The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014
Dear Prime Minister,
I note your decision on Wednesday 4th of March to ask the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) to take a proposed pay increase of only .5% to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, making for a total ADF pay rise of 2%.
In 2000 the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF)— the person you have just asked to increase ordinary diggers pay by .5%--received $305K p/a. The latest figures show that CDF in 2014 took home $764K.
That means the person you have just asked to increase ordinary Diggers pay by .5%—in the last 14 years, own pay increased by almost $460K or 250%. Apart from the obvious embarrassment and humiliation you're subjecting the CDF to, isn't this just another indicator that the system for determining our Diggers pay is broken?
While you attempt to justify this less than fair pay rise, by comparing it to the current inflation rate of 1.7% - I remind you that the core inflation rate is 2.1% and current weighted median Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate is 2.3%.
I also remind you that Parliamentary Library background research I commissioned reveals that the average yearly rise in Defence Pays over the last ten years is approximately 3%.
This stands in stark contrast with the average yearly rise in politician's pay, which since 2004 and taking into account the last two years of 0% pay rise, is still almost 7%.
I'm sure that you would agree, that our Diggers, particularly of the last decade and half, have earnt a pay rise equal to that of our politicians.
So therefore I respectfully ask that you reconsider your pay offer to members of Australia's Defence Force.
It's my view that in making your decision to increase defence pay, you should consider all the facts. If you do so there is a very strong case to:
1. Strengthen the ADF pay increase by .5% to an annual rate of 2.5%, rather than 2%.
2. Ensure that all ADF members receive back pay calculated from the 4th of November 2014 or Melbourne Cup Day (the day after their effective pay cut was sneakily announced by your government)
3. Restore ADF Combat Pay or War Zone Allowance back to $200 per day instead of the reduced $150 per day allowance.
I request that you agree to a meeting to discuss these three important issues.
During that meeting I would also like to receive from you a guarantee that Diggers who have served for 20 years, and are therefore covered by multiple compensation acts, and who are now re-deployed to Iraq - are not (because of a bureaucratic provision called offsetting) at a disadvantage compared with younger diggers, if they are injured.
I've been reliably informed that veteran Australian Diggers who have served previously in East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq - and who have recently been redeployed to Iraq, compared with younger Diggers covered by only one compensation act - can receive compensation payments up to 10 times less, should they be injured during this new deployment.
It's my view that if you properly consider these four issues, you can only come to the conclusion that members of our Defence Force are not being fairly paid or compensated. I would hope that our meeting would find a resolution to these important matters.
Making our own position safe at home.
While I believe that we both share common feelings about Islamic State and the great evil they have brought to this world - I strongly disagree with your decision to send members of our ADF to Iraq in response to their attacks.
Forcing Australian Tax payers to pay for Australian Troops to be sent back into harms way in Iraq, given that America has only deployed about 3000 troops, is not a wise decision.
At best it will be a "flag flying" exercise. At worst we run the risk of supposedly friendly Iraqi troops betraying our Diggers and killing them - or handing them over to Islamic state forces who will use them to make further horrific online videos.
I believe that a prudent response to the threat Australia faces from Islamic state is to dramatically increase the size and capability of the Australian Defence force and that we should make our own country safe, before we try and make countries like Iraq, Syria, Lybia and North Africa safe from Islamic state fanatics and death cult members.
In advocating for that course of action, I draw your attention to the war-time experience of Prime Minister John Curtin, as described by Bob Wurth in his book "1942".
You will recall that following the Japanese Air Raids in February 1942 on Darwin, which killed 243 people and wounded more than 400 Australians, Prime Minister John Curtin received a cable which said that Churchill, acting with out Curtin's authority had already diverted Australian "troop ships to Burma"- leaving our Nation more vulnerable to Japanese attack.
John Curtin is then reported to have told his friend the biographer Lloyd Ross: "its the proper fate of a country which has not built up its own defences. The proper fate of a country which always fights someone else's war, without making its own position safe."
Its my view that as a Nation we're now making the same mistake that Prime Minister Curtain spoke about at the beginning of WW2, namely that, "We're being be drawn into a war and fighting someone else's battles, without making our own position safe at home."
We need to address this problem in an honest manner—and start with a critical look at the numbers and capacity of our ADF.
Our shocking Veterans' suicide and homeless rates which your government continues to cover up - is a direct result of successive Australian Governments asking too few members of our ADF to shoulder the burden of prolonged commitments in the Middle East war zones.
It's my view that many younger veterans who take their lives or end up homeless, will have spent 3 plus years or more in the War Zone in the space of a decade. This prompts the question:
What is the maximum period of time a combat troop can serve in a War Zone, before they are guaranteed to suffer psychological harm?
Some young veterans I have meet have in 13 or more years of service completed 10 combat deployments or tours of duty in war zones.
And while you can't criticize the commitment and love that these young men and women have for Australia, you can criticize the politicians and high ranking members of the ADF who know that we didn't - and still don't, have enough full time members of our military to safely commit our Nation to prolonged military engagements in Middle East war zones.
Senior ADF medical officers have personally confirmed to me that ADF members are allowed to enter War Zones armed, while officially receiving anti-psychotic medication.
Surely these well known facts would lead any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that we don't have a large enough permanent defence force?
And that to meet the threat posed to western civilization by Islamic maniacs who want to drag us back into the dark ages, then its time to dramatically increase the numbers and capacity of our ADF.
We could begin the process of boosting the numbers of our defence force by re-introducing a National Service Trade and Traineeship program. This would not only boost the capacity of our ADF but it would also address the dual problems of youth unemployment and national skills shortage.
Closing - Important Veterans' Questions
In closing, I have been contacted by older veterans with strong connections to our serving ADF members being deployed to the Middle East.
They have requested that I ask you these confronting but relevant questions in relation to the Australian Soldiers preparing and being sent to train and assist Iraqi troops:
1. Do they receive the same combat pay or war zone allowance as the initial cohort of soldiers redeployed to Iraq?
2. Have they received instructions to the effect that: "whatever you do save your last bullet for yourself, don't get captured"?
3. If these soldiers are being deployed armed and warned not to get captured – can you explain why they have been denied the benefits associated with full war like service - and full combat pay and allowances?
4. Has the Australian government deployed these ADF personnel using diplomatic type passports? If so, can you explain why?
5. Are they being warned to discretely advise their families in Australia to be on the lookout for, or vigilant against Islamic state supporters who may be gathering intelligence for future terrorist attacks?
6. If not, why not?
7. Are ADF personnel on Australian Military bases authorized to use their weapons to defend themselves when or if, they are attacked by terrorists?
8.If so, can you describe the chain of command and name who is responsible for authorizing our ADF personnel to arm themselves and use lethal force to defend themselves and others against terrorists attacks?
9. In relation to armed ADF members being authorized to use lethal force, in an emergency or terrorist attack, how long does their lethal force authorization last?
While I will also officially submit these questions as QON, I would appreciate if you provided answers as soon as possible and before the 30 day deadline.
Labor welcomes this decision today to recognise the unique service of Australia’s Defence personnel.
… … …
We think that this is an excellent decision …
A "fair go" is the least a grateful nation can offer to serving and former military personnel.
The feeling within the Australian Defence Force … is as negative as I’ve ever seen it.
The members of the ADF have their pay assessed arbitrarily by the Minister of Defence (the Minister) under section 58B of the Defence Act 1903.
… ensures fairness in the assessment of annual wage increases for members of the Australian defence force by linking Defence Force pay to the higher of increases in Parliamentary allowance and CPI.
The Tribunal may, in making a determination, give effect to any agreement reached between the Minister, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the Chief of the Defence Force …
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [10:57]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the bill be now read a third time.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 3 of 2015
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 7.14pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2015 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(b) the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2015 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
(David Bushby)
Chair
19 March 2015
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Omnibus Repeal (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To scrutinise the repeals and the amendments in the bill to ensure no adverse issues or consequences.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Department of Finance
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Environment
Department of Health and Ageing
Department of Human Services
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans' Affairs
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
Monday 15 June
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment {Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To ensure a thorough and complete assessment of its potential impact on workers' compensation rights and entitlements, potential obligations on exiting entities from Comcare and to examine any unforeseen consequences arising from the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Unions, employers, academics, the ACT Government
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
8 May 2015
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That the report be adopted.
At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2015.".
The Senate divided. [11:13]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown in the list circulated in the chamber be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 653 standing in the name of Senator Siewert relating to coal seam gas; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That general business order of the day no. 29 (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014) be considered on Thursday, 26 March 2015 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills.
That the order of general business for consideration on Thursday, 26 March 2015 be as follows:
(a) general business private senators' bills order of the day No. 48 relating to the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That leave of absence for personal reasons be granted to Senator Brown for today, 19 March 2015.
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2015:
The impact on service quality, efficiency and sustainability of recent Commonwealth Indigenous Advancement Strategy tendering processes by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with particular regard to:
(a) the extent of consultation with service providers concerning the size, scope and nature of services tendered, determination of outcomes and other elements of service and contract design;
(b) the effect of the tendering timeframe and lack of notice on service collaboration, consortia and the opportunity for innovative service design and delivery;
(c) the evidence base and analysis underlying program design;
(d) the clarity of information provided to prospective tenderers concerning service scope and outcomes;
(e) the opportunities created for innovative service design and delivery, and the extent to which this was reflected in the outcomes of the tender process;
(f) the number of non compliant projects, the nature of the non compliance, if and how they were assisted, and how many of these were successful;
(g) analysis of the types, size and structures of organisations which were successful and unsuccessful under this process;
(h) the implementation and extent of compliance with Commonwealth Grant Guidelines;
(i) the potential and likely impacts on service users concerning service delivery, continuity, quality and reliability;
(j) the framework and measures in place, if any, to assess the impacts of these reforms on service user outcomes and service sustainability and effectiveness;
(k) the information provided to tenderers about how decisions are made, feedback mechanisms for unsuccessful tender applicants, and the participation of independent experts in tender review processes to ensure fairness and transparency;
(l) the impact on advocacy and policy services across the sector;
(m) factors relating to the efficient and effective collection and sharing of data on outcomes within and across program streams to allow actuarial analysis of program, cohort and population outcomes to be measured and evaluated;
(n) the extent of contracts offered, and the associated conditions, to successful applicants;
(o) the effect of mandatory incorporation under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 on Indigenous organisations receiving grants of $500 000 or more per annum;
(p) the effect and cost impact of delays in the assessment process and the extension of interim funding on organisations pending the outcome of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; and
(q) any other related matters.
Question agreed to.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
Question agreed to.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) Thursday, 14 May 2015; and
(b) Thursday, 18 June 2015.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate from 5.30 pm, as follows:
(a) Wednesday, 13 May 2015; and
(b) Wednesday, 17 June 2015.
That the Senate notes Fortescue Metals Group chairman, Mr Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest's self-described 'ten-year aspirational challenge' to develop 5 000 gigalitres of water from existing aquifers in Australia to irrigate and drought proof farmland, as well as to open up thousands of hectares of land for new agricultural projects.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the New South Wales Labor Party recently received a political donation from coal seam gas company Santos Ltd,
(ii) the New South Wales Labor Party subsequent to taking the donation, returned $2 200 to Santos Ltd acknowledging this money would cause community doubt that Labor was committed to a coal seam gas free north coast,
(iii) in the recent New South Wales leaders' debate the Labor leader, Mr Luke Foley, failed to rule out coal seam gas development if Labor formed government with his statement that there is a role for gas in the state's energy future, and
(iv) the Federal Labor Party received more than $90 000 from Santos Ltd in the 2012 13 and 2013 14 financial years; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ban political donations from mining and coal seam gas companies, and
(ii) end coal seam gas and coal mining on agricultural land and associated water resources.
The Senate divided. [11:28]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Perth is in urgent need of a light rail network to serve the metropolitan area,
(ii) the Barnett State Government committed to the Metro Area Express ‘MAX’ light rail network for Perth at the 2013 state election, and
(iii) only 18 months later, the Barnett Government walked away from the project; and
(b) calls on the Abbott Government to:
(i) reallocate the $500 million previously allocated to the Perth Light Rail and the Airport Rail Link projects, and
(ii) properly evaluate alternative options for freight projects to the proposed Perth Freight Link.
That the resolution of the Senate of 30 September 2014 appointing the Select Committee on Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration related to Commonwealth Government Affairs be amended as follows:
(1) Omit paragraph (4), substitute:
(4) That the committee consist of 5 senators, 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens and 1 to be nominated by any minority party or independent senators.
(2) Omit paragraph (7), substitute:
(7) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by any minority party or independent senators and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities for being the first private sector organisation to win the prestigious 2015 United Nations Sasakawa Award for Disaster Risk Reduction;
(b) notes the work of the Productivity Commission that the Federal Government has spent record levels of over $13.7 billion on post disaster relief and recovery in the past decade, while outlays on pre disaster mitigation were only 3 per cent of this figure;
(c) notes the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events as global temperatures rise; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to invest in pre disaster mitigation in order to reduce post-disaster spending, while saving homes, lives, critical infrastructure and reducing insurance premiums.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 21 March 2015 is World Down Syndrome Day;
(b) acknowledges That the theme for the 4th World Down Syndrome Conference to be held at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York on Friday, 20 March 2015, is 'My Opportunities, My Choices – Enjoying Full and Equal Rights and the Role of Families'; and
(c) expresses its congratulations, best wishes and support for the Australians attending the UN conference and all members of the Australian Down syndrome community who have been celebrating World Down Syndrome Day during the week beginning 15 March 2015 and will do so this weekend.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2015 Autumn SITTINGS
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014
Purpose of the Bill
To amend the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (the TIA Act) to standardise the types of telecommunications data that service providers must retain under the TIA Act for law enforcement and national security purposes and the period of time for which that information must be held.
Reasons for Urgency
To combat terrorism at home, and to prevent Australians committing terrorist acts abroad, Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies' powers must respond to technological change and evolving threats. Changing technology and business models mean that telecommunications providers are keeping fewer records about communications and for less time.
The reforms contained in the Bill are the third element of the package of national security reforms announced by the Prime Minister in August 2014.
The reforms are essential to maintain the capability of national security and law enforcement agencies in the current heightened security environment. The passage of a mandatory data retention scheme will ensure that evidence vital to police and intelligence investigations is not lost.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security reported on the Bill on 27 February 2015 and recommended that the Bill be passed. The PJCIS noted that current investigative capability is being affected and that the measures contained in the Bill will address key challenges.
Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014
The Senate divided.
(The Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
tabled an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill which provides further detail on certain amendments made by schedules 1 and 4 of the bill. These measures relate
to the identity and integrity measures in schedule 1 of the bill, specifically proposed sections 91W, 91W(a) and 43A; and to the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Tribunal integrity measures relating to providing oral statements of reasons following an oral decision.
The tribunals will also have the discretionary power to provide an oral rather than written statement of reasons following an oral decision, but a written one will be available—
on request within 14 days. It is not anticipated that oral decisions and statements will be made in complex cases but will be reserved only for a review of cases involving simple facts and very straightforward statutory interpretation where the relevant case law is well settled.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 1), insert:
(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 2), before Part 1, insert:
Part 1A—Amendments commencing on Royal Assent
Migration Act 1958
1A After section 35A
Insert:
35B Protection visas—advice and application assistance
Scope
(1) This section applies to an applicant for a protection visa who meets the criteria prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Entitlement to advice and assistance
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the applicant is entitled to receive independent immigration legal advice and assistance in relation to his or her application.
Limitation on assistance
(3) The applicant is not entitled to any assistance after:
(a) the protection visa has been granted; or
(b) if the protection visa is not granted and the application applies to have the decision reviewed—the review has been finally determined.
The Senate divided. [12:27]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
(4) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 4 (lines 2 to 25), to be opposed.
The committee divided. [12:37]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 3 to 12), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 1, items 4 to 10, page 5 (line 18) to page 6 (line 22), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 25) to page 7 (line 14), section 91WA to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, items 12 and 13 (lines 28 to 32), to be opposed.
Australian River Co. Limited Bill 2015
That this bill be now read a third time.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2015
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2015
That these bills be now read a third time.
Succession to the Crown Bill 2015
There are clearly issues about the exclusion of people from the rights of succession and there are clearly issues that have got to be dealt with. This is not an easy set of answers.
But I think in the 21st Century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at all these issues.
As Queen, Elizabeth's skills in transcending politics while counselling to 12 British prime ministers, from Winston Churchill to David Cameron, and presiding over an often fractious Commonwealth have demonstrated the stable benefits of constitutional monarchy. In more capricious hands the story might have been very different. While remaining apolitical, the Queen's advocacy of tolerance and social cohesion and support for those who are suffering has made her an influence for good.
The countries of the world that tend to be the most liberal, secular and tolerant happen to be constitutional monarchies: the UK, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain. That may be just an accident, but I doubt it. The system puts in place a person whose life must be one of service. As well, it avoids the head of state problem: leaders who get carried away with their own importance. It keeps out of the top jobs rather unlovely characters. The constitutional monarchy is a core principle in the Australian Constitution.
Our flag bears the stars that blaze at night,
In our southern sky of blue,
And a little old flag in the corner
That's part of our heritage too.
It's for the English, the Scots and the Irish
Who were sent to the ends of the earth,
The rogues and schemers, the doers and dreamers
Who gave modern Australia birth.
And you, who are shouting to change it,
You don't seem to understand,
It's the flag of our law and our language
Not the flag of a faraway land.
(Though there are plenty of people who'll tell you,
How when Europe was plunged into night,
That little old flag in the corner
Was their symbol of freedom and light.)
It doesn't mean we owe allegiance
To a forgotten imperial dream;
We've the stars to show where we're going.
And the old flag to show where we've been.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 3 to 12), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 1, items 4 to 10, page 5 (line 18) to page 6 (line 22), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 25) to page 7 (line 14), section 91WA to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, items 12 and 13 (lines 28 to 32), to be opposed.
[The committee divided 13:36]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 26) to page 7 (line 2), omit subsection 91WA(1), substitute:
(1) The Minister may refuse to grant a protection visa to an applicant for a protection visa if:
(a) either:
(i) the applicant provides a bogus document as evidence of the applicant's identity, nationality or citizenship; or
(ii) the Minister is satisfied that the applicant has destroyed or disposed of documentary evidence of the applicant's identity, nationality or citizenship, or has caused such documentary evidence to be destroyed or disposed of; and
(b) other grounds exist on which the Minister may refuse to grant the protection visa.
The committee divided. [13:46]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 15 to 27), section 91WB to be opposed.
The Senate divided. [13:58]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
We would need to be on crack to go to a double dissolution …
We'll have someone from the Bully Bushwacker party and they'll end up having three seats and we will go mad.
Given his increasing desperation, there could be a rush to the governor-general.
… only doing his job as a union organiser. We will be waiting there at the gates when he comes out.
Real men don't abuse women.
… more of us need to speak out and stop the silence around this issue
… a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result looking around the world.
At no stage has DMO requested a detailed briefing about the scope and complexity of the programs recently undertaken by Saab Kockums …
We note with regret that not one of the delegations visiting Sweden has had the expertise necessary for either technical or industrial analysis.
… the cloud hovered over Sydney or Melbourne rather than Shanghai or Bangalore, where it was governed by someone else's sovereign legislative system.
We'll have more people in our hospitals. We'll have less children going to school, less people in employment.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Dastyari today relating to government debt.
… you've resurrected this line that we're heading towards Mediterranean style levels of debt. You mentioned Greece again today …
Andrew, there's no cause for alarm under this Government …
… a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent—
is a pretty good result looking around the world …
What we're not prepared to do though is sell out the fundamentals and the fundamentals are that we have absolutely got to get this budget crisis back under control. I mean, Labor left us with a debt and deficit disaster.
This "being in government" business is proving to be all too hard for Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his ministers.
Too hard to frame a fair budget.
… … …
Too hard to be civil and constructive on policy options. Too hard to explain to voters the need for reform. Too hard to find a consistent message.
And way too hard to provide the sort of "stable, no surprises" government Mr Abbott promised just 18 months ago.
The Herald said then that voters would get to judge Mr Abbott on trust and stability "in three years or, should he prove unable to manage a democratic parliament, much sooner".
… … …
Indeed, being in government has turned out to be so hard that some ministers and others in his inner circle even considered plans to commit hara kiri through a double dissolution election.
What a shambles.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said on Thursday: "The important thing is to keep heading in the right direction."
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The committee recommends a review of policies and services dedicated to the treatment of alcohol and other drug abuse in the Northern Territory and their impact on domestic violence, including urgent consideration to reinstate the Banned Drinkers Register.
The statistics regarding the incidence of violence are breathtaking ... for the 12-month period ending November 2014, there were 7,076 assault offences in the Northern Territory, of which 4,262, or 60 per cent, were recorded as being associated with domestic violence.
I rise to present a report by the Senate Economics References Committee on its inquiry into privatisation of state and territory assets and new infrastructure.
The committee examined the incentives provided by the government's Asset Recycling Initiative to privatise state or territory assets and recycle the proceeds into new infrastructure.
Under the initiative the Commonwealth would make an incentive payment equal to 15 per cent of the sum of proceeds from an asset divestment, on the condition that the state or territory government reinvests both the proceeds and the incentive payment, into additional infrastructure.
The committee is very concerned that binding privatisation with infrastructure funding may lead to several significant problems including:
potentially distorting privatisation decisions, that would not proceed if they were considered on a case-by-case basis;
potentially distorting infrastructure decisions by states and territories, leading to projects being pursued that would not stand on their own merits;
the possibility that both privatisations and infrastructure projects will be rushed without appropriate public consultation, safeguards, corporate structures and regulatory arrangements in place;
the potential to create inequitable outcomes between states and territories, as the scheme unfairly benefits those jurisdictions which currently have assets for sale or that are prepared for sale, rather than those jurisdictions where the infrastructure is most needed.
The committee is recommending that the link between privatisation and infrastructure funding under the Asset Recycling Initiative be removed, ensuring states and territories consider the merits of privatisation on a case by case basis, and fund infrastructure projects based on community and economic need. The Commonwealth could contribute funding based on the merit of proposed projects while considering a more equitable distribution of funds across states and territories, based on need.
I commend the report to the Senate.
I am pleased to present the committee's report on its review of the declaration of al-Raqqa province, Syria, for the purposes of section 119.2 of the Criminal Code.
Section 119.2 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to enter, or remain in, an area of a foreign country declared by the foreign minister. There are exceptions to this offence for persons entering declared areas solely for one or more of the 'legitimate purposes' listed in the code, including for the purposes of humanitarian aid or visiting family members.
Al-Raqqa province is the first area to be declared for this purpose following the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014.
As a result of amendments to that bill recommended by the committee in its October 2014 report, the committee is able to review all declarations made under the new laws within the 15 sitting day disallowance period.
The committee's ability to review declarations is a significant additional safeguard for the declared area offence. Through its reviews, the committee will focus on ensuring that declarations are justified, that the boundaries of declared areas are appropriately drawn, and that declarations are clearly communicated.
Advice provided to the committee indicated that al-Raqqa province meets the required threshold for declaration—that a listed terrorist organisation is 'engaging in a hostile activity' in the area—against all the relevant criteria.
Al-Raqqa was described as the de-facto capital of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the base from which much of its operations are directed.
The atrocities being committed by ISIL, also known as Da'esh, in Syria are well known to the committee and broader community. The organisation has control of al-Raqqa province, which is the centre of its sphere of influence.
The committee considered the declaration of al-Raqqa province to be well within the scope of what the declared area offence was intended to target.
The committee is therefore satisfied that the declaration of al-Raqqa province is appropriate, and has recommended that the legislative instrument declaring al-Raqqa province for the purposes of section 119.2 of the Criminal Code not be disallowed.
During its review, the committee noted there were other parts of both Syria and Iraq that were likely meet the threshold for declaration, at least temporarily, due to hostilities committed by Da'esh. To be effective, however, the committee accepted that it is necessary for declared areas to be relatively stable, with highly specific boundaries that are easily communicated to the public.
The committee has also recently started its review of a second declared area involving Da'esh—the Mosul district of Ninewa province, Iraq—which was declared by the foreign minister on 2 March 2015.
The committee has noted the activities that have been undertaken by the government to inform the community about both the declaration of al-Raqqa province and the declared area offence more generally. The committee considers that a sustained effort will be required to inform the community about the risks associated with travel to conflict zones.
The committee also considers that the government should continue its advocacy, both bilaterally and multilaterally, for action against the threat posed by foreign fighters.
I commend the report to the Senate.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Twentieth Report of the 44'h Parliament.
This report provides the committee's view on the compatibility with human rights as defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 of bills introduced during the period 23 February to 5 March 2015, and legislative instruments received during the period 13 and 26 February 2015. The report also includes consideration of legislation previously deferred by the committee, as well as responses to issues raised by the committee in previous reports.
Of the 19 bills considered in this report, 13 are assessed as not raising human rights concerns and six raise matters requiring further correspondence with ministers. The committee has deferred its consideration of the remaining bills. There are no instruments listed in this report as raising any human rights concerns.
This report includes the committee's consideration of the Attorney-General's response to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014. The committee's initial analysis of the bill acknowledged the fundamental and legitimate interest of government in ensuring there are adequate tools for law enforcement agencies to ensure public safety and the ability for victims of crime to have recourse to justice. Having accepted the important and legitimate objective of the bill, the committee raised a number of issues going to the proportionality of the scheme in support of that legitimate objective. The Attorney-General response provided further information in response to the committee's initial scrutiny analysis. Some committee members considered the Attorney-General's advice addressed many of their concerns, while some other committee members remained concerned about the proportionality of the scheme as proposed. The difference of views within the committee reflects the inherent difficulty of assessing proportionality. Nevertheless, the report provides a useful assessment for senators of the bill's compatibility with Australia's international human rights obligations.
This report also includes the committee's scrutiny of the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015 This bill raises a number of questions about whether the powers in the bill, as currently drafted, are appropriately circumscribed. Reference is made in the statement of compatibility to a number of safeguards around the use of force which are to be included in policies and contracts with immigration detention service providers, but which are not included on the face of the legislation. The committee intends to write to the Minister for Immigration to ask him to provide further information as to whether the bill, as currently drafted, is compatible with a number of human rights, to help inform the committee's examination of the bill for compatibility with human rights.
I also wish to make some brief remarks about the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2015 which includes a number of statutory exceptions to offences which reverse the evidential burden of proof. In doing so, it limits the presumption of innocence which usually requires the prosecution to prove each element of a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, reverse burden offences will not necessarily be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence provided they are within reasonable limits and are necessary While the committee accepts that the offences in this bill seek to achieve a legitimate objective, it is concerned that it may not be reasonable to impose an evidential burden on the defendant in relation to all of the matters set out in the proposed defences. In particular, the bill would require the defendant to raise proof that a country is one that is specified in a legislative instrument or that a country is a participant in certain groups, such as being a partner in the Missile Technology Control Regime. This does not appear to be, in the committee's view, a reasonable reversal of the burden of proof, as such matters would seem to be more properly within the knowledge of the prosecution. The committee intends to write to the Minister for Defence to bring to his attention the committees human rights concerns with this aspect of the bill so as to help inform the committee's examination of the bill.
In conclusion, the report outlines the committee's examination of the compatibility of these bills with our human rights obligations, and I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.
Australian Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories report: Same country: different world - The future of Norfolk Island
PREAMBLE
The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories (Committee), titled Same country: different world - The future of Norfolk Island (the Report), published in October 2014.
The Report highlights the need to address the critical governance, infrastructure and economic issues facing Norfolk Island as a matter of urgency to mitigate further economic decline and the deterioration of living conditions for Australians living on the Island. Many of the issues considered in the consultations and in the report are longstanding and have been the subject of numerous reports, inquiries and submissions over the last 35 years. The Committee's recommendations note that Norfolk Island governance and economic reforms must occur together to give the community the greatest chance of recovery.
The Committee's recommendations are substantial and far reaching and include the end of self-government through the repeal of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth). In recommending this significant step, the Committee has recognised the provision of national, state and local government services by a single level of government drawn from a population of less than 2000 people is not viable. This theme was also reflected in a number of submissions to the inquiry.
Given the significance of the recommendations, the Hon Jamie Briggs MP, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development asked the Hon Gary Hardgrave, the Administrator of Norfolk Island, to undertake a consultation process with the Norfolk Island community on each of the recommendations of the Report. The Administrator's findings have been drawn from public meetings, written submissions and personal representations from members of the Norfolk Island community, key stakeholder groups and the Norfolk Island Government and Legislative Assembly. The Australian Government's response has taken into consideration the views put forward by the Norfolk Island Government, and members of the community.
The consultation process highlighted a strong mood for reform within the community with most individuals, including some members of the Legislative Assembly, acknowledging there needs to be some change to the model of self-government. The Norfolk Island Government's own preferred model acknowledges that the current arrangements cannot sustain Norfolk Island into the future. Consultations also highlighted the need for urgent action and greater certainty in respect of future arrangements, particularly to build business confidence and encourage investment. Written submissions largely favoured repeal or amendment of the Notfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth) and the establishment of a local government model. Many of the earlier reviews and reports into Norfolk Island also favoured the establishment of a local government, supported by appropriate state and Commonwealth services.
The Norfolk Island Government's preferred model of modified self-government would continue to see the Norfolk Island both legislate for and administer state and municipal services, with the Commonwealth taking on national services only, such as immigration,
4 Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee On The National Capital And External Territories report
Same Country: Different World - The Future Of Norfolk island
customs and quarantine. The Australian Government does not favour this approach as it will not address the governance and economic issues that have negatively impacted the Norfolk Island community and economy over time. There is broad support in the community and from the Norfolk Island Government for the Australian Government, as part of any new governance arrangements, to take responsibility for the delivery of key infrastructure projects. The Australian Government is committed to ongoing consultation with the Norfolk Island community on the process of reform and on the implementation of its commitment to extend the Australian taxation, healthcare and social security frameworks.
RECOMMENDATION 1
The Committee recommends that, as soon as practicable, the Commonwealth Government repeal the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth) and establish an interim administration, to assist the transition to a local government type body, determined in line with the community ' s needs and aspirations. This will require the development of a new legislative framework.
Agreed.
The Australian Government supports the Committee's recommendation to change the current governance arrangements and proposes to transition the current Legislative Assembly to a Regional Council. The Australian Government notes through the consultation process undertaken by the Committee and subsequently by the Administrator, there is broad support from the community to alter the current arrangements for self-government. However, to maintain current service delivery and administrative infrastructure while the transition takes place, the Australian Government will amend rather than repeal the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth). This will allow the Norfolk Island Administration and associated entities, including the Norfolk Island Government Business Enterprises to continue to provide services to the community during this transitional phase. The Assistant Minister will hold delegations for Norfolk Island during the transition period and ensure an interim Advisory Council is established, drawn from the community, to advise him on decisions during that period.
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee On The National Capital And External Territories report
Same Country: Different World - The Future Of Norfolk Island
RECOMMENDATION 2
The Committee recommends that formal mechanisms for community consultation be established which allow for regular and ongoing communication between any transitional administration and the community about the reform process and new governance arrangements.
Agreed.
The Australian Government agrees the Norfolk Island community must have an ongoing voice in governance and in government. This will be achieved through the establishment of a locally elected Regional Council. The Council will be established as soon as practicable, but in the interim, the Australian Government will establish an Advisory Council with community representation to guide the transition process. Formal mechanisms will be established for the Administrator and the Advisory Council to consult with the community on key issues, including those related to the introduction of taxation, healthcare and social security arrangements and on the establishment of a Regional Council. A Taskforce has been established within the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development with representatives from key Australian government agencies including the Treasury, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Human Services, the Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Immigration, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Taxation Office to support the transition process and the ongoing process of community consultation on reforms.
RECOMMENDATION 3
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government assume responsibility for the Cascade and Kingston Pier upgrades and that the Commonwealth Government expedite the works in line with Australian standards and occupational health and safety requirements, as soon as practicable.
Agreed.
This recommendation is agreed subject to the transfer of $13 million in funding from the Community Development Grants Programme to the Services to Territories outcome (Outcome 4) in the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
The Australian Government notes that, notwithstanding its original grant application under the Regional Development Australia Fund, the Norfolk Island Government is of the view the current proposal:
" ...will not facilitate containerisation or reliable cruise ship processing - this will only be attained by constructing an enclosed harbour facility or at very least a west side port to complement existing Kingston and Cascade Jetties. "
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee On The National Capital And External Territories report
Same Country: Different World - The Future Of Norfolk Island
The community consultation process highlighted a divergence of views on the long term needs of the community and the feasibility of further port or safe harbour infrastructure. However, there was acceptance this project should continue in some form to address the immediate and urgent needs of the community. Further scoping and feasibility studies will need to be undertaken to identify the optimum solution, taking on board heritage and environment considerations and the condition of other related infrastructure such as roads.
RECOMMENDATION 4
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government purchase multi purpose barges for use on Norfolk Island in conjunction with upgrades made to Cascade and Kingston Piers. Barge use must be integrated into the design and functionality of the upgrades.
Agree in principle.
The Australian Government supports the Committee's recommendation to improve passenger and cargo access to the Island and notes the importance of the cruise shipping industry to the Norfolk Island economy. However, this component of the broader Cascade/Kingston project remains unfunded by the Norfolk Island Government. This recommendation is agreed in principle subject to the outcomes of re-scoping of the project for the Kingston and Cascade piers and consideration in a future budget context.
RECOMMENDATION 5
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government ensure that, as part of the new governance arrangements, the public road infrastructure on Norfolk Island is assessed against current Australia-wide design, building and engineering standards and, where needed, work is undertaken to remedy deficiencies.
Agree in principle.
The maintenance and management of road infrastructure should continue to be an on-island responsibility in line with the responsibilities of a Regional Council. The Australian Government will work with the Administrator and the Advisory Council on the development of a long term roads strategy for Norfolk Island. The network of Norfolk Island roads has significantly deteriorated and it will take a considerable period of time and capital for these matters to be redressed. A long term 10-20 year strategy will include an assessment and prioritisation of remediation of existing roads and capital funding and the development of appropriate design guidelines based on local conditions and usage of the roads. The Administrator will seek state government expertise, as appropriate, to assist in this process. This recommendation is agreed in principle, subject to funding in a future budget context.
7 Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee On The National Capital And External Territories report
Same Country: Different World - The Future Of Norfolk Island
RECOMMENDATION 6
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government appoint officers in the transitional administration to strengthen Norfolk Island ' s economic and human resource capacity. Officers from Commonwealth agencies like Tourism Australia and Austrade should be tasked to provide advice and support to define the tourist market, develop tourist product and promote and market tourist and other products and services, including new ones.
Agreed.
The Australian Government agrees building on-island capability is critical to the effective delivery of services and to broader economic development. Through the Commonwealth Financial Officer posted on-island, the Australian Government continues to support the development of financial management capability within the Norfolk Island Administration, Successive funding agreements between the Australian Government and Norfolk Island have supported the capability building and public sector reforms and the Australian Government will continue to work with the Norfolk Island Administration to build services and capability. The Australian Government has also invested in a framework for improving the management of Government Business Enterprises and as part of the transition arrangements, will appoint an Executive Director to provide administrative oversight of the Norfolk Island Administration and associated entities.
Austrade and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will work together to identify new opportunities for tourism and to undertake targeted research to better define tourism markets, inform a tourism strategy and identify opportunities for growth. Austrade will provide strategic advice to the Norfolk Island Government Tourist Bureau and assist in the brokering of broader relationships within the tourism industry including with Tourism Australia and key industry bodies.
RECOMMENDATION 7
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide a dedicated officer to assist Norfolk Island cottage industry owners and operators to brand their products, set up a cooperative shopfront, and look at ways to market and export their products.
Agree in principle.
This recommendation is agreed in principle, subject to consideration in a future budget context. In the interim the Australian Government, through the Office of the Administrator, will support an economic development strategy for Norfolk Island. The strategy will be guided by the interim Advisory Council, and an economic advisory group drawn from key stakeholders. The development of new niche markets and the diversification of the retail sector on Norfolk Island will be critical to tourism development. Strategies which support
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee On The National Capital And External Territories report
Same Country: Different World - The Future Of Norfolk Island
local products, the development of a unique brand and contribute to main street revitalisation are important components of an expanded tourism industry.
The development of local products will be a key component in increasing the tourism value to the Island and the Australian Government will identify ways to support the development of capability in local businesses to create market-ready products and services for niche markets.
RECOMMENDATION 8
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government take charge of the psyllid eradication effort on Norfolk Island, and that responsibility for quarantine control matters be transferred to the Commonwealth of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Agreed.
The Australian Government acknowledges this is more properly a national responsibility and a small jurisdiction such as Norfolk Island cannot sustain adequate and effective quarantine and border control arrangements. As a first step in supporting more effective quarantine arrangements, the Australian Government has provided $1.5 million for the conduct of a pest and diseases survey to identify potential quarantine and biosecurity issues. The Australian Government has also worked to build capability on-island and improve the effectiveness of current quarantine arrangements through the gifting and deployment of a trained quarantine detector dog.
The pest and diseases survey identified the presence of the potato and tomato psyllid on Norfolk Island. This insect poses significant biosecurity concerns and is a potential threat to the food supply on the Island. The Australian Department of Agriculture has provided advice to the Norfolk Island Administration on the management of this pest however a management or eradication regime is yet to be implemented.
The Australian Government agrees that the Norfolk Island Government lacks the capacity to effectively address this issue and the Departments of Agriculture and Infrastructure and Regional Development will work together to identify the best options for addressing the current infestation. Consideration will also be given to the Australian Government's role in the management of other introduced pests such as Argentine Ants, the Paper Wasp and the Asian House Gecko.
That Senator Siewert replace Senator Rice on the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for the committee’s inquiry into the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, and Senator Rice be appointed as a participating member of the committee.
Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Amendment Bill 2015
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS AMENDMENT BILL 2015
Introduction
To ensure international shipping continues to be an economically viable proposition, shipowners are generally entitled to limit their liability in respect of claims arising from damage caused by their ships. This means that if a ship is involved in an incident which causes damage to persons, property or the environment, there is a limit on the maximum amount of compensation that a court can order the shipowner to pay.
The maximum liability of a shipowner is usually calculated based on the size of the ship involved in the incident and has no relationship to the amount of damage caused by the incident.
The rationale for allowing shipowners to limit their liability in respect of ship-sourced damage is to encourage shipping and trade. This involves balancing the competing objectives of compensating anybody who suffers loss or damage caused by shipowners or their representatives, while ensuring that ship operators are able to access commercially available insurance to cover their liability for that damage.
Australia is a Party to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, which allows a shipowner (including the charterer, manager and operator of the ship) or salvor to limit the total amount they can be required to pay for damage caused by the ship, the shipowner or the salvor. Limits are specified for two types of claims: those for loss of life or personal injury; and those for other claims, such as damage to ships, property or harbour works. The limits are based on the gross tonnage of the ship, with larger ships having higher limits. It is administered by the International Maritime Organization, a specialised agency of the United Nations.
Other international maritime conventions adopt the limits of liability in the 1996 LLMC Protocol and apply them to shipowners for the purpose of limiting their liability under those conventions, including the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage which limits the liability of shipowners for pollution damage caused by bunker oil spills and requires shipowners to maintain liability insurance in respect of such damage up to the limit of their liability.
Purpose of the bill
The purpose of the bill is to implement amendments to the 1996 LLMC Protocol which will come into force on the later of either the day this act receives the Royal Assent and 8 June 2015. The bill will increase the liability limits for ship owners and salvors for maritime claims relating to ship-sourced damage to more adequately reflect the costs of such incidents.
Australia was the leading advocate of increasing the liability limits under the 1996 LLMC Protocol. A proposal to increase the limits was brought forward at the IMO by Australia following the Pacific Adventurer incident off the Queensland coast on 11 March 2009, which involved a bunker oil spill. The costs for cleaning up the spill were estimated at $34 million. However, under the 1996 LLMC Protocol (and therefore under the LLMC act) the shipowner was legally entitled to limit its liability to approximately $17.5 million. The 1996 LLMC Protocol uses 'Special Drawing Rights' to quantify the liability limits. Based on conversion rates as at
5 February 2015, the financial liability for a medium sized vessel of
50,000 Gross Tonnes "in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injury" amounts to an increase of approximately $AUD 33,600,000. A claim for the same sized vessel made "in regard to any other claims" amounts to an increase of approximately $AUD 16,800,000.
Conclusion
Ensuring the LLMC liability limits are raised in Australia as soon as they enter into force will reduce the risk of having to seek an increase to the Protection of the Sea Levy in the event that the shipowner's liability and/or insurance for an incident is insufficient or absent.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the negative impacts of coal and coal seam gas mining on Australia's environment, including prime agricultural land and water, and the wellbeing of regional communities, and
(ii) the concerning relationship between these mining activities and political corruption, particularly in New South Wales, as evidenced by the findings of the Independent Commission Against Corruption; and
(b) calls on all parties contesting the New South Wales state election to commit to a ban on coal and coal seam gas mining.
In preparing this report, the question facing the Commission was not simply how the state's policy and regulatory framework could allow … ELs—
of great value to be corruptly provided to favoured recipients, but how it could have been so easy to do so.
Their rhetoric is symptomatic of a broader malaise; our increasing inability to listen to, analyse, and properly understand the words and numbers underpinning complex policy.
Slogans should not be a substitute for serious discussion or critical thinking.
The Nationals are asleep at the wheel and not prepared to stand up against their Liberal colleagues to represent their constituents.
As a farmer, we’re not against mining, it’s just in the wrong spot. You just don’t put a toilet in the middle of your best farming country.
In preparing this report, the question facing the Commission was not simply how the state’s policy and regulatory framework could allow coal Els—
of great value to be corruptly provided to favoured recipients, but how it could have been so easy to do so. It is inconceivable that in any other portfolio area of government such value could be corruptly transferred from the state to favoured individuals with such relative ease.
… calls on all parties contesting the New South Wales state election to commit to a ban on coal and coal seam gas mining.
THERE are some decisions about our future which should be above politics. The future of our education system is one.
Reforms are essential to ensure there are places in higher education and the hugely important pathways into sub-bachelor skills qualifications. It is crucial for Australia’s future to have the best-educated workforce.
Vice-chancellors are united in their condemnation of Senate crossbenchers for rejecting the government's higher education reform package.
By investing in our business we are investing in our people. This means we will be able to grow our operation, providing employment and training and build a better future for our people.
Our national parks are for people to enjoy, not cows to destroy. The science is clear, cattle doesn't reduce bushfire risk in alpine areas, and they damage the alpine environment.
The Andrews Labor Government has acted so that alpine grazing will never happen again – we have closed the loophole that allowed the Coalition's so called 'scientific trial'.
By introducing this legislation today, we have ensured that Victoria's Alpine National Park and the River Red Gum national parks are free of cattle for future generations.
The wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we please. We have it in trust. We must account for it to those who come after.
… CoorDown has perfectly understood that an innovative approach can make a real difference.
I’m scared: what kind of life will my child have?
Dear future mom, don’t be afraid.
Your child will be able to do many things.
He’ll be able to hug you.
He’ll be able to run towards you.
He’ll be able to speak and tell you he loves you.
He’ll be able to go to school, like everybody.
He’ll be able to learn to write. And he’ll be able to write to you, if someday he is far away. Because, indeed he’ll be able to travel too.
He’ll be able to help his father fix his bicycle.
He’ll be able to work and earn his money. And with that money he’ll be able to invite you out for dinner. Or rent an apartment and go living alone.
Sometimes it will be difficult. Very difficult. Almost impossible. But isn’t it like that for all mothers?
Dear future mom, your child can be happy. Just like I am. And you’ll be happy too.
People with Down syndrome can live a happy life.
Together we can make it possible.