, that an additional payment is to be made to the ILC after considering the advice of the Future Fund's board about the impact of any additional payments on the sustainability of annual payments to the ILC. The Future Fund board will be responsible for deciding how to invest the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund to enhance the Commonwealth's ability to make annual payments or any additional payments to the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 requires the responsible ministers to issue an investment mandate to the Future Fund's board regarding the investment of the Future Fund.

The purpose of the investment mandate is to provide a mechanism for the government to provide strategic guidance to the Future Fund board on its expectations for the investment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. The Indigenous land account has achieved an average return over the past three years of approximately CPI plus 1.5 per cent per annum. Under the new arrangements, the government expects that the account will achieve a return of CPI plus 2.6 per cent after fees. Some would say that's quite a substantial increase. The expenses associated with the investment and administration of the fund incurred by the Future Fund will be met out of the fund itself.

Labor's position is to support the intent of this legislation, and we accept the need to improve the financial sustainability of the fund. However, after consultations with stakeholders, we took the view that there are a number of ways in which the legislation could be strengthened in order to protect the land fund for future generations, so we have requested a number of minor amendments to the bill which we believe will help achieve this.

First, we have requested of the government that they include provisions in the bill so that the minister must have regard to the sustainability of the fund prior to making any additional transfers. This will help ensure that these transfers are not used to deplete the fund over time. We also requested that the long-term sustainability be a necessary consideration when the minister sets the investment mandate. I am pleased that the government will be soon moving amendments to address both these issues.

Our second concern relates to the removal of an oversight role for the ILC in relation to the fund. At present, the ILC Board provides oversight of this account. This is not an active oversight role but, rather, a way for the ILC board to maintain a clear line of sight as to how the account is being invested. The bill before us in its original form removed this. We did not support this. At a time when there are growing calls for a greater Indigenous say over issues that impact their lives, we felt the removal of the oversight was inconsistent with the need to maintain as much Indigenous involvement as possible. However, we welcome the government's decision to require the Future Fund to brief the ILC Board on the fund's investment decisions, restoring that important oversight for the ILC. We note that this will be an active oversight role that is not designed to interfere with the functions of the Future Fund board but, rather, to ensure that the fund, which is designed to assist Indigenous Australians, is never removed entirely from Indigenous involvement.

We also welcome the amendment that requires the minister to consult with the ILC in relation to the investment mandate. This, once again, provides an opportunity for important input from Indigenous Australians into the management of the fund.

We believe these amendments strengthen the bill and we thank the minister for working with us to achieve a bipartisan position. Having reached agreements on these matters, we will support the bill.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:11): I rise to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018. As previously stated, the Indigenous Land Corporation was established in 1995 following the Mabo High Court decision and assists First Nations peoples to acquire and manage land for the benefit of First Nations peoples. Funding to achieve this comes from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account, to be referred to as the land account, in the form of an annual CPI-indexed payment to the Indigenous Land Corporation. Currently, an additional automatic payment is also made from the land account to the Indigenous Land Corporation when the capital of the land account exceeds a CPI-indexed target.

Due to the restrictions on the investment mandate of the land account to cash and cash-like products, it is not generating sufficient investment returns to ensure the financial sustainability of the Indigenous Land Corporation into the future. In the previous four financial years, the land account has not met its target rate of return. The Murray panel, which, in 2016, was tasked with providing advice on options to ensure the sustainability of the land account, recommended the Future Fund Board of Guardians invest the funds of the land account. In the previous parliament the Greens had a bill to make amendments to the Indigenous Land Corporation act. As part of the inquiry into our proposed reforms, this very issue of the investments of the land account was brought up. One of the recommendations made during that inquiry—even though it was not part of my bill—was that the land account should be managed in an alternative way. Suggestions were made around incorporating the Future Fund. At the time, those suggestions were not taken up by government, so it is pleasing to see that action has now been taken. It was in fact pleasing to see that the Murray review was undertaken.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 establishes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, to be referred to as the Land and Sea Future Fund. It is an investment fund that will replace the land account, but will serve the same purpose—namely, to fund the activities of what is now the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation. The Future Fund Board of Guardians will oversee the investment of the Land and Sea Future Fund, in line with a recommendation of the Murray panel.

The consultation I mentioned during debate on the previous bill regarding the expansion of the Indigenous Land Corporation's remit also measured support for improving the sustainability of the land account by transferring the investment function of the land account to the Future Fund Board of Guardians and by broadening the range of financial assets that the funds could be invested in. Again a majority of those consulted supported this reform. The intention is for the Land and Sea Future Fund to have a broader investment mandate that should see more sustainable returns produced and see annual payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation continue without the current concern of slowly depleting the land account. The Land and Sea Future Fund will receive the money and financial assets of the land account.

The bill requires that an annual indexed payment be made to the Indigenous Land Corporation as is currently the case. The bill also provides for one discretionary additional payment per financial year if determined by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs after considering the advice of the Future Fund Board of Guardians regarding the impact this payment will have on the sustainability of annual payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation. The investment mandate will be set by the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer in consultation with the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

The Australian Greens expressed our in-principle support for the bill during the inquiry. However, in our quite substantive additional comments to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill and the previous bills, we indicated that we had a number of concerns. One of the concerns we raised was in relation to reporting requirements. We said:

There needs to be certainty that reports will be available at regular intervals that illustrate the performance of the ATSILSFF, rather than reliance placed on the Minister for Finance to request such reports.

Our concerns regarding this have been alleviated by the knowledge that the Future Fund Board of Guardians is required to report each quarter to the Minister for Finance on the performance outcomes of the funds they are managing and that these reports are published on the Future Fund's website. We have also become aware that, following the 10-year review of the legislation, there is no requirement that the review be made public or tabled in parliament. I hope the government can address this and make some commitments around that.

We are pleased to see that a number of amendments were made in the House of Representatives to strengthen the bill further. We are pleased to see that sustainability of the annual payments from the Land and Sea Future Fund to the Indigenous Land Corporation has been further highlighted as a key concept through the requirement that this sustainability be taken into account when the investment mandate is being set and when a determination is being made regarding a discretionary additional payment to the Indigenous Land Corporation. It is also appropriate that the Indigenous Land Corporation Board be consulted on the setting of the investment mandate and that they are able to meet with Commonwealth officials regarding a quarterly performance report relating to the Land and Sea Future Fund.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 makes consequential amendments to other acts that are affected by the establishment of the Land and Sea Future Fund. This includes repealing the sections of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 that create the land account and amending the legislation governing the Future Fund and other funds managed by the Future Fund Management Agency. It also includes minor technical amendments relating to the renaming of the Indigenous Land Corporation to the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, contingent on the passage of the previous legislation. The Greens thank the minister for the additional information that was provided by him and his office. We are pleased to see amendments and we will be supporting these bills.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (10:18): I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018. These bills represent an historic moment in Australia's land rights journey. The legislation gives effect to the government's decision to establish a dedicated financial asset fund, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, to support the making of annual and discretionary additional payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation. The government wishes to invest in financial assets with the aim of achieving investment returns to support the Indigenous Land Corporation financially.

The Indigenous Land Corporation was established as part of the government's response to the High Court's decision in Mabo No. 2. The Indigenous Land Corporation was established to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to acquire and manage Indigenous-held land, to provide economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is in recognition that many people would be unable to benefit under the Native Title Act 1993.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund will replace the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account. The legislation provides for the transfer of moneys and financial assets currently allocated to the land account to the new fund, managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. The Future Fund board is an experienced, specialised and trusted sovereign investor, responsible for investing over $180 billion—as at 30 September this year—across five sovereign wealth funds with different purposes and different investment mandates. As at 31 October 2018 the land account held a capital balance of $2 billion. However, a combination of the current investment environment, payment arrangements and investment restrictions means that the land account is not financially sustainable. Those arrangements make it all but impossible for the land account to sustain annual indexed payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation. These bills propose landmark changes to address this. Annual payments will be channelled to the Indigenous Land Corporation from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. The finance minister and the Indigenous affairs minister may determine, once in a financial year, that an additional payment be made to the Indigenous Land Corporation, after considering the advice of the Future Fund board about the impact of such payments on the sustainability of annual payments.

The legislation requires the responsible ministers to issue an investment mandate to the Future Fund board regarding the investment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. The purpose of the investment mandate is to provide a mechanism for the government to provide strategic guidance to the Future Fund board on its expectations for the investment of these funds. The legislation mandates consultation with the Indigenous Land Corporation, through the Indigenous affairs minister, on the actual setting of the investment mandate. This requirement acknowledges the interest of the Indigenous Land Corporation in the performance of the fund.

The Future Fund Board of Guardians is required to prepare an annual report about the performance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. The finance minister may also request additional information from the Future Fund board about the management of the fund. These reporting arrangements are consistent with arrangements for other funds currently managed by the Future Fund board. In addition, the Future Fund Board of Guardians publishes a quarterly report on each of the funds under management. The legislation gives the Indigenous Land Corporation board the opportunity to discuss the performance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund with Commonwealth officials if it so desires and following the publishing of a quarterly update for the fund. This recognises that the fund is the primary source of funding for the Indigenous Land Corporation.

Sustainability of annual payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation is a key concept underpinning the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. This is reflected in provisions dealing with the channelling of discretionary additional payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation and setting of the investment mandate for the fund. The concept of sustainability of annual payments captures the intention of government that the fund is established to provide a source of funding to the Indigenous Land Corporation over the longer term.

In response to Senator Siewert's concern about the tabling of any reviews: the legislation requires, as the senator indicated, a review of the operation of these arrangements to be undertaken after 10 years. It is the government's intention that the report of the review will be tabled in parliament.

Stakeholders have expressed overwhelming support for these reforms. From July to September 2017 the ILC conducted public consultations on the financial sustainability of the land account. Multiple meetings were held, in 11 locations across Australia, involving 75 Indigenous organisations. The Indigenous Land Corporation also invited written submissions from stakeholder groups and individuals. A clear majority of stakeholders supported changes to improve the sustainability of the land account by allowing land account funds to be invested in a wider range of investment products and to be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians.

The government has listened and acted by introducing these groundbreaking reforms. Securing sustainable funding arrangements for the Indigenous Land Corporation will allow the Indigenous Land Corporation to continue to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to achieve their economic, environmental, social and cultural goals into the future. This government is giving practical effect to its commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I thank the Senate and parliament for their input and the amendments that have been discussed already in a multipartisan way around the parliament, and I commend the bills.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): As no amendments have been circulated, I don't intend to go into committee, unless any senator wishes me to do so. There being no such request, I will now call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (10:25): I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (10:26): I rise to speak to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018. Labor will be supporting this bill because it makes a number of improvements to the existing regime for protecting the rights of artists and others whose livelihoods depend on them being paid for what they create, whether that's music, movies, television programs, books or any other form of intellectual property. Labor supports this bill because it will strengthen the current regime under which a court can make orders blocking access to websites that have the primary purpose or the primary effect of infringing copyright.

I should note, however, that we have been disappointed at the way the government initially handled this bill, which led to some stakeholders telling us that they were not adequately consulted or given the chance to enter meaningful dialogue with the government on the final version of the bill. To allow stakeholders with concerns about the changes to the site-blocking regime being made by this bill to be properly heard and their concerns considered, earlier this month Labor supported a crossbench motion for an inquiry into this bill by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The referral to the committee was made on 13 November 2018. The committee then advertised the inquiry on its website and wrote to relevant individuals and organisations inviting submissions. The committee did not hold a public hearing, but committee members carefully examined the 26 submissions received. I thank submitters for taking the time to write to the committee and I thank the committee members for their diligent work in reviewing those submissions and preparing a report, which was tabled on 26 November.

The committee's report details the concerns raised by some submitters and provides comprehensive responses to those concerned. Ultimately, the committee made the following two recommendations:

Recommendation 1

2.48 The committee recommends that the government review the effectiveness of the measures contained in the bill two years after its enactment.

Recommendation 2

2.49 The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.

Labor accepts both recommendations. We understand that the government has committed to review the effectiveness of the measures contained in the bill two years after its enactment, in accordance with the committee's first recommendation. Labor welcomes that commitment and will take this opportunity to say that, if there is a change of government at the next election, a Shorten Labor government would also carry out that recommendation and review the effectiveness of the measures contained in the bill after its enactment.

I turn now to what this bill will achieve. While the digital revolution has created enormous benefits for our society and economy, it has also been highly disruptive. The rapid expansion of online services has created many new challenges for law enforcement. But we in Labor do not believe the online world should be allowed to exist in a lawless frontier. To the contrary, we in Labor understand the importance of effective regulation in this area, whether it's to stop the selling of illegal weapons, to shut down the vile trade in child pornography, to prevent online radicalisation of Australians by terrorist groups or, as this bill does, to prevent the theft of intellectual property. This bill makes important improvements to the Copyright Act that will help ensure it continues to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age.

We in Labor recognise the vital importance of Australia's creative industries. Our musicians, our filmmakers, our television production industry and our artists all contribute enormously to our society in both economic and cultural terms. The stories Australians love the most are our stories—stories about our nation, our history, our people. Whether on television, on the big screen or in books, these stories are all produced by people who rely on copyright laws to protect their creative work. It is the copyright law that ensures those in our creative industry are paid for the work that they do. Chapter 9 of the Australian Labor Party's National Platform is titled 'A fair go for all'. At paragraph 300, the ALP sets out the importance of maintaining copyright in the following terms:

The legal framework of copyright is necessary to ensure the income generated by arts, culture and heritage is fairly distributed between the creators and the institutions and entrepreneurs who make it available. A successful copyright framework will support the education, arts, culture, and heritage of Australia by:

Developing and maintaining a national identity in the Australian creative industries;

Protecting the intellectual property rights of content creators;

Supporting new and emerging Australian creative talent;

Meeting consumer expectations of speed to market;

Securing the supply and diversity of Australian-produced intellectual property;

Promoting competitive, sustainable and innovative Australian creative industries; and

Promoting exports of Australian creative product to foreign territories.

Our policy on copyright is consistent with our long-held view about the importance of arts and culture in our national life.

When last in government and over the last five years of opposition, Labor has been working to support sensible changes to our copyright laws to ensure that they remain fit for purpose in protecting our creative industries and our artists. One of the most significant threats to the music and screen industries since the advent of the internet has been the rise of online piracy, because online piracy undermines the capacity of creators, including musicians and screen industry professionals, to sell their work. To help reduce online piracy, in 2015 Labor worked with the government to introduce amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 that allow the courts to issue site-blocking orders that oblige carriage service providers to block access to identified pirate sites. These site-blocking injunctions can only be issued by a judge and only for websites outside of Australia whose primary purpose has been proven to be infringing copyright material. This regime, under section 115A of the Copyright Act, is necessary because many pirate sites operate in overseas jurisdictions with lax copyright laws. The pirate sites operating in these foreign jurisdictions are generally out of reach of Australian law enforcement, yet the damage these sites do to our creative industries and so to our economy is considerable.

Representatives of our creative industries and artists in Australia were very supportive of the regime introduced by section 115A, and since 2015 these reforms have been successfully used to block a number of pirate sites, with a measurable drop in the rate of online copyright infringements in Australia. However, rates of online copyright infringement in Australia remain high in contrast to comparable overseas jurisdictions and new forms of copyright infringement are always being developed as the digital world rapidly changes.

This bill responds to the ongoing challenge of online piracy by strengthening the site-blocking regime in section 115A of the Copyright Act. In summary, it will expand the services that can be subject to injunctions to include online search engine providers such as Google, in addition to carriage service providers such as Telstra, to compel the providers to take reasonable steps to not provide search results that direct users to copyright infringing websites. This measure is intended to reinforce the regime by ensuring that searches do not provide easy pathways to copyright infringing websites or to already blocked copyright infringing sites through alternative pathways and web addresses. It allows injunctions to be sought to block access to sites which have the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright. This is a significant expansion of the scope of the site-blocking scheme, which has been limited to sites with the primary purpose only of infringing copyright. Stakeholders had been concerned that new websites such as cyberlocker sites are frequently used for copyright infringement through file sharing of music, movies and television shows, but it is difficult to prove that they exist for that purpose or that primary purpose, so they would fall outside the scheme. It is expected that the addition of a primary effects test will bring such sites within the scheme without unduly widening its scope.

This bill will also allow the court to issue more flexible injunctions that can be adopted to maintain a blocking order without the application having to return to court for a new injunction when pirate sites change address or access pathways. These adaptable injunctions will provide for the blocking of additional domain sites, IP addresses and search results by agreement with the copyright owners and service providers. This bill also helps to avoid wasteful and difficult evidentiary inquiries for applicants to establish the location of web hosting sites by putting in place a rebuttable presumption that an online location is outside Australia.

Finally, this bill includes a measure that will enable the minister, by disallowable instrument, to declare that particular onsite search engine providers or a class of those providers are exempted from the scheme. This last measure is essentially a safeguard to ensure that injunctions are directed only against the largest service providers facilitating the infringement of copyright.

Creative industry representatives in Australia that Labor has been consulting have already indicated support for the changes proposed in this bill. This includes our music and screen production industries. We know that the search engine providers have been actively involved in the battle against online piracy, and we trust that they will continue that battle. Although some companies and individuals have expressed concerns about the potential of this bill to be used inappropriately to shut down legitimate sites, we in Labor are satisfied that it contains sufficient safeguards to prevent its misuse. In particular, I point out that injunctions can only be issued in narrow circumstances by a Federal Court judge, with the onus of proof on the applicant seeking the injunction. In making a decision about whether to issue a site-blocking injunction, the judge must take into account a wide range of factors. Under subsection (5) of section 115A of the Copyright Act, the court may take the following matters, among others, into account:

(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the facilitation of the infringement …

…   …   …

(c) whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;

(d) whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders from any court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;

(e) whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances;

(f) the impact on any person, or class of persons, likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction;

(g) whether it is in the public interest to disable access to the online location;

…   …   …

(k) any other relevant matter.

Any decision by a judge to issue an order under section 115 is also subject to appeal.

As with all new legislative regimes, we in Labor are always ready to hear feedback from affected and interested parties about the way in which the regime is operating. If there are any unforeseen problems with the way in which the modifications to section 115A operate in practice, we will of course be willing to consider whether further changes should be made to that part of the Copyright Act to ensure it operates efficiently and effectively to reduce online piracy.

We in Labor are pleased that the protection of copyright is an area of bipartisan agreement. In the past, we have been concerned by some of the government's ill-considered announcements on policies that would roll back copyright protections, such as in relation to safe-harbour laws. However, Labor has stood with Australia's creative industries in opposition to the government's reckless plans to diminish copyright protections, and we were pleased to see that the government backed down on those proposals. Labor is pleased to see that the government has come around to understanding the importance of regulating to protect the rights of our artists and the economic viability and cultural values of our creative industries in the digital age. We support this bill as a means to further the importance of these objectives.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:43): The Australian Greens will be supporting this bill. In doing so, we'd like to make clear that we are strongly supportive of both creative and innovative industries in Australia. We recognise that these fields are increasingly overlapping as digital distribution becomes more and more prevalent, and this has created both opportunities and risks for creators and service providers alike. We will continue to work to ensure that the interests of both innovative and creative industries are protected. We do not believe that these things are mutually exclusive. These two industries are fundamental to our future as a country, and, the more we work to support and create protections, the more we are investing in jobs, particularly for young Australians into the future.

We suggest, in support of this bill, as we have contended in the past, that site blocking is not the most effective way of stopping piracy. Rather, copyright is most effectively addressed by making content available conveniently, affordably, and in a timely way. We have seen this happen with great effect with the popularity of Netflix in Australia and its subsequent downward influence on piracy rates. We acknowledge that, whilst the bill is intended to address doubts within the current scheme, unintended consequences of extending website blocking practices are a concern. And we will work to ensure that free speech and public discourse are not unduly affected.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (10:46): Firstly, I would like to thank the Senate for supporting the referral of this bill, the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. I'm aware that some did not wish to see a delay in the passage of the bill, and I appreciate that the bill has been subject to some consultation in the past. However, my office was contacted by multiple stakeholders on this matter, and Centre Alliance felt it was inappropriate to proceed until all stakeholders had an opportunity to express their concerns as part of the short inquiry process, which has now been completed.

Copyright protection is a crucial mechanism that provides for the viability of Australia's creators and creative industries. In recent times, the increased use of the internet and access to copyright material through digital means has had a twofold effect. On the one hand, it has created more opportunities for copyright owners to get their creative content out into the public domain and it has allowed consumers to enjoy this content in new and very innovative ways. But, on the other hand, copyright infringement now poses a threat to copyright owners due to the emergence of a myriad of websites which contain infringing material and facilitate infringement of copyright.

By way of an example, in their submission to the inquiry, Village Roadshow documented the number of downloads of two Australian films which have been subsidised by the government's tax offset arrangements. In the statistics provided in their submission, the film Mad Max: Fury Road had 600,000 legal downloads and a staggering one million illegal downloads. The film Lion was downloaded some 710,000 times, with over half of that number being illegal downloads. These are staggering numbers. Both highlight the concerns and issues this bill sets out to address and exemplify the reason we need to protect copyright owners from threat of copyright infringement.

This bill proposes a number of amendments which would facilitate the protection of copyright material, such as with these two Australian films. The expansion of section 115A would allow an injunction to extend to both carriage service providers and online search engine providers to block or not provide access to locations which provide access to copyrighted material. By expanding the legislation to provide for more protection to copyright material, Australian films such as Mad Max: Fury Road and Lion will be further protected from illegal downloads.

Many submissions to the inquiry expressed concerns that the proposed changes to the legislation and the widening of section 115A to include a 'primary effect' test could result in the site blocking of online locations which are operating very much for legitimate purposes. There were also a number of submissions drawing attention to the ability of carriage service providers and search engine providers to extend the sites blocked under the bill without any further judicial oversight.

Having reviewed the submissions both in support of and in opposition to the passage of the bill, we found the arguments were evenly balanced. This is not to say that those arguments do not have some merit, as this legislation is certainly not perfect, but I believe there are adequate safeguards in this bill that would prevent section 115A being applied to locations which are operated for legitimate purposes. Centre Alliance was initially going to put forward an amendment to have the operation of these amendments reviewed after 24 months, particularly given the number of concerns which were expressed during the inquiry. We felt that this would be the best way to review the effectiveness of the measures outlined in this bill to see whether any adverse consequences had emerged as a result of the broadening of the legislation. However, we have been informed that the government is committed to a review of this legislation, and we're happy to support this and support passage of the bill in its current form on the basis that the government commits to a review in 24 months time.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (10:50): Thank you, colleagues, for your contributions to this debate on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018. The purpose of this bill is to further modernise Australia's copyright laws. The bill will ensure that website blocking remains an effective means for copyright owners to address large-scale copyright infringement by overseas operators. Together with small business tax relief and location incentives, these changes will help our creative industries to produce Australian content and tell Australian stories. They will also support investments that have made it possible for Australians to enjoy their favourite films, TV shows and music where and when they want.

I'd like to thank all the stakeholders who were consulted on the exposure draft of this bill and also those who participated in the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. The government did carefully consider the comments and matters from stakeholders and made numerous adjustments to the bill prior to its introduction into the other place. Some expressed concern about the cost and difficulty of establishing that an infringing website is located overseas. In a global internet environment, proving that an online location is physically outside Australia is a very high threshold, given the use of proxy servers and other devices to mask locations. To address this concern, the bill includes an evidential presumption that an online location is outside Australia unless proven otherwise.

Concern was also expressed that copyright owners could dictate the blocking of an open-ended list of URLs, domain names or IP addresses without agreement of carriage service providers or online search engine providers. That is not the government's intention with this bill, and a provision was included—subsection 115A(2B)—that confirms that the Federal Court may grant an injunction that allows the blocking of future domain names, URLs and IP addresses on the condition that there is written agreement between the parties. This is consistent with orders that have been made by the court to date that explicitly provide for certain steps to be agreed in writing between the parties.

As noted in the Senate committee inquiry report, the measures are appropriately circumscribed, with the court maintaining ultimate oversight over these types of injunctions, including the requirement that there be evidence of a sufficient nexus between the online location covered by the original injunction and the location to which the order is expanded. Some stakeholders suggested that 'online search engine provider' should be defined. Doing so would be problematic and would risk locking into legislation a definition that is rendered redundant by the fast-moving changes underway in the technology sector. Instead, the bill has been amended to provide the minister with a power to exclude certain online search engine providers from the website-blocking provisions.

The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee queried the justification for this power, noting that significant matters such as the specification of providers that are to be exempted from an injunctive scheme should be included in primary legislation. As noted in the government response to the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, there is adequate justification for this power. This measure provides a more flexible way of dealing with the potential, although small, that an injunction is brought against a party to which these provisions were not intended to apply. Although this power is unlikely to be used, it provides an important safeguard to discourage overreach by copyright owners.

The extension of the scheme to include online search engine providers is an important measure that will improve the effectiveness of the scheme. As noted in the Senate committee inquiry report, a measure of this type is appropriate given that these providers play a significant role in both the infringement and the enforcement of copyright. They are part of the problem as well as the solution. Some also expressed concern about the primary purpose or primary effect test—that it would enable sites such as Pinterest and Google Translate to be captured by a copyright-blocking injunction. This is highly unlikely to occur, particularly as the court may consider, under subsection 115A(5), a number of factors when determining whether to grant an injunction, including proportionality and public interest. It's difficult to imagine that legitimate websites with other purposes or effects, such as social media websites and translation websites, would satisfy this test. Nonetheless, the bill was adjusted to include a cross-reference to subsection 115A(5) to make clear that this is relevant to the Federal Court's considerations in determining whether to grant injunctions. The Senate committee inquiry report also concluded that there are adequate safeguards in section 115A, including as amended, to ensure that unintended consequences, such as it extending to legitimate sites, would not occur in practice.

There were also a range of concerns raised that did not warrant amendments to the bill. Some stakeholders argued that wording changes in subsection 115A(1) from 'reasonable steps' to 'such steps as the court considers reasonable to disable access' would lead to the court ordering inappropriate steps. But this change, which is intended to clarify that the court has the discretion to set the terms of the reasonable steps, is merely reflective of how the court has applied the test to date. In effect, the revised provision will continue to operate as it currently does in practice. Some were concerned that the primary effect test would increase the risk of carriage service providers being liable for costs in proceedings. Some also asked for subsection 115A(9) to be amended to provided that carriage service providers are not liable for costs even if they take part in proceedings. This is not an amendment the government supports. The Federal Court is best placed to decide on issues such as the awarding of costs, and it would not be appropriate to override or fetter this discretion. Some argued that copyright infringements are being effectively dealt with through voluntary actions to block and reduce access to infringing sites and that injunctions are therefore unnecessary. The government welcomes efforts by some players, including Google, to voluntarily curb access to copyright-infringing sites. This is a positive development and is entirely consistent with the government's overall approach to copyright. However, voluntary measures are just that; they're voluntary. The website-blocking scheme simply provides a fallback if voluntary measures prove to be insufficient or are not implemented broadly across the industry.

As noted earlier, the Senate committee inquiry considered submissions from a broad range of copyright owners, carriage service providers, digital platforms and digital rights groups. The committee concluded that, on balance, the benefits of the bill outweigh any potential negative impacts that could arise. The committee also recommended that the government review the effectiveness of the measures contained in the bill two years after its enactment. This is a sensible proposition and one that the government supports. A review of the operation of the copyright website-blocking scheme will be conducted within two years of the commencement of the bill, and the findings and recommendations of that review will be made public.

This bill is an important reform to Australia's copyright framework that will ensure that the Australian creative sector can continue to invest in quality content and stories. I thank colleagues across the chamber for their support for this legislation. I particularly acknowledge the positive and constructive approach that Mr Mark Dreyfus, the shadow Attorney-General, has taken in relation to this matter, and I do want to acknowledge that in copyright matters in general Mr Dreyfus has been a good colleague to work with. I also acknowledge Senator Griff and his positive contribution on behalf of Centre Alliance and also Senator Hanson-Young, who has also been very supportive of sensible changes to copyright legislation, particularly this piece of legislation before us.

Before I commend the bill to colleagues, I do note that Senator Hanson-Young was on the speaker's list but was not in a position, I believe, to make her contribution at the time I got the call for the summing up. So, Mr Acting Deputy President, assuming she wishes to make a contribution, it's in the hands of the chamber as to whether that is possible after the minister has spoken or whether that is best made in the committee stage.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Leyonhjelm ): We could allow Senator Hanson-Young to speak now and then we could put the question on the second reading at the conclusion, if that suits you.

Senator FIFIELD: It's in the hands of the chamber as to what is possible.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, do you wish to speak?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:00): Yes. Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm, and thank you to the minister for giving me some space to put on the record my contribution. I'll keep it brief.

We know what the purpose of this bill, the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, is: it is to ensure Australian artists are given due credit and payment for their work and to protect them from having their work stolen, pirated or abused. It will do this by targeting those who intend to steal their work online. We know that, while many Australian artists have had to adapt to the new world order of the digital revolution, they've done so having to back themselves, often taking the risk financially without knowing exactly how it was going to pay off. Over recent years, we've seen Australian artists starting to do more and more engagement with the digital world and grapple with the issues of copyright but also do more in how they reach audiences and build a reputation and support from those online audiences as well. This bill, notwithstanding the comments put on the record by my colleague Senator Steele-John, will go some way to ensuring that artists, particularly small and independent artists, can have at least an avenue to protect their work if, indeed, it is stolen or there is an infringement of copyright use that undermines their ability to get paid.

We want to see Australian artists supported more and more. This bill creates a pathway for artists and creators to have their rights protected, but we need to do more than this to ensure that Australian artists are given strong policy backing in this country. That's one of the reasons the Greens strongly believe, in a creative Australia, we need a creativity commission—an agency in Australia that would underpin and support Australian artists and the ability of creativity to permeate across all sections of the economy and society. We believe, fundamentally, in the ability of the arts, of creativity, to improve all of our lives. We believe that our culture is made richer through the contribution of creative endeavours. We believe that artists have the right to have their work protected. That includes, of course, artists who work offline and also artists who work fundamentally and predominantly in an online and digital space. They too need to be respected and recognised for the amazing contribution that they give to innovation in this country.

We pride ourselves on developing and advocating for strong policies to support creative Australia. That's why we've been leading an inquiry into Australian content creation, ensuring that Australian stories are promoted and supported through the various different platforms, whether that's traditional broadcast or platforms online or, indeed, even radio. I note that today is the Australian music awards, the ARIA awards, where, for the first time in a long time, the majority of nominees up for awards are Australian artists who are coming back to Australia and investing back into the Australian creative environment. Having their work recognised through those awards will be a great thing to see happen this evening. I just want to say: well done to all the nominees today, and congratulations to those who ultimately win those awards as they're announced later on tonight.

A creativity commission would give Australian artists and creators the ability to have their contribution to the economy and to society recognised. We have a Productivity Commission, we have the CSIRO, we have the Human Rights Commission—all different areas which we understand deserve special recognition in a variety of ways. We have the Productivity Commission, we have the CSIRO, we have the Human Rights Commission—all different areas which we understand deserve special recognition in a variety of ways. It is time that Australian artists and creators also have the backing of a government funded agency that upholds and promotes the benefits of creativity to our entire community, economy and society. That is something I'll be pushing for very strongly over the coming months and I look forward to discussions on both sides of the chamber as to how we can ensure that Australian artists and creators, in the online and offline environment, can be supported better and wholeheartedly by all sides of politics and all sides of the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Hume ) (11:05): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (11:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:06): I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Bill. Today there are more than 40 million people around the world in slavery. That is more than at any time in human history. Two-thirds of those people are in the Asia-Pacific region, right on our doorstep. In fact, there are now more people trapped in slavery in the world today than there have been at any time in human history. They're all around us: in our regions, our products, our services.

The deprivation of someone's liberty is one of the greatest violations of human rights. We can and must do more to prevent this practice. Labor believes that an effective, strong modern slavery act is an important first step in tackling this problem. That's why, over a year ago, Labor announced our commitment to introduce a modern slavery act and establish an independent antislavery commissioner if elected. We are so pleased that the government has followed our lead and introduced this bill. The bill would, for the first time, establish a supply chain transparency reporting obligation requiring major Australian businesses to report on what steps they're taking to identify modern slavery in their supply chains. Done well, this bill could reframe how businesses approach the issue of slavery in their supply chains.

But, as with all great reforms, the devil is in the detail. To make real change, the law must have teeth. Labor is very disappointed that the government refused to include penalties for companies that breached the proposed Modern Slavery Act and opted for a business engagement unit instead of an independent antislavery commissioner. This weak commitment is disappointing but hardly surprising from a government that has shown itself, time after time, to be toothless when it comes to regulating big business.

Labor moved amendments in the House of Representatives to introduce penalties for companies that fail to comply with the Modern Slavery Act and called for the government to establish an office of an independent antislavery commissioner. While we support this bill because it's a step in the right direction, we believe that the government can and must do better to tackle the appalling human rights abuse. First and foremost, the Modern Slavery Act must have penalties for non-compliance. Labor believes we should not be leaving it to big business to police themselves on slavery. There is a genuine passion in the business community and in the broader Australian community to fight slavery. No business wants slavery in their supply chain. No consumer wants products tainted by slavery. But if there are no penalties there's a high risk that many companies simply won't comply.

Anti-Slavery Australia, in its submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, found:

Three years since the UK Act's enactment, only approximately half of the 9,000-11,000 organisations that the UK Government estimates are required to report, have produced a 'slavery and human trafficking statement'.

Many stakeholders argue passionately for there to be penalties for companies who breach the Modern Slavery Act. This included the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Council of Australia and Oxfam, all of whom called for penalties to be included in the bill. The ACTU, in their submission, argued:

In order to make any difference to the lives of workers in Australia and abroad, the Modern Slavery Act must act as a serious motivator for companies to start acting upon the values expressed in their statements and guidelines and provide an effective deterrent for those who fall short of their obligations.

Combating slavery should not be optional. There's no excuse for not looking. Labor will again be moving amendments to introduce penalties for failing to comply with the Modern Slavery Act.

We must also address the need for a commissioner. About once a month we hear, watch or read about a new case of slavery right here in Australia, whether it be migrant workers in agriculture or women in sex work. Earlier this year, Four Corners reported that, just a few kilometres from where we stand right now in Parliament House, at least 20 domestic workers were trapped as slaves, yet no-one ever seems to be held to account, and the facts bear this out. The most recent figures from Senate estimates revealed that in five years, despite all the articles we've read about slavery in Australia, just seven people were successfully convicted. We must do more to crack down on this sickening crime. That's why, over a year ago, Labor committed to establishing an office of the independent slavery commissioner if we were elected. Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable and face cultural, social, economic and language barriers. There are also significant gaps in the support services we provide for victims of modern slavery. A commissioner would assist to remedy these gaps in enforcement, help victims and work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. Key stakeholders including the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans, Anti-Slavery Australia and the ACTU have joined Labor in the call for the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner. The government's decision to walk away from an independent commissioner in exchange for a business engagement unit shows that their primary concern, as always, is to protect big business.

Finally, Labor is also very concerned that the bill includes forced marriage as one of the forms of exploitation required to be reported on by business. Key stakeholders have warned that this bill may have unintended consequences, including driving forced marriage further underground. As Good Shepherd state in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill:

Ordinarily it is not the role of business to inquire into the private lives of its employees, contractors or suppliers (or employees of its contractors) in order to identify practices such as forced marriage. If we liken the practice of forced marriage to that of family violence, corporate responsibility lies with supporting the wellbeing of individuals impacted by violence, not in identification and reporting on violence.

Instead of driving this practice further underground by making it the problem of business, the government should improve the support services it provides to victims.

Despite these concerns, I want to acknowledge the bipartisan and cooperative approach of the assistant minister Senator Reynolds, who's in the chamber today, and reiterate Labor's support for this bill more broadly. Labor passionately supports the introduction of a modern slavery act. We want to see action on this important issue of human rights, and we will be moving amendments to make this bill stronger so that we can move forward in the fight against slavery.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (11:14): I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation, the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, and indicate the Greens' support for this bill. Modern slavery as defined by this bill includes slavery, servitude, forced labour, deceptive recruiting, trafficking in persons, debt bondage and organ trafficking. People can, of course—and far too many people, both globally and in Australia, do—find themselves enslaved through threats of violence and bullying or, in some cases, actually through being bought and sold or having their movements restricted. As such, modern slavery can include being forced to work for low wages in sectors like construction, in sweatshops or in food supply chains, including in the agriculture sector.

According to the 2018 Global Slavery Index, there are in excess of 40 million people globally who are subject to some form of modern slavery, and collectively about US$150 billion, which is well over A$200 billion per year, is generated in the global private economy from forced labour alone. There are around 30 million people in the Asia-Pacific region who are enslaved, which is over 65 per cent of all people in that region, and, again, according to that index, there are over 4,000 people who are enslaved in Australia.

In our country, modern slavery is found in the horticulture sector—for example, when backpackers are underpaid, denied visa extensions by their employers or forced to live in substandard accommodation—but it also exists in a range of other sectors, including, arguably, the underpayments of Australian workers employed by companies like 7-Eleven, Domino's and Pizza Hut. Cleaners working in retail chains for contracting or subcontracting cleaning companies are also indicative of oppressive working conditions that may amount to modern slavery. There are, of course, workers in the textile or clothing sector. When we talk about sweatshops, we usually think about things going on overseas, but in this country there are people who are often older migrants to this country, who may not have strong English language skills, who are stitching together clothes or labels onto clothes for as little as $3 or $4 an hour. So this is a serious issue globally but it is also a serious issue in our country.

Australian businesses, in our increasingly globalised markets, often have supply chains that span multiple countries, and for many Australian companies those supply chains are heavily networked into the Asia-Pacific region. And, because of this multinational complexity, many Australian businesses may actually be unaware of the risks of modern slavery being used in their supply chains. Earlier this year, the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply released the results of a slavery survey it conducted which found that 20 per cent of organisations had not taken any measures to ensure a slavery-free supply chain but 80 per cent said that they were motivated to address the issue due to the reputational risk of ignoring it. That survey also found that only 11 per cent of organisations have total transparency across their entire supply chains, whether that be food or any other sector. So, the time for an Australian modern slavery act is well upon us.

This bill follows an inquiry into establishing an Australian modern slavery act undertaken last year by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Its report, Hidden in plain sight, made 48 recommendations. Principal to those recommendations was the establishment of an Australian modern slavery act and, it must be noted, an independent antislavery commissioner to lead and coordinate Australia's response to combating modern slavery. I'll speak a little more about the lack of an independent antislavery commissioner shortly.

Importantly, though, this bill comes on the back of decades of campaigning by antislavery advocates and non-government organisations in Australia. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of them—and some of them are in the gallery today—for their important and selfless contributions to getting us to where we are today, debating an important bill with broad public and political support in this country and in this parliament. The Greens have supported these campaigns and taken these arguments to parliament, and we're very pleased to be part of what I believe has been a genuinely collaborative approach in this place to deliver this legislation.

This bill, once enacted, will require Australian businesses with annual consolidated revenues of more than $100 million to publish annual statements on the steps they are taking to address modern slavery in their supply chains and operations. At this threshold the act will capture about 3,000 companies. These companies will then be required to produce annual slavery statements, signed off at board level, to be published within six months of their annual reports. To educate affected companies on compliance, the government will establish a modern slavery business engagement unit within the Department of Home Affairs. Home Affairs will also produce and publish an annual statement in the Commonwealth parliament on possible modern slavery risks. Importantly, the act will be reviewed in three years, but the Greens have a very strong view that this should be a rolling review rather than a one-off.

It's worth pointing out that this bill regrettably does not include an independent office of oversight. An independent office of oversight was something that was overwhelmingly called for and supported by stakeholders in the sector and, as such, was a recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill; it was recommendation 3. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, STOP THE TRAFFIK argued:

… the issue of modern slavery is not addressed by one Government department alone … There are at least six government departments whose engagement and action will be required to implement the Act effectively … An Independent Commissioner would be able to work with these departments in a more effective manner than an interdepartmental mechanism led by one department.

The Australian Greens completely agree with the sentiments in that submission. The Human Rights Law Centre mounted a similar argument, noting in their submission:

The UK Anti-Slavery Commissioner Mr Hyland has, according to many UK organisations, been central to raising the profile of these issues within the UK and improving inter-agency cooperation, leading for example to increased numbers of prosecutions and convictions for modern slavery in the UK … Mr Hyland argued that the independence of the Office has been central to its success, enabling him to be a "critical friend" to government agencies, businesses and other stakeholders alike.

It's worth pointing out here that, if you look at Australian political history, particularly recent history, it is people who have statutory independence and the resources and expertise to support them who are best able to drive change. For the Greens, the lack of a genuinely independent office of oversight is the biggest flaw in this legislation, and it is extremely regrettable that the government, having supported the findings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill and having supported the recommendation for an independent antislavery commissioner, has now crab-walked away from that position. It's very disappointing.

In the interests of seeing this important bill pass in some form in this term of the parliament, we're not going to seek to move detailed amendments in the committee stage of this bill, because we do not want to risk the government—which is becoming increasingly chaotic and losing the capacity to manage its own affairs in the House of Representatives—denying this legislation the chance to proceed through the parliament. So we will reluctantly take a collaborative approach to this legislation in the interests of laying a foundation for a legislative program around modern slavery in this country. But we do want to make it very clear that we have a strong view that there needs to be an independent office of oversight. We would urge the government to come back and move amendments to the bill later in this term, and we would urge the Labor Party, in the overwhelmingly likely event that they win government within the next six months or so, to prioritise bringing amendments to this legislation back into parliament to fix up some of the omissions in this bill.

The bill also doesn't provide for penalties. Some stakeholders, in their submissions to the inquiry and in public commentary, have argued for penalties. Others, however, have argued that the first three years should be without penalties and, instead, the focus over those three years should be on developing capacity and buy-in from business. In other words, that argument says we should be focusing more on the carrot than the stick. Many stakeholders that have met with the Greens have expressed a concern that, if organisations are faced with penalties from the day of enactment, not only are they being set up to fail but their efforts will go into avoiding penalties by hiding noncompliance. Although organisations may consider these avoidances as temporary measures until they gain an understanding of what compliance is and what it requires, they will most likely, once initiated, become systemic to their culture and operations, which would, of course, undermine the intent of this legislation.

The Greens hear that argument. We do believe there is a role for penalties to play in this legislation. Whether those penalties are implemented now or later on, once organisations have had time to understand what's required of them, is, in fact, a judgement call. But we argued in our additional comments to the Senate inquiry into this bill that, at the very least, penalties should be considered in the act's first three-year review. And we welcome the government's amendment which, I understand, will require that that occurs. We also believe there's an important leadership role for governments to play in ensuring their own supply chains are as compliant as those in the private sector that will be legislated by this act. For this, there should be a requirement that entities over the reportable threshold comply with the Modern Slavery Act in order to be eligible for government tenders.

Several submitters to the Senate inquiry also called for the act to include a national compensation scheme for victims of modern slavery. There are no greater defenders of human rights in this place than the Australian Greens. I could go through a list of areas where we have consistently stood up for human rights and consistently lost the argument based on the numbers in this place, with the Labor Party and the Liberal Party voting together against fundamental human rights. But we do support the fourth pillar—as we do the other three—of the Australian government's National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery. That fourth pillar, of course, is victim support and protection. But we're not convinced that this act is the most appropriate instrument with which to legislate such a scheme and, as such, it was our recommendation to the Senate inquiry that consideration of a national compensation scheme should be the next priority consideration for the parliament regarding modern slavery. We also recommended that part of this consideration by the Senate or parliament would include whether a victim support scheme would sit under this act or under other Commonwealth legislation such as the Social Security Act, which includes compensation schemes that provide for payments to Australian victims of terrorism overseas.

Another shortcoming that we and many other stakeholders recognised in this bill is its single review of the act in three years. It's worth placing on the record that once this legislation passes—and I genuinely hope it does pass this year; it's ultimately a matter for the government, or the House of Representatives—it'll be a massive learning curve both for businesses and for government. There'll be many elements of this legislation, such as the need for and form of the penalties that I spoke about earlier, that will need to be reviewed after three years. The first three-year review will likely lead to significant changes being made and administered after its conclusion.

These changes will also need reviewing once they've been implemented and bedded down. For this reason, the Greens have a strong view that regular rolling reviews of complex acts like these ought to be standard practice, particularly in areas that exist in changing and evolving environments such as this. But, once again, the government doesn't appear willing to support that, and that's regrettable. Rather than placing the passage of this bill through the parliament at risk, I'll instead move a second reading amendment for a rolling three-year review of the act which would be conducted by an independent statutory antislavery commissioner.

I'd like to make the point that, on a bill this important and life-changing to so many vulnerable and exploited people around the world, it would be extremely regrettable if this bill were not to pass through the parliament. What we have before us is a bill that will bring Australia into line with jurisdictions such as the UK, the European Union and some states in the United States—and some sectors in the US—when it comes to taking strong action against modern slavery in our backyards and beyond. This is a bill that has broad cross-party support in this parliament, and it's something that everyone who supports it should be proud of. I've always regretted, through my political career, that more attention in the media and on social media is not paid to issues where people come together and work collaboratively and are prepared to put aside political differences to progress an important issue. Again, this is a classic example of a really important piece of legislation that's flown very much under the radar in media and public commentary terms, which is regrettable because, as I said, it's come about as a result of a genuinely collaborative approach.

On that basis, I want to thank everyone who's worked so hard to get this legislation up, including stakeholders who are in the gallery today watching this debate. I also want to particularly acknowledge the effort and the constructive work put into this by Senator Reynolds, who I genuinely believe deserves great credit for the collaborative way that she's approached this issue. Although there are, arguably—and in the view of the Greens—ways this legislation could have been made better, we're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this case. This is a good first step for Australia to take in accepting responsibility and joining global efforts to stamp out modern slavery worldwide. That's why we will support this important bill and all that it seeks to do, but we will continue to work to see the improvements that we believe are necessary made to this legislation in the future. I move the second reading amendment in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate is of the opinion that, every three years, the Modern Slavery Act 2018 should be subject to a review conducted by an independent statutory Anti-Slavery Commissioner."

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:32): The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, investigated the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, held hearings into the bill and came to conclusions which are set out in the report of the committee, which was tabled a couple of months ago. I want to start by thanking all of those who made submissions to the inquiry and those who came and gave evidence to the committee. The work of the submitters was very much appreciated, and I congratulate them on the work they've done and the work that I know that they've been doing over a long period of time.

I have to say that I'm very proud to be part of a government that actually introduced this bill. This is something that has been talked about for a long time, but it's taken a Liberal-National government to actually introduce the bill and to move ahead with the fight against modern slavery. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Reynolds, one of our colleagues in this chamber, who has done an enormous amount of work on this particular bill. I also congratulate Mr Chris Crewther, who was chairman of the joint committee that investigated this issue—modern slavery in Australia—over a long period of time, putting in a very detailed report with a number of recommendations, some of which were taken up by our committee in reviewing the government's legislation. The report of the joint committee was not in relation to any particular piece of legislation but a general review of the whole subject, and I believe it was as a result of the work of that joint committee that the government has introduced this bill and taken the first step in Australia towards combating modern slavery.

Very often our opponents in this chamber, as is their ability, of course, try to pretend that they, rather than the government, are the sole guardians of social justice in Australia. But if you look back through history you'll find that it's the Liberal and National parties that have done most of the work in social justice, and this particular bill is a great example of that. I acknowledge that the committee I spoke about previously has done a lot of work, but I again acknowledge there are many groups in society who have been working on this for a long time, who the government has consulted with and who gave evidence to our committee. I again thank them for alerting other Australians to the issue and to proposing solutions.

After its deliberations, the committee made five recommendations, and I'll briefly run through them. I thank the government for adopting, I think, three out of the five recommendations and, on the two others, noting reasons for not accepting them at the present time. Before I do that, I will refer to some of the issues. A number of submitters proposed amendments or suggested ways in which the bill could be improved. But I think those submitters who were particularly involved came to the conclusion that, whilst the bill wasn't absolutely 100 per cent perfect, it was important to get the bill dealt with, and dealt with quickly, and to adopt the bill on the basis that it would be reviewed in three years and that this quite significant change to the way businesses operate in Australia could be assessed over that three-year period and any recommendations for the future could be made.

I particularly want to refer to what I thought was the very good evidence given by a person who I might say would be surprised, along with me, that I would ever say that he was right on the mark, and that's Mr Chris Evans, who was, as you might recall, the Leader of the Government in the Senate during one of the Labor periods of government. Chris Evans gave evidence on the behalf of the Walk Free Foundation, and he gave evidence at the same time as Ms Heather Moore, who is from the Freedom Partnership to end modern slavery. Some of their evidence to the committee was very mature and very sound and influenced the committee in the resolutions it reached. Ms Moore, on behalf of the Freedom Partnership, said:

As outlined in our submission, we think that there could be some minor improvements to this bill, but I'd like to say first and foremost that we think it's a very good bill, we support this bill and we would like to see it passed as soon as practicable—before the end of the year if possible.

I'm very grateful for the support of the Labor Party, who I acknowledge joined with government members on the committee to recommend passing the bill with the recommendations the committee made. That means that this bill will pass by the end of the year, as Ms Moore asked. I'm delighted, I might say, to hear Senator McKim also adopt that approach, the approach of Mr Evans—that is, whilst some people may have some reservations, it's important to get it dealt with and dealt with as soon as possible. In his opening remarks, Mr Evans said:

You might be surprised, Chair—

as we had a bit of a talk about this before he gave his evidence—

that I'm here to support the government's legislation in large part, and that's because I think they got it right.

He then gave some evidence.

There was some comment, as Senator McKim and others have spoken about, about the statutory officer. There was debate about what this officer should do. As I understand it, the committee came to the conclusion that this officer should just be a friend of those—like a friend of the court—who were getting involved in defeating modern slavery. It is quite a remarkable change for business. We've looked at it, certainly, from the point of view of the victims of modern slavery, as we should. But, for this to work, businesses will have to make quite a dramatic change in the way they operate, particularly businesses with very long supply chains. I don't have the figure in my mind, but Qantas, I think, were given as an example where they had—again, don't hold me to these figures—over 10,000 different suppliers in their supply chain. For Qantas, or any business, then to be able to ensure not only that they were doing the right thing, which they can easily do, but that every one of those 10,000-odd suppliers was doing the right thing as well is, of course, a mammoth task and a mammoth change in the way businesses operate.

The idea of having a statutory officer was, as I recall, to give help to businesses in that first three-year period. That's why the government and the committee opposed the suggestions that penalties should be introduced straight away. It is going to be a dramatic change. It will involve my old profession of the law. It will involve a lot of work for lawyers, and I suspect lawyers are looking forward to this, because it will be a lot of work. Businesses will have to look at this very carefully and make sure they're doing it correctly, and that will involve paying highly paid lawyers, which is good for the profession but also good to make sure that businesses do do the right thing, as is required by this law.

In dealing with this bill the committee heard a lot about the UK provisions and the Hong Kong provisions, as I recall. We had the advantage of learning from the beneficial parts of operations in other countries and also where those operations have gone wrong. Mr Evans was one who did not agree with the view that it would be something 'which we associate with mediation, arbitration and decision-making'. He said:

I haven't found a really good name, but I think of it as an advocacy or advisory role—

that a statutory officer could have. That was one of the recommendations made by the committee, which the government, I don't think, has taken up, but I'll come back to that later.

But Mr Evans and Ms Moore, and indeed, many of the submitters, agreed that it was important to get this bill in place, to get the bill working and to have that review in three years when we can determine what sort of amendments need to be made, whether penalties were necessary and whether businesses were doing the right thing. The committee, you might note, Deputy President, did recommend that the government establish a list of those reporting entities, work towards building a list of reporting entities and publish compliance standards publically in order to test the proposition that reputational risk, which had been spoken about by many of the submitters, is a sufficient motivator for reporting entities to comply with the requirements of the act. That was the first recommendation of the committee, which the government has accepted in principle. That will occur at an administrative level, as I understand it.

Our second recommendation was that the committee suggests that the list of entities who do report, including entities outside the compliance threshold who report voluntarily, should be published publicly. This was suggesting that, even when you didn't have to report, many companies would, for business reasons, report and say, 'Although we're not required to do this, we're going to tell you what we've done so you will know that we are a good corporate citizen, that we're doing the right thing.' And of course there was the suggestion that, as I said, there was reputational advantage to companies that were able to report. The committee made a recommendation about that independent statutory officer, with powers to be a help. Although the government hasn't accepted that at this stage, they've noted the suggestion and the recommendation by the committee, and I understand that that's something that will be at the forefront when the review takes place in three years time.

The committee further recommended that the three-year statutory review period include consideration of all aspects of the act, with particular attention to compliance thresholds and compliance standards, and that the review be required to consider whether a mandatory penalty is required, drawing on the evidence and data gathered in the first three years of the act. The committee acknowledges that it may be shown that penalties are not needed. The government has accepted that recommendation, I'm pleased to say. The committee heard contrasting views on whether the bill should or shouldn't include provision for penalties. Some argued that industry-driven compliance rates would be low without penalties. Others suggested that compliance standards would be more rigorous and meaningful without the penalty regime.

The committee noted that the lack of a penalty regime makes the bill consistent with similar legislation in the UK and some parts of Europe and the US and that it is designed to encourage a race to the top rather than to set up a coercive punishment regime that may be counterproductive to compliance and quality of reporting statements. The committee said in its report that it's not averse to the inclusion of a penalty scheme but it is of the view that any consideration of the potential efficacy and scope of the penalty scheme would be most usefully conducted as part of the statutory three-year review of the act, with the benefit of the substantial data that will have been amassed by that time regarding the act generally and compliance specifically.

Finally, the committee recommended that the various legislative pieces relating to modern slavery and our various acts, including the Criminal Code and certain migration bills, be collated into one place to make it easier for those seeking to comply. The government's noted that and will look at whether it is possible and will be useful. Of course, there was another recommendation of the committee, and that was that the bill be passed, taking into account the other recommendations made.

I'm delighted that this bill will come into effect with, I think, the support of all parties—even, dare I say, the Greens political party, who, responsibly, have said that they are not going to move amendments in the committee stage. Whilst there are some aspects of the bill that they don't like, they recognise that the greater importance is to get the bill through. I conclude by saying how proud I am—and how proud I know all the members of the government are—that it is this government, the Liberal-Nationals government, that has actually worked and legislated for an issue that has been around for a long, long time. Again, I thank all the other groups. I've mentioned two of them, but there was a series of them, mentioned in our report, who made some submissions and gave evidence, and I want to thank all of them. I again acknowledge the work of Senator Reynolds and Mr Crewther in the joint standing committee that looked into this in some great detail, as it was their work that has initiated this legislation.

I conclude by thanking other members of the committee, most of whom I think have spoken or will speak in this debate. That includes the deputy chair, Senator Pratt, and Senator Molan, Senator McKim, Senator Hume and Senator Watt. I thank them for the contribution they made to this report. As always, I thank the hardworking and very astute staff that the Senate is fortunate to have in the committee secretariat, who support Senate committees in delivering their reports. This shows the Senate committee system at its very best. Sometimes I'm very critical of the system when it is used for purely crass political purposes, but this bill report is a great example of how the Senate committees work properly. People work together, they take submissions, they consider submissions, and they say to the government at times, 'Thanks for this, but you haven't got it quite right and the whole system would prove better if it were amended slightly.' I'm delighted that our government has been mature enough and good enough to say, 'We accept that our bill needs some tweaking and we're going to do it.' Congratulations to all involved—the committee, the submitters and the government—for doing it. It is a good bill, long overdue, but hopefully it will be here in 2018.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (11:51): I rise to contribute on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 after a hard-fought campaign by a wide range of stakeholders that Labor has listened to and responded to. The clothes we buy and the food we eat in Australia is often imported or includes imported parts. Many countries from which it is sourced do not benefit from the labour regulations we enjoy here at home. Indeed, new research published in the journal Nature Communications found that fishing crews all over the world are working excessive hours for little or no pay in horrific conditions. Modern slavery is real, it is pervasive and it is everywhere. There are more people in slavery or slavery-like conditions in 2018 than at any other time in human history. Many of these are children. The International Labor Organisation has estimated that about 168 million children worldwide are engaged in child labour.

Two-thirds of the 45.8 million people trapped in slavery worldwide are in the Asia-Pacific region. Many of them are stuck in the global supply chains of products and services that Australians use every day. They are victims of exploitation in private sector activities like manufacturing, construction, agricultural and fishing. Even in Australia, an estimated 4,300 people are currently trapped in slavery or slavery-like conditions. They are migrant workers, international students, backpackers and women; they are people working in horticultural industries, our convenience stores or for labour-hire companies.

As a nation, we rightly find the notion of slavery abhorrent. It conjures images of subjugation, pain and fear. As a society we know this is unacceptable. Modern slavery is the worst abuse of humanity by humanity. We are all shamed by this shocking reality. Modern slavery harms people of all ages, genders and races. It deprives people of their autonomy, their freedom, their potential and their dignity. It harms their physical and mental wellbeing. Eighty per cent of the 75 million people who make our clothes are women between the ages of 18 and 35. Often these women live in poverty, suffer from exploitation and verbal and physical abuse and work for as little as the equivalent of A40c an hour. That is why a number of countries, including the UK, France and the Netherlands, have acted with legislation to curb the rise of slavery in business supply chains.

While this modern slavery legislation introduced by the government is welcome, it is indeed very much overdue and it does lack the teeth contained in models adopted elsewhere. The lack of an independent antislavery commissioner or adequate penalties makes it a lost opportunity to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts broadly and child labour in particular. Its major legislative omissions will substantially curtail the success of the implementation of this act. No person wants to purchase goods tainted by slavery. No business wants slavery in its supply chains. With this legislation, turning a blind eye to allegations of slavery will no longer be an option, and that is a very good thing.

Legislative change in Australia has been the culmination of advocacy across a multitude of sectors by people dedicated to ensuring human rights in Australia are respected, and it should be no surprise that it has been Labor that has been very supportive and has been listening to that sector and leading every step of the way. In 2016, I initiated an inquiry into human trafficking as part of my role as deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. It ended with key recommendations to prevent such instances and provide support to victims. This was then followed in 2017, as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, with an inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. The committee held public hearings in Mildura, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra, and its recommendations were consistent with those of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's inquiry into human trafficking.

The committee found that there are serious gaps in the way victims are identified and supported as well as in the ways our criminal justice agencies cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice. Particularly concerning were the reports by stakeholders of serious misconduct in overseas residential institutions and within Australia, particularly in the horticulture and labour hire companies. For example, in Mildura, the committee heard from Mr Turaga of Fiji. He had been promised the opportunity to work in Australia and to earn a fair living, with the opportunity to study and the ability to send money back home to his family. Instead, he had his passport taken upon arrival, he was told he had to pay back a debt associated with the cost of him coming to Australia, he was forced to work over 12 hours a day and his wages were not repatriated to his family.

Further investigations revealed that this kind of exploitation was not isolated. The committee heard that such passport seizures, wage theft and violations of even the most basic workplace health and safety laws had become a business model for labour hire companies. As a result, the foreign affairs committee's report recommended a series of changes to the way Australia's victim support programs operate, including the introduction of a national compensation scheme; improvements to how victims are supported in the visa process; the delinking of this support from criminal prosecutions; and the introduction of a national labour hire licensing scheme.

The committee listened to stakeholders and recommended the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner, the introduction of global supply chain reporting requirements and penalties for their breach. The committee also made a series of recommendations to improve coordination and training for Australia's law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

Labor supported these recommendations. In fact, the recommendations were in lock step with Labor's policy to introduce a modern slavery act in Australia, announced by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow justice minister, Clare O'Neil, in June last year. Labor's proposed Australian modern slavery act includes supply chain reporting requirements for major Australian companies and the establishment of an antislavery commissioner. A Labor government would enforce supply chain reporting requirements for all major businesses, ensuring that no Australian company is either directly or indirectly engaged in modern slavery. Major Australian companies will be required to comply by reporting annually to the government with a slavery and human trafficking statement detailing the steps they've taken to ensure that modern slavery is not occurring in their business or their supply chain. Each statement must include specific information about the company's supply chain: where risks have been identified in that supply chain, what steps are being taken to ensure slavery is not part of that supply chain, training provided to staff on these matters, and whether slavery has been found in the supply chain and what action has been taken. The list of companies in Australia who are required to report under Labor's Australian modern slavery act will be publicly available. A central repository of statements will be established, and, most importantly, there will be penalties for noncompliance with the act.

Labor will also establish an office of an Australian independent antislavery commissioner, recognising the importance of this role in ensuring the effectiveness of the legislation. A Labor government, unlike this government, will introduce an independent antislavery commissioner to monitor and scrutinise the government's work in tackling modern slavery and to help address the gaps in enforcement and victim support. Key stakeholders, including ACRATH, Anti-Slavery Australia and the ACTU, have joined Labor in the call for the establishment of such a role. Labor's commissioner will work with victims of slavery to receive inquiries and complaints. Labor's commissioner will assist business in building and improving best practice in protecting their supply chains from the taint of slavery. Labor's commissioner will work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. Labor's commissioner will lead Australia's global efforts to fight slavery, including working with other countries and international organisations. The legislation before us does not achieve any of this. The government's decision to reject an independent antislavery commissioner in favour of a business engagement unit shows that their primary concern, unfortunately, as always, is with protecting big business.

The absence of civil penalties in this bill is baffling. Leaving companies to police themselves has not been effective in any other jurisdiction. The banks didn't do it, and neither did the insurance companies, and companies aren't doing it in the United Kingdom. Evidence provided to the Senate inquiry into this bill showed that, in the UK, where there are no penalties, the percentage of businesses that are reporting still hovers at around 30 per cent of those that supposedly have had an obligation to do so. That is not good enough. Conforming to the law cannot be an option. It is important to achieve the right balance to ensure companies are encouraged to undertake best practice and scrutinise their suppliers to ensure that they are also compliant. Regardless of size, all businesses have a responsibility to ensure that they are not trading in the misery of modern slavery, and penalties will ensure this. Penalties should include: a civil penalty provision for failure to report, with an immediate start date, focused on the fact of reporting rather than the content of the report, to give business time to build compliance procedures and gain familiarity with these new requirements; a civil penalty provision for submitting an inadequate report, with a delayed start date of two years from the date on which the bill receives royal assent; and a requirement that the minister report annually to the parliament on the companies that have failed to comply with the act.

Stakeholders who provided evidence to the Senate inquiry into the bill also raised a number of further concerns, including the threshold for reporting. The reporting requirement in the bill will apply to entities with consolidated annual revenue of more than $100 million. Some stakeholders have called for a lower threshold of $25 million, to align with ASIC's definition of 'a large corporation', or $50 million, which is closer to the United Kingdom's model. Labor is committed to reviewing changes suggested by stakeholders at the Senate inquiry, including the threshold for reporting, as part of a three-year review provided for in section 24 of this bill.

The clandestine nature of modern slavery makes it very difficult for authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute incidents when they occur, wherever they may occur. Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable and face cultural, social, economic and language barriers. There are also significant gaps in the support services we provide for victims of modern slavery. Modern slavery acts and similar legislation are currently in place, as I said, in the UK, France, the EU and some states of the US such as California. A modern slavery act will encourage businesses to take every step they can to put pressure on suppliers and notify authorities, as well as ensuring that they are more careful about checking who their suppliers are and what kind of labour practices they are engaged in.

So, despite the shortfalls in this bill, it is an important piece of legislation and this parliament needs to enact it for the best interests of our community and communities elsewhere in the world. Vigorous consultation with stakeholders, including NGOs, the business sector and departments, has made clear that modern slavery is an issue which needs to be dealt with immediately. I want to sincerely thank all of the stakeholders who made submissions and appeared before the law enforcement committee, the Senate committee and the joint foreign affairs committee, particularly the Law Council of Australia and its former president, Fiona McLeod; ACRATH and Christine Carolan from there; the Walk Free Foundation, particularly former Senator Chris Evans; and the Salvation Army Freedom Partnership, particularly Heather Moore, who has worked tirelessly on this issue.

I acknowledge Fuzz Kitto of STOP THE TRAFFIK and the petition that was received by Senator Penny Wong and our shadow justice minister, Claire O'Neill, on 13 November, signed by tens of thousands of people from around the world, calling on this Australian parliament to be a global leader against slavery by enacting a strong and effective modern slavery act. I understand that Fuzz presented that petition to Senator Penny Wong and to Ms Claire O'Neill on 13 November. Fuzz, as the national co-director of STOP THE TRAFFIK, was doing so as a response to members of its Australian coalition, which represents over 30 organisations working together to prevent, disrupt and abolish modern slavery. I understand that STOP THE TRAFFIK has been actively engaging with members and senators on all sides of politics, as well as with business, industry, non-government organisations and consumers on this issue of a modern slavery act for Australia. That petition that Senator Wong then presented to this Senate was signed by some 52,719 people from around Australia and the world, coordinated by Freedom United. It commends the Australian parliament for taking bold first steps towards creating a modern slavery law that could greatly impact the lives of millions of people working under conditions of forced labour. It went on to outline how, as we know all too well, many workers in Asia endure forced labour to bring us, as I said, the garments, the food, the electronics and other goods we enjoy. I am very pleased that Senator Wong presented that petition to this parliament and I thank STOP THE TRAFFIK for presenting it to Senator Wong to do so.

There are many more, of course, who have fought for this legislation to end slavery for many years. There is no doubt that this legislation, limited though it is, will drive corporate change and will have a positive impact on countries around the world. It will create a framework for business, government and civil society to address modern slavery. I want to congratulate members throughout this parliament, particularly our shadow minister, Ms Clare O'Neil, but also the chair of the foreign affairs committee inquiry, Mr Chris Crewther, from the other place, and indeed my Senate colleague Senator Linda Reynolds, with whom I had the pleasure of working closely on this issue. I understand how passionate she is about this issue and I share her passion.

But the work is not over, and Labor is not ready to stop working. We will ensure that we are doing all we can to fight this horrific practice, rather than leave the job half done. We do not accept modern slavery in any form, whether in Australia, the Indo-Pacific region or anywhere else throughout the world. We do not accept slavery in the supply chains of companies operating in Australia. That is why we must legislate to ensure that the tragic stories we have heard are never, ever repeated. It is abhorrent to me—it is abhorrent to so many in this place—that in this day and age, 2018, we still have to deal with issues of slavery and slavery-like practices. The reality is that there is modern slavery within our communities and indeed within our region. It is real, it is pervasive, it is everywhere. We must stamp it out. We must end this practice. It is abhorrent. I commend the bill in front of us today and hope it can be improved upon in time to come.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:11): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. My remarks will be brief, given the Senate's difficulties of late in debating and passing legislation that truly does matter. Although some members of the public may beg to differ, there are times that the parliament can pass legislation that is for the common good. The Modern Slavery Bill represents such legislation. While there have been some speed bumps along the way, Centre Alliance is committed to ensuring that this passes both houses of parliament this sitting fortnight.

This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 28 June 2018 following the extensive consultation process initiated by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade during its inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. The bill was then referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which tabled its report on 24 August 2018. The majority report contains six recommendations centred around reporting requirements imposed by the bill, the appointment of an independent statutory officer, matters to be considered by the legislative three-year review of the act, and references to existing modern slavery offences in Australia. As with many bills that come before the Senate, there's always room for improvement. Just how much the bill should be improved has been the subject of much debate and discussion, especially in the last three months—actually, especially in the last few weeks—in the backrooms of this building.

A range of aphorisms are relevant to the current circumstances: 'Perfect is the enemy of good'; 'Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without'; and—I say in my best Shakespeare voice!—'Striving to be better, oft we mar what's well'. And that may well be the first and last time you'll hear a submariner quoting Shakespeare! It is against this backdrop that I can indicate that Centre Alliance will not be supporting the amendments circulated by the opposition. The message we have been receiving loud and clear from some of the key stakeholders is that we are better off passing something this year, or else we risk delaying this legislation's coming into force for perhaps another 12 months. Centre Alliance has decided to focus on what outcomes can be achieved rather than what can't. Once passed, this bill will ensure that some of the biggest companies operating in Australia will be required by law to examine their supply chains for signs of modern slavery. If modern slavery is found, they must take steps to ensure that it does not continue. The significance of this cannot be underestimated. The lives of millions of people working under cruel and unsafe conditions stand to change for the better because of this legislation.

There have been some exchanges between Minister Reynolds and me in the last few committee stages, where I've called her out for being wrong. I don't resile from that, and I would always do that with any senator in this room. On the flip side, we must always recognise when the minister has done a fantastic job. In this case, I truly believe the minister has done some great work in getting this through not only the Senate and its crossbench but also her own party. I will put it on the record that we took her to the brink and then had to march back a little bit. But I think we've come to a reasonable compromise. Thank you, Minister. I would also like to acknowledge my former Senate colleague Skye Kakoschke-Moore. Skye has remained a special adviser to the International Justice Mission, and I hope she will be back here in July next year. I would also like to acknowledge Heather Moore. Her pragmatic approach helped ensure the best possible outcome could be achieved. I look forward to this bill passing and I commend it to the Senate.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (12:16): I too would like to speak on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. In terms of the Senate and in terms of the Australian parliament, it is a momentous occasion that we are debating this bill. As part of the committee inquiry looking into modern slavery, I had the experience, along with Senator Reynolds, of visiting the UK. From my own experiences in the North, and from the concerns around the businesses that we have, I know the questions that have been raised about the exploitation of workers. Going to the UK to examine the UK Modern Slavery Act provided enormous insights. But, even more than that, it is imperative for Australia to stand with the rest of the world in trying to combat slavery. Slavery is abhorrent and it should have been abolished a long time ago. Sadly, it hasn't been abolished. Sadly, there are way too many women, in particular, and children caught up in the vile norm of disempowerment of men, women and young children. In the UK, we heard Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne speak very strongly about why the UK act focused on having an antislavery commissioner. Senator Reynolds and the chair of the committee, Chris Crewther, were also able to see this. I know that it has been a bit of a journey to actually get this bill to this point, and I certainly commend you, Senator Reynolds, and the others who were on the committee with me that we are able to be here to discuss this.

In the UK, we heard of the profound importance of the role of that commissioner and the need for that commissioner. Yes, this is a first step, but Labor is very committed to ensuring that we go to the next step as well and have the commissioner role included in the bill. Strengthening the legislation around policing is necessary, and the ability of businesses to monitor themselves is critical, but it doesn't go far enough. I think we all accept that. I think we know that. Those are the areas that I will constantly focus on. The committee travelled as far away as the United Kingdom, and we were left with a really strong impression of what is important in legislation that comes before our parliament to ensure that slavery does not exist. We have to make sure that this bill has the teeth that it should have to send a very strong message right across this country and to any people across the seas who think that it is okay to enslave people in conditions that are abhorrent. We have to make sure that we're sending a very strong message. That is the next step and that is the place that I hope we will get to. Penalties and an independent commissioner are the steps that we have to aim for in this.

When we were in the UK, we had the opportunity of also speaking with some of the businesses. One that really stayed with me was our visit to Sky UK and the time that we had there. I was quite impressed with the diligence of Ms Fiona Ball, who was the responsible business manager at the time. She gave us a very clear briefing on Sky UK and what they were doing, and not only in terms of the UK legislation on modern slavery. They were talking about the practical steps in how they look at their supply chain, and, again, it gave us a great insight into what is very possible and what should be possible for businesses in Australia. Sky UK talked to us about the fact that everything they do is recorded and monitored, right down to where they get their television screens from and where they get the material for establishing their studios and the flow-on effect of monitoring even those businesses who provide them with just an earpiece for the presenter sitting at the table. They follow the supply chain and make sure that the monitoring of that supply chain is consistent with the recommendations of the UK legislation. That is where Australia needs to get to. We need to make sure that our legislation enforces that kind of diligence on companies, that they are following the supply chain to make sure that there is no-one, not a single person, enslaved in the production of that product. That's where we need to get to.

As you've heard from previous speakers on this side, Labor will be moving amendments in relation to the areas of the bill that we see as needing to be strengthened. But I do, once again, want to commend the members of the committee whom I travelled with on this report, Hidden in plain sight, and I would say to the Senate: it is well worth reading. Please, we've got to do more to stop slavery in this country.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) (12:22): I thank all of my colleagues from the bottom of my heart for their contributions here today and I echo the sentiments of all who have spoken on this bill and all who have contributed. I do think it represents the very best of this Senate and it also represents the very best of this parliament. We have had the parliament, the executive, business and civil society come together in a common purpose to eradicate the slavery that we have inadvertently helped create in our supply chains overseas and also here, as we've said in the parliamentary report, Hidden in plain sight.

I thank all members who have contributed to this debate, in particular my counterpart in the other chamber, Clare O'Neil MP, for the nature in which we were able to work together and collaborate to strengthen this bill. I also extend my sincere thanks to Senator McKim and the Greens for their somewhat robust engagement in this debate. The bill might not be perfect in everybody's minds, but I think it is, as everybody here has said, a great step. So, Senator McKim, thank you very much for your contributions. I also thank Senator Singh and Senator McCarthy for their engagement when I was a member of the committee inquiring into this matter. It has been a labour of love and passion for many of us. I also thank Senator Patrick for his contributions and robust engagement in coming to this point, and Senator Storer, who has had significant engagement with this in the last few weeks. Despite our wide range of views, we all agree on the fundamental principle that modern slavery has absolutely no place anywhere in the world today, and particularly in our supply chains for the goods and services that Australians use every single day.

I'd also like to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon. Alex Hawke MP, for initiating this bill and for taking into account the wide range of views presented in civil society and industry on combating this issue. I also pay tribute to my colleague Chris Crewther MP, who very ably and passionately chaired the inquiry into the establishment of a modern slavery act here in Australia. As Senator McCarthy has said, that committee produced one of the best reports in this period of parliament on this particular issue. It was called Hidden in plain sight. Every member of the committee believed that title was very apt, as modern slavery is something that, while we might see evidence of it in our own communities—even here in Australia—is hidden in plain sight because, while we see it, we don't understand it for what it actually is. Without Chris Crewther's passion and commitment as chair of the subcommittee, we wouldn't be here talking about this bill today.

There have been many civil society organisations that have also engaged in this process, and I notice there are a couple of people from those organisations here today in the gallery. I'd particularly like to thank Heather Moore, from the Salvation Army, for the amazing work that they have done at all stages of the inquiry, the reviews and the development of this bill, and Fuzz and Carolyn Kitto, from STOP THE TRAFFIK, who have worked tirelessly to make sure we got to this day. I sincerely thank them, Save the Children and the many other organisations that have worked so collaboratively together. I also thank the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that inquired into this bill, which was very ably led by my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald. As he said in this place, the committee put a lot of serious consideration and thought into this report, and the government has largely adopted the committee's recommendations. The Modern Slavery Bill 2018 is a critical milestone in our response to this heinous practice. When legislated, this act will build greater transparency by shining a light into the length and breadth of the global supply chains.

The term 'modern slavery' is used to describe a range of activities. We're not talking about the unfair labour practices and fair pay for a fair day's work; we're not talking about that aspect of labour laws. We are talking about the most serious deprivation of individual liberty and individual freedoms—servitude. Modern slavery today encompasses human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices, servitude, forced marriage and forced labour. Each of these on its own is a serious exploitative practice and a grave violation of human rights, and they simply have no place in the world today. Just as fundamentally, modern slavery practices are a denial of individual liberties and democratic freedoms. Bonded labour, indebted servitude and trafficking are all the most gross violations of personal freedoms and individual rights.

Today slavery rarely involves chains or obvious physical control over victims—although, sadly, in some places there is evidence that chains still do exist. Those who exploit others in this way typically use more subtle forms of coercion, such as threats and deception, to maintain power over their victims, who are some of the most vulnerable and powerless in the world today. The United Nations International Labour Organization estimates that there are at least 40 million people around the world caught up in modern slavery. Of the victims, at least 25 million are exploited in global supply chains, including at least 16 million in the private sector supply chains, and about 15 million in forced marriage. Sadly, our region is also the global epicentre of modern slavery, with about two-thirds of victims situated in our Asia-Pacific region.

The exploitation of people, sadly, is a highly lucrative business. Slavery alone generates more than $190 billion annually, globally. I will say that again: $190 billion annually. Every single dollar of that is on the back of the exploitation of other people. That $190 billion every year is more than the combined profit of Apple, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Microsoft and Facebook combined. The personal and human cost to people who have been subject to this abuse is immeasurable. There are many industries at risk of having modern slavery in their supply chains, including garment manufacturing, mining, seafood, construction, electronics and agriculture. Awareness of the problem globally is gradually increasing, and international efforts to combat it are gaining momentum. I would particularly like to congratulate and thank the Walk Free Foundation and their founder, Andrew Forrest, for really driving a lot of the global awareness of modern slavery and harnessing a desire to tackle it.

The Australian government also recognises that this is a global problem, and it's not confined to the poorest nations in the globe. Edmund Burke once remarked that slavery is a weed which grows on every soil. But slavery is not just something that Australians contribute to unknowingly when they buy their clothes, when they eat their food and when they use their electronic devices. It also exists here in Australia.

On a personal note, I would particularly like to say to the Senate how personally happy and delighted I am that, with the passage of this legislation, Australia will become the first country to acknowledge, and seek that companies look for, the practice of trafficking of children into foreign orphanages to be enslaved, with the orphanages earning money from us. It was during a visit to Cambodia in 2016 with Save the Children that I became aware of the issue of voluntourism, with thousands and thousands of Australians unwittingly supporting the institutionalisation of vulnerable children in so-called orphanages that get money from us when we volunteer. It is perverse, it is evil and we have a responsibility to fix it. Again, like the UK has found with the introduction of their Modern Slavery Act, modern slaves are often hidden in plain sight—and not just in the UK, the US and across the EU. We have people in slavery here in Australia today. They are working on our farms, sometimes in our shopping centres, in nail bars and in massage parlours.

Australia already does have a legislative framework and criminal justice arrangements to deal with these sorts of crimes domestically, including specialist police investigative teams, a dedicated victim support program and comprehensive criminal offences. Here in Australia, specialist police investigative teams have received more than 800 referrals for suspected modern slavery crimes right here in Australia. A dedicated visa framework has already provided over 150 victims and family members with permanent residency in Australia. However, what our existing legislative framework lacks is a mechanism to directly target modern slavery in global supply chains, or methods to support the business community to take action.

Australian business and industry are exposed to modern slavery risks, but they also have enormous influence and enormous power to address these risks and to cultivate change. In developing the bill, the government worked closely with business as well as civil society, including 16 consultation roundtables with more than 170 businesses and civil society proponents. We've had more than 50 targeted meetings with key stakeholders and provided targeted exposure of the draft bill with more than 40 stakeholders.

In response to some of the comments from those opposite, while many in this chamber are so ready to demonise this sort of phantom concept of big business, what they actually forget is that working in each and every one of these Australian businesses are everyday Australians who want to do the right thing. People in these companies, Australians in these companies, are absolutely appalled to think that their business practices and what they do, and the goods they source from overseas, are the result of slavery. I have found nothing but cooperation and engagement from every aspect of the business sector, because not only is it good business but it is also the right thing for them to do. And, in fact, more than 90 per cent of the submissions on the government's consultation process were overwhelmingly positive about this legislation.

The centrepiece of this legislation is the introduction of an annual modern slavery reporting requirement for large corporations and other entities, like universities and large charities. The reporting requirement will apply to around 3,000 entities in the Australian market with annual global revenue above a $100,000 threshold. It will apply to all Australian businesses as well as foreign businesses with operations in Australia.

The mandatory reporting requirements include the entity's structure; operations and supply chains; potential modern slavery risks; actions they're taking to address those risks; and how entities themselves are assessing the effectiveness of their actions. Importantly, and I believe a global first, this reporting requirement will also apply to the Commonwealth government. So, not only is this government asking others to take these important steps; we're also asking ourselves and making sure that within the federal government we also comply in our own supply chains.

These modern slavery statements will be published on a central website so they are accessible to the public, investors and business peers. This promotes transparency and ensures the community can easily access them. And I believe, and as others have said in this chamber again today, that market scrutiny and increased awareness will drive positive and virtuous behavioural change, and this is all designed to promote a race to the top as investors and consumers reward positive business engagement.

The reporting requirement will be reviewed after three years to ensure that the legislation remains best practice and continues to evolve in line with international developments. However, we recognise this is an important and a significant change for business, which is why the government is establishing a $3.6 million expert modern slavery business engagement unit in the Department of Home Affairs to provide advice on how to comply with the legislation but also, if they find slavery, to provide advice and assistance on how they can go about dealing with it.

Most non-compliance over the first three years of reporting will be due to a lack of awareness from business. That is clearly the experience and the advice from the United Kingdom. Initially, their lower compliance reporting rates were not deliberate; it was really because many of their 8,000 companies did not know how to address it.

The amendments that we're moving today will ensure that the bill includes a clear pathway to future penalties if required. The amendments will explicitly require the three-year review of the reporting requirement to consider compliance rates and whether additional compliance rates are actually required. Lastly, the reporting requirement is subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation by the parliament, which is only right.

In conclusion, Australia has dedicated more than 15 years of consecutive regional aid investment to combat human trafficking in our region and we continue to place a high priority on regional engagement in forums, including through the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. As my colleagues in this chamber have acknowledged today, the passage of this modern slavery bill into law is the next step forward for Australia in combating trafficking and slavery.

The global nature of modern slavery demands a global response, and no one country alone will ever be able to address this scourge. This modern slavery act will set a clear standard for action, which will help Australia deliver tangible results, and result in the freedom from slavery for many, many people here and also overseas. I would like to conclude with the words of William Wilberforce: 'You may choose to look the other way, but you can never, ever again say you did not know.' Thank you.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ): Senator Storer, I'll just go to Senator McKim, in terms of the amendment, and then come back to you. So the question—

Senator McKim: Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: my understanding is that Senator Storer wishes to seek leave to make speech on the second reading of this bill, and, in an attempt to assist the chair, I bring that to your attention and indicate that I'd be very happy, for myself, for Senator Storer to be given that opportunity.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick? Sorry, Senator Griff.

Senator Griff: We've got to do something about it. One of us has to lose about 30 kilos, I think! Hopefully it'll be me—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or dye your hair or something.

Senator Griff: I think I'll dye my hair and lose 30 kilos over the Christmas break. Madam Acting Deputy President, I was asked to come down here in a hurry, which I did, and I too have a speech on the second reading that I would like to deliver, if that is permitted.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister?

Senator Reynolds: In relation to the speakers, we did go straight to the summing-up speech because the other senators were not in the chamber. However, I was going to say: it's up to your discretion, but the government would be happy, if there are further comments, for that to be accommodated, if that were your call.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Storer, before I ask if leave is granted for you to move your second reading amendment, the Senate must prioritise its consideration of Senator McKim's amendment, which is before me in the chamber. So the question is that Senator McKim's second reading amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator STORER (South Australia) (12:41): by leave—I move my second reading amendment, as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade both recommended that an independent statutory officer be appointed to support the operation of the Modern Slavery Act; and

(b) calls on the Government to appoint an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to support the operation of the Modern Slavery Act and coordinate Australia's broader response to modern slavery".

Question agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ): Senator Griff, are you seeking leave to give your speech on the second reading?

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (12:42): Yes, I seek leave to make my speech on the second reading.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ): Is leave granted? Senator Griff, could you just take your seat for a moment.

Senator Urquhart: My understanding was that Senator Griff was going to be given leave to do it in committee. That's what I understood was Senator Reynolds's position.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister?

Senator Reynolds: I'd be very happy, and I think the government would be very happy, to accommodate those speeches in the committee stage. The government is happy to accommodate that if the opposition is, either in second reading or in committee.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Leyonhjelm?

Senator Leyonhjelm: I also missed my speech on the second reading because the list collapsed. I intend to give my speech on the second reading during the committee stage. It is unusual to accommodate them after the minister's summing up. I am perfectly happy to do mine during the committee stage. It makes no difference in terms of the outcome.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now that we've had that conversation around the Senate—thank you—I will put the question that the motion for the second reading, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (15:35): I present the Procedure Committee's fourth report of 2018 on suspensions of standing orders and formal business. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator LINES: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Earlier today you asked the Procedure Committee to consider developing an order requiring that motions to suspend standing orders moved during formal business time be put without debate. The committee has considered the matter and recommends the adoption of a temporary order to have effect immediately until the last sitting day of this parliament. The proposed order provides that the question be put immediately, without amendment or debate, on (a) any motion to suspend standing orders to provide for the consideration of a motion for which formality has been denied and (b) any other motion to suspend standing orders moved during the consideration of formal business under standing order 66. I commend the report and its recommendation to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I thank Senator Lines for the rapid turnaround on that committee report and recommendation.

The PRESIDENT (15:37): I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): At the request of the Senator McAllister, I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) the Department of Social Services recently completed the tender process for grants for the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity, and began notifying applicants of the results in October and November 2018;

(b) the tender decisions resulted in a number of organisations receiving real cuts to their funding;

(c) these cuts were scheduled to take effect in a matter of weeks; and

(d) over the last fortnight, the Minister for Families and Social Services has back flipped and extended selected organisations' existing funding.

(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, by no later than 3.30 pm on 4 December 2018, any documents containing the following information:

(a) the list of applicants who were successful in the 2018 tenders for each of the grant programs within the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity, including the amount of funding received and the service area to which it relates;

(b) any variations or amendments to the tender outcome;

(c) the list of existing grant holders who were unsuccessful or received real cuts in funding in the 2018 tenders for each of the grant programs within the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity, including the amount of funding lost and the service area to which it related;

(d) the list of organisations who were offered extensions of their existing funding after the conclusion of the 2018 tenders for the Financial Wellbeing and Capability grants, including the amount of funding received, the length of the funding extension, and the service area and grant program to which it relates; and

(e) any correspondence between the Department and the Minister's office relating to paragraphs (a to (d) above.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: The Liberal-National government has not only maintained funding but increased funding for financial counselling and financial capability grants. Any financial counselling service that received Commonwealth government funding for financial counselling in 2018 and applied to continue the service will receive at least the same level of funding in 2019. The government's strong budgetary position means that we're able to provide additional funding to a number of organisations for the next 12 months, providing funding certainty and continuity of service for the community.

Question agreed to.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:40): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1249 by omitting 'the last sitting day in March 2019' and substituting '29 March 2019'.

Leave granted.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: I move the motion as amended:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 be extended to 29 March 2019.

Question agreed to.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:42): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Halal Certification Transitional Authority, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator BERNARDI: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator BERNARDI: I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill is introduced to arrest the Coalition Government's Halal Inaction Clock.

The Australian Conservative Party maintains the clock on its website and on l December it will tick over to 3 whole years of inaction on the Senate Economic References Committee's 2015 inquiry into Third Party Certification of Food ("the 2015 inquiry").

This Bill remedies the Parliament's inaction by taking reasonable and proportionate measures to address the concerns expressed by the 2015 inquiry about the halal certification industry.

The submissions to the 2015 inquiry and its findings demonstrated the widespread fraud and misrepresentation to consumers within the halal certification industry.

The fraud in this sector is not a new phenomenon. In September 1982 a federal Royal Commission report into the infamous meat substitution scandal also found there had been fraud within the meat export industry regarding halal certification. As a result, the Australian Government took a role in certifying red meat as halal for export purposes. The Royal Commission report included Appendix H which remained withheld from publication for 30 years, due to the recommendation that the cases in Appendix H be investigated for prosecution.

Case 17 from Victoria related to Halal Slaughter and Certification. Therein, Woodward Jstated:

"I have referred in the body of my report to various types of malpractice associated with halal slaughter and certification: forging of AFIC certificates, obtaining of AFIC certificates by falsely representing to AFIC that animals had been slaughtered according to Islamic rights when they had not, corruption of Muslim slaughtermen and forging of consular seals and signatures … One large meatworks operator obtained halal certificates from AFIC for millions of dollars worth of meat by presenting interim certificates signed by a registered slaughterman who in fact had not slaughtered the animals which we the subject of those interim certificates. The size of the operation can be gauged from the fact that, when found out, some $2m worth of meat certified in this way was still held in cold-storage. The operator had paid a registered AFIC slaughterman to provide false certificates at a rate of 20c per carton certified. It had paid him more than $38,000 in the space of just over ten months. The slaughterman presented his false certificates to the state Islamic Council office which issued final certificates without question. The matter came to light only by chance when an employee at the state Islamic Council tried to ring the man at work only to be told he did not work there."

It must be observed that in 1980, $38,000 was a significant figure - close to $150,000 in today's money. Another unnamed export company sent chilled meat to the Middle East and forged the signature of a diplomat from another Arabic nation to speed up its operation.

The 2015 inquiry made a number of findings, and Recommendation 6 is most relevant to the Bill I am tabling today:

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that the halal certification industry consider establishing a single halal certification authority and a single national registered certified trademark.

This, along with all of the other recommendations, was handballed across to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and, in turn, a subgroup of consumer affairs ministers. Theoretically, a State Government or one of their ministers would lead 'action' on the issue, but the topic has vanished from COAG communiques.

After three years of inaction, it is clearly time for the Parliament to act.

In fact, over 15,000 Australians agree. I tabled their signatures to a petition in the Senate in August, demanding action on the 2015 inquiry's recommendations.

This Bill adopts what the industry has determined not to do itself, and that is to establish a single, transitional halal certification authority.

This Bill targets halal alone because that is what Recommendation 6 directed.

The Committee did not see fit to recommend action in other fields of food certification as it was not satisfied there was an evidentiary basis to do so.

I have not ventured into the certified trademark element of the 2015 inquiry' s recommendations, though I have looked into the matter. I intend for colleagues to focus on this central reform. A certified trademark is something an Authority created by this Bill could lead action on.

By creating a transitional certification authority, the Government will be acting in an instance of market failure. By having a transitional body - subject to a sunset provision in the Bill - the industry can pick up and run the body when it concludes, or establish its own alternate body instead.

In establishing an authority to address matters not presently being addressed by any level of government adequately, with the powers necessary to be effective, the Bill runs to dozens of pages. There are no nasty surprises in the provisions. The provisions ought to be familiar to honourable Senators who have reviewed Bills such as the Export Control Bill 2017 or the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. Objections to these operative provisions are in effect objections to provisions in those regimes that have already passed the Senate as Government Bills.

The simple proposition of this Bill is about the long overdue need to act due to:

the rorts, fraud, dishonesty and deception within the halal certification industry,

the proliferation of food products bearing a halal certification label,

the public's concern and uncertainty thereto, and

the industry's inaction (at best) on a Senate committee report - if not (at worst) their brazen disdain for it.

As a conservative, and in particular a fiscal conservative, I feel it is prudent to take two steps.

Firstly, the Bill contains a sunset provision for the transitional authority - governments should only step into the private sector for so long as market failure persists, and be preparing from day one for the day when it can step away again.

Secondly, this regime must function on a full cost recovery basis. There should be no cost to general revenue, or direct charge on the taxpayer, for this regime. Those relying on the certification arrangements in the industry ought to contribute to the cost of its operations. Whether they absorb that cost or pass it on to their consumers is entirely a matter for them - and for consumers to respond to accordingly.

The Bill has a positive impact for all concerned.

For the halal certification industry, it provides a pathway to certainty and improvement of the public standing of its image. It gives the industry a timeline for improvement and eventual self-regulation. It gives license to ethical and genuine operators in the industry to weed out those acting improperly in their midst, aided by an independent arbiter free from whatever historical or cultural impediments that for decades have stood in the way of effective self­regulation.

For consumers, it provides confidence that certification is occurring in an environment free of fraud, misrepresentation and corruption. It provides confidence for consumers that money raised from halal certification is being properly applied for certification purposes and not diverted for unrelated purposes.

For the Government and the Parliament, it resolves a problem for which they have not, thus far, been able to propose a solution, notwithstanding the 2015 inquiry recommendation I have built this Bill upon today.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator BERNARDI: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:07): I move:

That the following documents be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, no later than 9.50 pm on 3 December 2018:

(a) any draft versions of the 'Review of the Regulatory Capability and Culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the Regulation of Live Animal Exports' provided to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources or the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources; and

(b) any correspondence between any or all of the following regarding this report or draft versions of the report: the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, and Mr Philip Moss, AM.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:07): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: Draft versions of the report were unfinished working papers containing raw material from certain contributions made on the basis of confidentiality. A number of confidential submissions were made, informing the report. Editorial actions related to creating clarity and redacting confidential identifiers from the text. The document was subject to a cabinet process, with the final documents released to the public. The Moss report was an independent and unallied review of the regulatory culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, making substantive recommendations, all of which were accepted by the government. Recommendations have obliged change within the department and the industry. The department's resources are focused on implementing the report's recommendations.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1238, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.