The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015
The voluntary code will highlight companies that are paying their fair share of tax. It will also discourage companies from engaging in aggressive tax avoidance.
… … …
The Board of Taxation will provide a business and broader community perspective to the development of a voluntary corporate disclosure code.
The Government would like more companies, particularly large multinationals operating in Australia, to publicly disclose their tax affairs. In developing the code they will need to consider what information is disclosed and how it is disclosed.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA 1953) to provide an additional threshold before the Commissioner of Taxation is obliged to publish information about a corporate tax entity with a total income equal to or exceeding $100 million for an income year. The additional threshold to be met must be one of three alternatives:
• the entity is not an Australian resident that is a private company or
• the entity is a member of a wholly-owned group that has a foreign resident ultimate holding company or
• the percentage of foreign shareholding in the entity is greater than 50 per cent.
The former Treasurer should be congratulated for saying and doing many good things in this policy area.
This is a bill that fundamentally addresses many important concerns around multinational tax avoidance.
We—
have been calling for more action on multinational tax for over two years. It is good to see that the government has actually come on board—
with this legislation.
In my mind … as an after fact, yes, it is a bribe.
The arts in Tasmania is a 'micro-economy' where small amounts of funding are leveraged greatly. It's an interweaving ecology.
The basic point is that arts organisations don't just employ artists. They employ admin staff, printers, sign writers, they book venues—
Most income for small-to-medium organisations is spent on wages, and the people are very low waged people, so that is spent on food and rent. The money keeps rolling.
There is just so much pressure on the sector to diversify and get philanthropic funding. But we operate at the bottom of the food chain. We do behind the scene work … Our work is invisible; there's no high impact outcomes. We cannot compete with the major organisations that offer opening night red carpets and opportunities to schmooze with the stars. We are a niche not-for-profit doing specialist work. But if we don't do it, who will? And if we go the [artists] will suffer.
The engagement by the Government is disingenuous and we are exhausted by all the changes.
We are losing knowledge of the industry as people are leaving or burning out.
Every weekend in Queensland a mini-cyclone called penalty rates hits our tourism and hospitality ...
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Cabinet Secretary (Senator Sinodinos) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Leyonhjelm today relating to defence manufacturing in Australia.
That the Senate, while not expressing a view on the contents of the booklet issued by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference entitled Don’t mess with Marriage , fully supports the rights of members of the Catholic Church, including Archbishop Julian Porteous, to distribute it.
That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 February 2016:
(a) the phenomenon colloquially referred to as ‘revenge porn’, which involves sharing private sexual images and recordings of a person without their consent, with the intention to cause that person harm;
(b) the impact this has on the targets of revenge porn, and in the Australian community more broadly;
(c) potential policy responses to this emerging problem, including civil and criminal remedies;
(d) the response to revenge porn taken by Parliaments in other Australian jurisdictions and comparable overseas jurisdictions; and
(e) any other related matters.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015 and a related bill be extended to 2 February 2016.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the week, 8 November to 14 November 2015, is National Adoption Awareness Week,
(ii) the number of children adopted in Australia is at an all‑time low, declining 76 per cent over 25 years,
(iii) the number of children in the out of home care system continues to increase,
(iv) in 2013-14 there were over 50 000 children in out of home care arrangements, including kinship care, foster care and guardianship,
(v) there are 15 000 children in Australia who have been in out of home care for over 2 years and are not living with relatives or kin,
(vi) only 203 Australian children were adopted in this country in 2014, and
(vii) long‑tem out of home care arrangements lack stability with an average child experiencing 6 different placements during their time in out of home care; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to use its leadership of the Council of Australian Governments to work with the states and territories on a national strategy to significantly increase the number of local adoptions in Australia.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to counter-terrorism, and for related purposes. Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015 .
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 , and for related purposes.Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015 .
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, no later than 5 pm on Monday, 23 November 2015, the following documents that underpin the Perth Freight Link project but are not publicly available:
(a) any figures, modelling and forecasts on freight movements to and from the Fremantle Port, including current and projected figures, provided by the Western Australian Government for the Perth Freight Link project;
(b) any evaluation of freight figures or modelling to underpin the Perth Freight Link by the Minister’s department or Infrastructure Australia;
(c) any peer review undertaken of freight figures provided for the Perth Freight Link;
(d) any modelling of air quality, diesel particulates and truck congestion on roads and communities in the vicinity of the Perth Freight Link; and
(e) the modelling for future traffic congestion on Perth metropolitan roads for 2011, 2016 and 2021 that was completed as part of the Western Australian Auditor General’s report of March 2015 using the new version of the Regional Operations Model [ROM].
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the fact that coal‑fired power stations exacerbate global warming and pollute local air and water,
(ii) the fact that subsidies from the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD) export credit agencies to coal‑fired power stations in developing nations constitute an obstacle to the transition to clean energy in those nations, and
(iii) reports that the Turnbull Government is set to block a proposal from the United States of America (US) and Japan to remove OECD export credit subsidies for the dirtiest coal‑fired power stations in developing nations; and
(b) calls on the Turnbull Government to support the proposal from the US and Japan to exclude the dirtiest coal‑fired power stations from receiving OECD export credit subsidies.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) 85 per cent of all eye and vision conditions are preventable with regular eye checks, and
(ii) the Medicare rebate for optometry consultations was reduced by 5 per cent from 1 January 2015;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are disproportionately affected by the cuts due to the combination of geographical and social disadvantages, and
(ii) small investments in preventative, first line eye health will reduce the cost of vision loss to the Australian economy and improve the quality of life of Australia’s most vulnerable; and
(c) urges the Government to:
(i) review the impacts of cuts on services to eye health in Aboriginal communities, and
(ii) take measures to address the effect of the cuts on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Unconventional Gas Mining, be established to inquire into and report on or before 30 June 2016, on the following matter:
The adequacy of Australia’s legislative, regulatory and policy framework for unconventional gas mining including coal seam gas (CSG) and shale gas mining, with reference to:
(a) a national approach to the conduct of unconventional gas mining in Australia;
(b) the health, social, business, agricultural, environmental, landholder and economic impacts of unconventional gas mining;
(c) government and non-Government services and assistance for those affected;
(d) compensation and insurance arrangements;
(e) compliance and penalty arrangements;
(f) harmonisation of federal and state/territory government legislation, regulations and policies;
(g) legislative and regulatory frameworks for unconventional gas mining in comparable overseas jurisdictions;
(h) the unconventional gas industry in Australia as an energy provider; and
(i) any related matter.
(2) That the committee consist of 5 senators, 1 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens, and Senator Lazarus.
(3) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority groups or independent senators;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and
(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.
(4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate.
(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(6) That Senator Lazarus is appointed chair.
(7) That the committee elect a member as its deputy chair, who shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(10) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.
(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.
(12) That 2 members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee.
(13) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.
(14) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(15) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(16) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
That the Senate—
(a) notes, with grave concern, the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission report entitled Report on Operation Aviemore: Major Crime Squad investigation into the unlawful killing of Mr Joshua Warneke ;
(b) urges the relevant agencies to implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations made in the report by the Honourable John McKechnie QC; and
(c) calls on the Government to address the high rates of engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with the criminal justice system by supporting justice reinvestment and the development of a justice target under the ‘Closing the Gap’ framework to ensure coordinated action, accountability and progress to reduce the disproportionate incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2016:
The growing evidence of an emerging tick-borne disease that causes a Lyme‑like illness for many Australian patients, with particular reference to:
(a) the prevalence and geographic distribution of Lyme‑like illness in Australia;
(b) methods to reduce the stigma associated with Lyme‑like illness for patients, doctors and researchers;
(c) the process for diagnosis of patients with a Lyme‑like illness, with a specific focus on the laboratory testing procedures and associated quality assurance processes, including recognition of accredited international laboratory testing;
(d) evidence of investments in contemporary research into Australian pathogens specifically acquired through the bite of a tick and including other potential vectors;
(e) potential investment into research to discover unique local causative agents causing a growing number of Australians debilitating illness;
(f) the signs and symptoms Australians with Lyme-like illness are enduring, and the treatment they receive from medical professionals; and
(g) any other related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Federal Government committed $38 million of Commonwealth funds to the Port Rail Shuttle project in Victoria,
(ii) the Port Rail Shuttle project would create a rail connection between the Port of Melbourne and three inland ports, reducing diesel use and pollution from Victorian containerised freight movements and removing up to 3 500 trucks from residential streets in Melbourne’s west every day,
(iii) the Victorian Government has put this project on indefinite hold citing delays due to potential privatisation of the port, and
(iv) that the Port of Melbourne Authority, together with the Victorian Government, are well placed, and have the relevant expertise and independent advice, to progress the Port Rail Shuttle project without delay; and
(b) calls on the Government to urgently seek action from the Victorian Government to proceed with implementing the Port Rail Shuttle project, regardless of the status of the Port of Melbourne ownership or lease arrangements.
That Senator Cormann be granted leave of absence for 11 November and 12 November 2015, on account of parliamentary business.
That Senator O'Neill be granted leave of absence for 12 November 2015, on account of personal reasons.
Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015
That this bill be now read a second time.
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS AMENDMENT (EXPANDED GOLD CARD ACCESS) BILL 2015
Mr President,
An unprecedented veterans' suicide and homelessness crisis grips Australia today.
This crisis was created because of poor management of Australia's military resources and defence personnel - by successive governments.
These governments compounded their error by attempting to cover up the true nature and scale of our veterans' suicide and homelessness crisis.
The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015 I present to the Senate today will properly address our nation's shameful veterans' suicide and homelessness crisis.
By guaranteeing with this legislation, automatic free access to the best possible medical treatment in Australia, for the men and women of our ADF and Federal Police, who have served their country in war or war-like operations this Parliament will stop the harmful and all too often – deadly, bureaucratic fight our veterans are forced to undertake so they can obtain a health Gold Card.
General Outline
As described in this Legislation's Explanatory Memorandum:
1. The purpose of the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015 is to amend the Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) so that all veterans, including peacekeepers and peacemakers or former members of Australia's Defence Force, who have served in war or war-like operations, (and for related purposes) are provided medical and psychological treatment free-of-charge – as a right of service - the best medical treatment Australia has to offer i.e. Health Gold Card benefits.
2. At present, there are three categories of repatriation, depending on service and medical needs:
1. Orange Card (pharmaceutical only);
2. White Card (specific conditions); and a
3. Gold Card (all clinical health needs).
3. While repatriation efforts have improved in recent decades, as witnessed by high rates of self-harm and homelessness - there are still many people who have served Australia whose medical and psychological needs are not addressed.
4. The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015 is an important first step in ensuring a more effective transition between national service and civilian life.
5. The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015 broadens the terms of reference of the Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 to ensure everyone who served in war or war-like operations receive vital, necessary and timely medical and psychological treatment – whether or not the condition or injury was caused by war or contracted during war or war-like operations.
History
This legislation is a direct result of events that transpired at a meeting of veterans that was organized Dr Raymond Huntley at Burpengary, Queensland on Wednesday the 21st of May 2014.
At the gathering of veterans - consisting of former ADF members mainly from the Army, who had served in Vietnam and younger veterans who had recently served in Middle East conflicts – Dr Huntley asked all the Health Gold Card holders to stand.
About a dozen people stood. Dr Huntley then asked those who had obtained their gold cards in 2 years or less to sit. 2 veterans sat.
Through this process of gradually increasing the number of years it takes to obtain Gold Cards, questioning, and then asking veterans to sit – it became clear very quickly, that most veterans had to wait about 5 years before they received a health gold card.
Two veterans had to wait over ten years to access the medical benefits that the coverage of a Health Gold card gives. After Dr Huntley had finished that exercise - which in reality was for the benefit of myself and two other Liberal politicians, a former digger who had served in the Middle East spoke to the group.
He had a tragic story. He said a number of his comrades that he'd served with in war in the Middle East had taken their own lives. And one of the main reasons, he said - which had pushed his Veteran friends to take that terrible decision to kill themselves – was the psychological harm that occurred to his mates while they fought the Government to obtain a Gold Card.
He said words that must hurt some public servants who are very dedicated to their jobs and take pride in their work – but nonetheless must be spoken in the debate.
The Middle East veteran said that many of his friends would have preferred to fight the Taliban, rather than fight the bureaucrats who decided whether our Diggers received the best possible medical care that Australia can provide to her wounded warriors.
Then from the floor of the meeting this younger veteran suggested that many lives could be saved - if the Australian government automatically gave a Health Gold Card to all veterans who have served in war or war-like conditions.
By making access to a Gold Card a tick and flick exercise - or a simple bureaucratic process, for those members of the ADF who had served in a war or war-like conditions – it will allow vulnerable and often damaged people to bypass a traumatic and further damaging administrative process and immediately receive the medical care they need to get well.
This was the light bulb moment for my team and I. And from that moment my office has worked hard to present this legislation to the parliament, in the unshakable belief that it will lessen the risk of further harm and help stop our veterans from taking their own lives.
From that day, Wednesday of May 2014 – my team and I have had thousands of conversations with veterans of all conflicts, which confirm the observations of that young veteran who had served in the Middle East.
Some veterans reacted in a hostile manner when I said that we should make it much easier for all veterans who have served in war or war-like conditions to access the speedy and quality medical treatment guaranteed by a Gold Card.
They had a mindset which strangely supported the hard and convoluted bureaucratic process in place though the Department of Veterans' Affairs for their clients to access the benefits of a Gold Card.
To those few individuals, a Gold Card became a status symbol, which gave holders, a greater sense of self-esteem and self-worth.
When it was pointed out to these rare individuals that it was the bureaucratic fight for a Health Gold Card that was significantly contributing to the suicides of our veterans – then most doubters of this new policy accepted the obvious truth of the matter – and became supporters.
The passage of this legislation, which enables the automatic issuing of a health Gold Card entitling free treatment, is an effective early intervention action, which will save hundreds of Australian lives, billions of dollars and a million heartaches.
It will take steps to repair the wound that Australia inflicts on the hearts and minds of those who are prepared to take great risks and sacrifice all.
When our warriors come home hurt under the current system - their country, instead of welcoming them with warm handshakes, hugs, kisses and the recognition of being special citizens - turns its back on our wounded heroes and makes them fight to access proper medical care.
A major cause of Australia's obscene veterans' suicide rate (apart from systemic under-resourcing and over-commitment to international operations) is the unnecessary psychological damage caused during our veterans' bureaucratic fight for Gold Card guaranteed medical treatment.
Gold Card Cost
When the issue of cost is raised - the saying that comes immediately to mind is: if we can't afford to properly care for our wounded veterans when they come back from war-like and war service – then we shouldn't send them in the first place.
Australia has a moral as well as a legal duty to give our veterans access to the best medical care our country can offer.
And under the current broken DVA system we – the politicians who make the decision to send our sons and daughters into harm's way, have failed to live up to the example those young people have set.
Veterans' Suicide Rate
Today we have a Prime Minister, Minister for Defence and Minister for Veterans' Affairs who cannot tell the people of Australia how many of the 70,000 contemporary cohort of veterans, have taken their own lives - or are forced to live rough among our homeless.
Our veterans' suicide rate - intentionally kept secret by all major political parties and senior military commanders to protect their reputations, is a national disgrace and shame.
A major cause of Australia's obscene veterans' suicide rate (apart from systemic under-resourcing and over-commitment to international operations) is the unnecessary psychological damage caused during our veterans' bureaucratic fight for Gold Card guaranteed medical treatment.
JLN believes that when properly considered, the automatic grant of Health Gold Cards to Australia ' s veterans will be cost neutral after the extremely high expense of doctors, lawyers and suicides are removed from the assessment process - and taken into account.
Closing
I close my speech as I opened. An unprecedented veterans' suicide and homelessness crisis grips Australia today.
This crisis was created because of poor management of Australia's military resources and defence personnel - by successive governments.
These governments compounded their error by attempting to cover up the true nature and scale of our veterans' suicide and homelessness crisis.
The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015 I present to the Senate today will properly address our nation's shameful veterans' suicide and homelessness crisis.
Indeed Mr President – this Bill is the first legislative step to solving these terrible problems and I urge all Senators to support this Bill.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate from 11 am to 1 pm, as follows:
(a) Monday, 22 February 2016; and
(b) Monday, 29 February 2016.
That the Senate—
(a) welcomes the release of Change the Story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia , jointly produced by VicHealth, Our Watch and Anrows;
(b) notes the commitment by governments and communities to a shared response to the horror of family violence, and the need for a deep and lasting cultural change;
(c) acknowledges that 'Change the Story' details a national approach to preventing violence against women and children through:
(i) identifying what drives and contributes to violence against women,
(ii) providing evidence‑based guidance to government and communities on how to strategically and effectively lead, coordinate, resource and support prevention efforts across Australia, and
(iii) informing and supporting the development of policy and legislation, prevention strategies, programming and advocacy that targets and seeks to reduce the drivers of violence against women;
(d) recognises the need for effective independent evaluation to achieve the best possible results in the reduction of violence and harm of violence against women and children; and
(e) acknowledges the need for a cross‑party approach to enforcing a long‑term strategy for ending the scourge of family and domestic violence.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Wednesday, 11 November 2015, marks 40 years since the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor‑General, Sir John Kerr;
(b) recognises the significant contribution made by the Whitlam Government to the creation of modern Australia, inspiring and transforming the nation, including through:
(i) ending conscription,
(ii) establishing universal healthcare through Medibank, the precursor to Medicare,
(iii) implementing education reforms like needs‑based funding for schools and free vocational and university education, and introducing the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme,
(iv) ending the last legal vestiges of White Australia,
(v) slashing tariff barriers by 25 per cent,
(vi) establishing diplomatic and trade relations with the People's Republic of China,
(vii) replacing Australia's adversarial divorce laws with a new, no‑fault system,
(viii) introducing Australia's first federal legislation on human rights, the environment and heritage,
(ix) introducing sweeping electoral reforms—the vote for 18-year-olds, Senate representation for the territories, and 'one vote, one value',
(x) establishing the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Law Reform Commission, the Australian Film Commission, the Australian Heritage Commission, the Technical and Further Education Commission, a national employment and training program;
(xi) launching construction of the National Gallery of Australia , making the Australia Council a statutory authority, and vigorously promoting the arts,
(xii) improving the position of women and our Indigenous population through reforms such as laws banning discrimination of the grounds of race and sex, equal pay for women in the Public Service and the creation of a separate ministry responsible for Aboriginal affairs and instituting Indigenous land rights,
(xiii) creating a single Department of Defence rather than separate departments for Army, Navy and Air Force,
(xiv) establishing the Royal Commission on Human Relationships,
(xv) changing the national anthem to Advance Australia Fair,
(xvi) replacing the British Honours system with the Order of Australia,
(xvii) abolishing appeals to the Privy Council,
(xviii) replacing the Postmaster‑General's Department with Telecom and Australia Post, and
(xix) establishing the Legal Aid Office, the National Film and Television School, the Australian Development Assistance Agency, the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission;
(c) affirms the principle that the Senate should not withhold supply;
(d) supports the view of the Prime Minister that letters between Sir John Kerr and Her Majesty The Queen concerning the dismissal are official records written by the Governor‑General in discharge of his duty and should be released under the existing 30‑year disclosure rule applying to such records; and
(e) calls on the Government to act to facilitate the release of the correspondence.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in July 2015, the Government withdrew from a longstanding commitment to supply 100 per cent Australian recycled paper to government departments, as outlined in the Australian Government ICT Sustainability Plan 2010-2015,
(ii) industry and environment groups, including the Victorian Association of Forest Industries, the Australian Forest Products Association, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Wilderness Society, support the commitment of government purchase of 100 per cent recycled paper.
(iii) Australian Paper opened a new $90 million recycling plant in Maryvale in May 2015, which was supported with a $9.5 million grant from the Federal Government, and which was positioned to supply recycled paper to federal government departments, and
(iv) using Australian recycled paper will boost the Australian manufacturing sector, reduce expensive and unnecessary imports, and reduce the Government's ecological footprint, carbon emissions and resource waste; and
(b) calls on the Government to immediately reinstate an ongoing commitment to procuring 100 per cent recycled paper.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Crows Nest TAFE is to be closed down and the Cammeraygal High School is to be expanded onto the site,
(ii) the New South Wales Government is planning to sell or partially sell 27 campuses in addition to Crows Nest TAFE,
(iii) increasing privatisation of technical and further education (TAFE) funding and the consequent increase in fees has been linked to a substantial drop in enrolments,
(iv) the closure of Crows Nest TAFE is a direct consequence of the 2012 National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development which has significantly damaged the public TAFE system, by accelerating public funding of private sector involvement in vocational education and training, and
(v) while the development of new high school capacity in North Sydney is urgently needed and the creation of a new school campus welcome, it is not in the interests of the North Sydney community to trade off education sectors against each other; and
(b) calls on:
(i) the Federal and New South Wales governments to restore secure funding for TAFEs in New South Wales,
(ii) the New South Wales Government to reopen a TAFE institution in the Crows Nest area, and
(iii) the Turnbull Government and the Labor Opposition to revisit the 2012 National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development to ensure that public institutions remain the core of education in Australia.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the importance of a robust and clear legal system that allows for timely judicial review and certainty for investors and the community alike,
(ii) that the latest legal challenge brought by the Melbourne‑based Australian Conservation Foundation to the development of the Galilee Basin is another cynical attempt to abuse due process,
(iii) that ongoing green law-fare is holding Queensland families to ransom, and jeopardising Australia's reputation as a place to do business, and
(iv) that rather than protecting the environment, the replacement of the Galilee Basin's lower-emission coal by higher-emission coal from other countries could instead cause an increase in global emissions; and
(b) calls on the Australian Labor Party to support legislative amendments to close legal loopholes being exploited by green groups.
That the Senate notes that —
(a) free-to-air television (FTA TV) provides a vital service to regional communities;
(b) access to nationally significant sporting events on FTA TV is important to the community;
(c) FTA TV provides local news content and community announcements essential to the fabric of regional communities; and
(d) existing media rules are being made redundant by disruptive technologies.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee has found that:
(i) the Parliament has the authority to amend the Marriage Act 1961 without recourse to a plebiscite or referendum,
(ii) a plebiscite has the potential to facilitate and justify homophobic and transphobic hate speech, and
(iii) a plebiscite would cost an estimated $158.4 million if held outside of a general election; and
(b) calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Turnbull) to allow a free vote on marriage equality before the end of 2015.
That the Senate take note of the report.
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
DEPUTY CHAIR'S TABLING STATEMENT
Tuesday 10 November 2015
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Thirtieth Report of the 44th Parliament.
The committee's report examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the Parliament from 12 to 22 October 2015 and legislative instruments received from 18 September to 1 October 2015. The report also includes the committee's consideration of five responses to matters raised in previous reports.
Nine new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns and the committee will seek a response from the legislation proponents in relation to six bills and four legislative instruments. The committee has concluded its examination of two bills and four instruments.
One of the bills considered in the report is the private member's bill titled Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. The bill would introduce same-sex marriage. While I note that some members chose to provide a dissenting report on this bill, the majority of the committee were of the view that the bill was compatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to family and the rights of children. These conclusions are based on a lengthy legal analysis which I encourage members to consult in detail.
The bill also engages the right to freedom of religion. The bill preserves the existing right of ministers of religion not to solemnise a marriage for any reason, including if this is contrary to their religious beliefs. In contrast, under the bill civil celebrants (who are not ministers of religion) would be prohibited from refusing to solemnise same-sex marriages. Accordingly, the bill would limit the right of civil celebrants to exercise their religious beliefs and refuse to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
The committee was divided as to whether this limitation was justified. A number of committee members were of the view that the bill is compatible with the right to freedom of religion, as the limit it imposes on the right is proportionate to the objective of promoting equality and non-discrimination.
However, a number of committee members considered that this limitation is not justified as the bill does not provide civil celebrants with the option to refuse to solemnise marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.
This report also includes the committee's consideration of a further response from the Attorney-General in relation to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014. The committee previously sought further information as to whether the operation of the counter-terrorism laws will, in practice, be compatible with the rights to equality and non-discrimination.
The Attorney-General has provided a fulsome response to the committee outlining the training provided for law enforcement officers. On the basis of the Attorney-General's assurance that such powers are used by officers trained to be impartial and non-discriminatory, the committee has concluded that, while the operation of counter-terrorism laws engage and may limit the right to equality and non-discrimination, particularly in relation to profiling and targeting of individuals, the powers may be justified.
The Attorney-General's response also covered the amendments in the bill allowing for the cancellation of social security payments following the suspension or cancellation of a person's passport on national security grounds. In relation to these powers, the committee stressed that the prevention of the use of social security to fund terrorism-related activities is a legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law.
However, the committee has also sought to make constructive recommendations to improve the bill's compatibility with the right to social security and right to equality and non-discrimination. The committee has therefore suggesting that the Attorney-General adopt regulations and guidelines that provide objective criteria and safeguards for the cancellation of welfare payments, including that there must be a link between the social security payment and the funding of terrorism.
As always, I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Thirtieth Report of the 44th Parliament to the House.
Australian Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report: Report 149
Treaty tabled on 10 February 2015:
Amendments to Appendices I and II to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 23 June 1979)
(Quito, 9 November 2014)
November 2015
Government Response to Report 149 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties:
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the Amendments to Appendices I and II to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals , done at Quito on 9 November 2014, and tabled on 10 February 2015. The Government appreciates the Committee's support for the amendments to the Appendices, and the recognition that it was necessary for the Government to seek a reservation in relation to five shark species.
However, five members of the Committee did not support the Australian Government lodging a reservation and provided a dissenting report. The Government is pleased to provide the following response to the dissenting report.
The report states that lodging the reservation is detrimental to Australia's reputation as a world leader in marine conservation, and that the better approach would be for Australia to amend its domestic legislation to accommodate local requirements or administrative complications. The report also notes that some non-government organisations considered there was inadequate notification or consultation with respect to the Government's decision to lodge the reservation.
As stated in the National Interest Analysis (NIA) tabled in Parliament on 10 February 2015, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) has two Appendices that carry different obligations:
Once listed on either Appendix of the Convention, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) obliges the Minister to include that species on the list of migratory species established under the Act. It is important to note that the EPBC Act does not distinguish between species listed on Appendix I and Appendix II of the Convention. Once listed as a migratory species under the Act, irrespective of whether it is listed on Appendix I or II of the Convention, it becomes an offence under the Act to kill, injure, take or move the species in Commonwealth waters.
Accordingly, Australia's domestic measures go well beyond that required by the Convention for Appendix II listed species. Under the Convention, once a species is included in Appendix II, Range States are merely required to endeavour to enter into agreements. In contrast, under the EPBC Act, a listing on Appendix II enlivens the prohibition of killing, injuring, taking or moving the species.
Whilst the Government submitted a reservation with regard to five species of shark that were added to Appendix II of the CMS in November 2014, Australia continues to fulfil CMS requirements under Appendix II, namely the obligation to endeavour to conclude agreements where these would benefit the species. Australia is a signatory to the CMS Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, and the recent shark additions to the Convention Appendices will be forwarded to this MOU for consideration for inclusion under its auspices. Australia will be supportive of their inclusion under this instrument to facilitate information exchange and cooperative research work. However, due to the restrictive domestic management arrangements that would have been required if these species were included on the migratory species list under the Act, entering a reservation for these particular listed species allows Australia to reflect our international obligations accurately and not be bound to the consequential, stricter domestic measures required by current legislation.
With regard to the consideration by some non-governmental organisations of inadequate notification or consultation with respect to the Government's decision to enter a reservation, it should be noted that the Government undertook extensive stakeholder consultation in the lead-up to the CMS Conference of Parties in November 2014. As outlined in the NIA, the Department of the Environment conducted consultation with relevant Commonwealth Government departments, State and Territory environment and primary industries counterpart agencies, 12 environmental non-government organisations and ten commercial and recreational fishing stakeholders. This consultation occurred over a five month period and provided the Government with comprehensive stakeholder views on the potential listings under the CMS Appendices, as well as stakeholder positions with regard to management options considered following the listings.
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report: Report 151
Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy
N ovember 2015
Government Response to
Report 151 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties:
Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy , done at New Delhi on 5 September 2014 ("the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement"), which was tabled on 28 October 2014, and gives the following responses to the Committee's recommendations.
Recommendation 1
The Committee urges the Australian Government to commit significant diplomatic resources to encouraging India to become a party to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty.
The Australian Government has consistently supported diplomatic and other practical efforts to promote entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), and will continue to do so. India has been a key focus of these efforts, including through the annual senior officials-level Australia-India Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Dialogue, the next of which is scheduled for November 2015.
Australia makes frequent use of international forums to urge signature and ratification of the CTBT by countries which have yet to do so and highlights the importance of that call for countries whose ratification is required for the CTBT to enter into force, including India. On 29 September 2015 Foreign Minister Bishop spoke at the CTBT Article XIV Conference at the UN in New York, encouraging entry into force. Every two years Australia, with Japan and the Netherlands, hosts the "Friends of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)" ministerial meeting in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, aimed at building political momentum in support of bringing the Treaty into force.
Australia actively promotes efforts in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to initiate negotiations on the FMCT, to verifiably ban the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. India supports the same objective and officials coordinate regularly on this issue. While the CD has been unable so far to agree to the commencement of FMCT negotiations, both Australia and India continue to support additional efforts to promote work on a treaty.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends the Australian Government considers facilitating the negotiation of a nuclear arms limitation treaty for the Indian subcontinent region. Such a treaty could feasibly have an initial goal of preventing the development of thermonuclear weapons by India and Pakistan, and prevent the deployment of such weapons to the region by China.
Australia and India have established an annual dialogue on Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, at which we discuss issues including nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, nuclear doctrine and confidence building measures to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict in the region. Shared interests in nuclear safety and security are also part of this dialogue. These talks at senior officials' level are an important means for Australia to promote disarmament and non-proliferation on the subcontinent, thereby contributing to greater peace and security.
Only the states involved can decide to negotiate an arms limitation agreement, but Australia and other concerned states assign priority and diplomatic resources to encouraging reduction of tensions in South Asia, and for a rethink of approaches to nuclear arms, including through reducing the significance of nuclear weapons in military doctrines, and increased transparency as a confidence building measure. The CTBT and, prior to its entry into force, the continuation of moratoria on nuclear testing (including by India) helps to prevent the proliferation of thermonuclear weapons because the development of such weapons relies on explosive nuclear testing to prove and refine weapon design.
As a leading member of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), Australia is also active in encouraging NPT nuclear weapon states, including China, to reduce their nuclear arsenals and prevent the proliferation (horizontal and vertical) of nuclear weapons to other regions.
Recommendation 3
Committee recommends that, should the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy be ratified, uranium sales to India only commence when the following conditions are met:
The Government concurs with the Committee on the importance of the matters raised in this recommendation. The Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with India includes provisions that address the separation of India's civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes, as well as commitments to achieve the highest standards of radiation and nuclear safety. Article II of the Agreement offers a basis for Australia and India to develop cooperation in areas related to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including regulatory and technological advancements for the safe, secure, sustainable and safeguarded use of civil nuclear energy. Ahead of implementing the Agreement, Australia and India are discussing the establishment of such cooperation.
Separation of civil and military nuclear facilities
India agreed with the United States in 2006 to separate its civil and strategic nuclear programs. A clear demarcation between civilian and strategic facilities was a key objective for the United States when negotiating the plan with India, to ensure compliance with its obligation under Article I of the NPT to not assist, encourage, or induce nuclear weapons development, production, or proliferation. The 2006 separation plan specifies that facilities that are subject to safeguards in India are those that, "after separation, will no longer be engaged in activities of strategic significance".
India's separation plan is contained in IAEA document INFCIRC/731. It stipulates 22 nuclear facilities to be designated as civil and brought under IAEA safeguards. India has said that all newly constructed civil nuclear facilities will also be brought promptly under IAEA safeguards. India's commitment to the separation plan forms part of the decision of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in 2008 that provides a framework for countries such as Australia to develop nuclear cooperation with India. India has met, and continues to act in accordance with, commitments made in connection with the NSG decision.
The 2006 plan is the only agreed definition for separation for India's civil and military nuclear activities. The IAEA has confirmed in its document INFCIRC/754/Add.7, dated 5 February 2015, that India has now designated all 22 civil facilities for the application of safeguards. On this basis, the Government is satisfied that the first element of the Committee's recommendation is met.
Regulation of nuclear safety in India
India is already working to implement enhancements in its regulation in the area of nuclear safety based on recommendations from its own reviews and those made by the IAEA.
The second to fifth elements of the Committee's recommendation are in alignment with recommendations made by an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission conducted by the IAEA in March 2015 at India's invitation. The IRRS mission provided an in-depth review of India's performance against IAEA safety requirements. The international team of experts that conducted the IRRS mission concluded that there is a strong commitment to safety in India. The leader of the team commented also that India "continues to enhance its regulatory programme to face the current and future challenges in regulating nuclear safety, such as reinforcing the safety of existing nuclear facilities, monitoring ageing and decommissioning, as well as providing oversight of the construction, commissioning and operation of new nuclear power plants." Following each IRRS mission, the IAEA and the host country develop an action plan for IRRS recommendations to be addressed, including potential timeframes. The Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has highlighted that organisation's commitment to pursuing improvements suggested by the IRRS mission.
In a statement to the Australian Parliament on 28 October 2014, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said: "Australia expects India will follow international best practice to ensure safety in its nuclear industry." The Government stresses the importance of ongoing review and improvement of nuclear safety. However this does not warrant delaying, and potentially lessening, the benefits offered by nuclear cooperation. Accordingly, the Government does not accept the Committee's recommendation that exports of uranium to India should be deferred.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government outline the legal advice it has received regarding the consent to enrichment 1 provisions in Article VI of the proposed Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
The text of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement was reviewed by DFAT legal advisers during its negotiation; however the Government did not seek or receive specific legal advice regarding the consent to enrichment provisions in Article VI of the Agreement. The Government is satisfied that the consent to enrichment provisions in Article VI of the Agreement are consistent with Australia's longstanding uranium export policies.
In response to the fourth recommendation by The Hon Melissa Parke MP and Senator Sue Lines, an exchange of correspondence between Australian and Indian officials that negotiated the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement has reconfirmed mutual understandings in the following joint statement:
"The prior consent of the Supplier Party will be required if nuclear material subject to the Agreement is to be enriched to 20 percent or higher in the isotope U-235."
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government outline the legal advice it has received concerning whether the proposed Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy breaches Australia ' s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty.
In evidence to JSCOT, DFAT noted that multiple legal advices have been sought and obtained on this issue. It is not the practice of the Australian Government to disclose its legal advice.
Recommendation 6
Subject to the above recommendations, the Committee supports the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
The Government welcomes the support of the Committee for binding treaty action and will take such action at an early opportunity.
Response to additional recommendations from The Hon Melissa Parke MP and Senator Sue Lines:
The Government is satisfied that the provisions of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement meet Australia's requirements and does not accept proposals to amend the Agreement. Clarification in relation to individual recommendations is set out below.
1. That the NCA not be ratified in its present form, but be amended, either directly or through an exchange of letters, to expressly state that Australia may require the return of AONM supplied under the NCA should India be found in-breach of the NCA or its broader non-proliferation undertakings with respect to India ' s Nuclear Suppliers Group exemption.
Among the various nuclear cooperation agreements that India has negotiated, only that with the US includes provision for return of nuclear material, and only if the agreement is terminated. US law requires such a provision. In order to obtain the right of return, the US had to agree to the provision of substantial compensation, covering not just the value of the fuel, but also the costs incurred as a consequence of the removal of fuel. The Director General of ASNO outlined additional considerations on this matter in submissions and evidence to the Committee.
2. That the NCA not be ratified in its present form, but be amended, either directly or through an exchange of letters, to expressly state that AONM can be used only in facilities that are under permanent IAEA safeguards, that is, facilities that are listed in the Annex to the IAEA agreement.
The use of AONM in India in facilities other than those under permanent IAEA safeguards is unlikely for a number of practical and technical reasons. Scenarios mentioned in evidence to JSCOT by non-government witnesses, where India might use AONM at a temporarily safeguarded facility in a manner that would assist its nuclear weapons program, would be contrary to the fundamental provisions of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, as well as India's safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
3. If the NCA is not amended in accordance with Recommendation 1, that supply of AONM for India be approved only for uranium that is enriched and fabricated into fuel assemblies in the United States and transferred to India under the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement.
The Government does not accept this recommendation, as an important intention of the nuclear cooperation agreement is to enable the use of Australian uranium in India's own fuel fabrication facilities.
4. That the NCA not be ratified in its present form without addressing concerns about the ambiguity of the consent provisions. Preferably this would be through amending the text, but at the least India should be asked to join in a clarifying statement to put beyond doubt that the two parties do share a common understanding of the meaning of the text.
As mentioned in response to Recommendation 4 in the majority report of JSCOT, the Government is satisfied that Article VI (5) in the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement is consistent with Australia's longstanding uranium export policies.
In response to this recommendation, an exchange of correspondence between Australian and Indian officials that negotiated the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement has reconfirmed mutual understandings in the following joint statement:
"The prior consent of the Supplier Party will be required if nuclear material subject to the Agreement is to be enriched to 20 percent or higher in the isotope U-235."
5. That the NCA be amended, directly or through an exchange of letters, to provide for Australian-obligated plutonium to be used only in accordance with a fuel cycle program mutually determined by India and Australia.
The tracking of AONM as it moves through India's nuclear fuel cycle, together with consultation processes under the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, would be ways through which ASNO can gain assurance that the material is being used in accordance with the peaceful use requirements, as well as the specific commitment of India to use Australian obligated plutonium "only for the purpose of producing nuclear fuel for facilities in India under Agency safeguards to implement India's planned nuclear energy programme" (Article VI, para 2(c) of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement).
6. That AONM not be supplied directly to India until Indian officials are following established international practice with regard to accounting for and tracking AONM.
7. Meanwhile, until Indian officials are following established international practice with regard to accounting for and tracking AONM, that supply of AONM for India be approved only for uranium that is enriched and fabricated into fuel assemblies in the US in accordance with Recommendation 2.
Arrangements to meet Australia's requirements for tracking of AONM have been negotiated by ASNO and India's Department of Atomic Energy as part of the Administrative Arrangement to the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. The arrangements will allow the Director General of ASNO to determine the disposition of Australian obligated nuclear material in India and fulfil reporting obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 .
Accordingly, the Government sees no reason to accept recommendations 6 and 7 above.
8. That JSCOT Committee members be provided with access to the administrative arrangements in order to satisfy the legitimate public interest concerns around the adequacy of the accounting and monitoring mechanisms prior to any Treaty ratification.
It is Australian Government policy not to release less-than-treaty-status instruments that are confidential to the signatories.
9. That the NCA be amended, directly or through an exchange of letters, to give Australia the right to request the IAEA ' s safeguards findings or conclusions for India as they relate to AONM.
ASNO will monitor India's safeguards compliance through the accountancy provisions in the Administrative Arrangement and through direct engagement with India and the IAEA. For example, ASNO would have access to any standard or special reporting on safeguards compliance the IAEA provides to its Board of Governors.
10. That prior to effect being given to the NCA, clarification is received from India as to its willingness to comply with non-proliferation norms and the exercising of nuclear restraint. A positive example would be for India to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, with confirmation it will ratify soon after the United States and/or China. This does not place restrictions on India ' s nuclear weapons program unilaterally, while still providing assurance to Australia and the world that India will respond reciprocally to steps taken by other nuclear-armed states.
The commitments that India made in connection with the development of nuclear cooperation with the United States, as well as the 2008 decision of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to provide an exemption for civil nuclear cooperation with and transfers to India, have served to draw it more fully into the non-proliferation mainstream and are an important part of the framework under which Australia will export uranium to India. These commitments include the continuation of India's moratorium on nuclear testing. The Government makes frequent use of international forums to urge signature and ratification of the CTBT by countries which have yet to do so and highlights the importance of that call for countries whose ratification is required for the CTBT to enter into force, including India. Accordingly, the Government sees no reason to defer exports of uranium pending further commitments by India.
Response to additional recommendations from the Australian Greens:
Recommendation 1:
The Australia-India Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement not proceed.
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
Recommendation 2:
The Australian Government should make public in full its legal advice on the compliance of the Agreement with obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga.
As mentioned in response to Recommendation 5 in the majority report of JSCOT, it is not the practice of the Australian Government to disclose its legal advice.
1 The JSCOT Secretariat informed DFAT on 18 September 2015 that the text of Recommendation 4 (as tabled on 8 September) contains an error, and that the recommendation relates to consent for enrichment, not reprocessing.
[HSU to take in motion when available]
Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015
Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
MIGRATION AMENDMENT (CHARGING FOR A MIGRATION OUTCOME) BILL 2015
The Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015 amends the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") to introduce a new criminal and civil penalty regime that will make it unlawful for a person to ask for, receive, offer or provide payment or other benefits in return for a range of sponsorship-related events. The Bill also allows visa cancellation to be considered where the visa holder has engaged in such conduct, referred to as 'Payment for Visas' conduct.
This Bill will implement a key integrity recommendation of the Independent Review into Integrity in the Subclass 457 Programme: that it be made unlawful for a sponsor to be paid by visa applicants for a migration outcome and that this be reinforced by a robust penalty and conviction framework.
This Bill will apply to a range of temporary sponsored work visas and skilled permanent employer sponsored visas, including the 457 visa.
'Payment for Visas' conduct is not currently unlawful. This conduct is unacceptable to the Government and the Australian people because it undermines the genuine purposes for which visas are intended to be granted. This Bill will strengthen the integrity of Australia's migration programme by allowing action to be taken where 'Payment for Visas' conduct has occurred.
'Payment for Visas' conduct may occur through an employer offering to sponsor a visa applicant in return for a payment or benefit. It may occur before the applicant applies for a visa or during the visa holder's stay in Australia. Evidence obtained through monitoring sponsors indicates that the sponsor and applicant are complicit in the majority of 'Payment for Visas' activity. Employers may also exploit an employee by requiring payment in return for ongoing sponsorship.
A strong response is required to ensure that this practice does not continue.
The Bill will amend the Act to make it a criminal offence for a sponsor or other third party to ask for or receive a benefit in relation to a sponsorship‑related event. The offence will be punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment or a fine of up to 360 penalty units. This currently equates to $64,800 for an individual person or five times higher - $324,000 - for a body corporate.
The Bill introduces civil penalties applicable to a sponsor, visa applicant or any other third party who asks for or receives, or provides or offers a benefit, in relation to a sponsorship-related event. The maximum pecuniary penalty is 240 penalty units, which currently equates to $43,200 for an individual person or five times higher - $216,000 - for a body corporate.
The maximum penalties reflect the high upper limit of amounts paid in 'Payment for Visas' cases.
The Bill defines "benefit" in wide terms to include any payment or deduction, and any kind of real or personal property, advantage, service or gift. It does not include payments of reasonable amounts for the provision of a professional service such as by a migration or recruitment agent.
The Bill includes a definition of "sponsor-related event" to capture the types of conduct between a sponsor and a visa applicant or visa holder to which the offence will apply.
The Bill defines "sponsorship-related event" to capture 'Payment for Visas' conduct that occurs at any point in the visa application process or throughout the duration of the visa.
The Bill provides for further types of "sponsorship-related events" to be prescribed in the future, ensuring the legislation will be flexible to respond to emerging 'Payment for Visas' conduct. The Bill also provides for a criminal or civil penalty to be imposed on an executive officer of a body corporate, which has been found to be involved in 'Payment for Visas' activity.
The criminal and civil penalty framework will have extended extraterritorial application, so that the offence and penalties apply to conduct by an Australian citizen or body corporate outside Australia, or to an Australian resident outside Australia if there is an equivalent offence in the law of the local jurisdiction.
The Bill will also allow existing inspector, investigation, search warrant and notice to produce powers, which are currently used to investigate work-related offences, to be used in relation to 'Payment for Visas' activity.
Finally, the Bill will introduce a new discretionary power to consider visa cancellation where any person engages in 'Payment for Visas' conduct.
Visas granted at any time may be considered for cancellation, where conduct occurred on or after the commencement date of this Bill.
Consistent with other cancellation powers in the Act, the visa holder would be afforded procedural fairness during the cancellation process. Where a decision to cancel a visa is made, consequential cancellation of the same visas held by family members would automatically apply. A person whose visa is cancelled would have the ability to seek merits or judicial review of that decision.
It is my intention to later expand the 'Payment for Visas' provisions to family and other visas where there is the potential for this conduct to occur. The Bill ensures that the Department is able to take appropriate action against unscrupulous people who have engaged in 'Payment for Visas' conduct.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
MIGRATION AND MARITIME POWERS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2015
The Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No.1) 2015 contains a number of amendments to the Migration Act and a separate amendment to the Maritime Powers Act. These amendments will strengthen and clarify the legal framework in those Acts, ensuring they will be interpreted consistently with original policy intention and operate effectively as intended.
Specifically, the Bill will:
The proposed amendments in Schedule 1 ensure that when an attempt is made to remove an unlawful non-citizen from Australia, but that non-citizen does not enter the destination country and is instead returned to Australia, the non-citizen can be returned to Australia without a visa. In addition, they will be treated as if they had never left Australia for the purposes of the visa application bars imposed by sections 48 and 48A of the Migration Act.
Currently the Migration Act allows an unlawful non-citizen who was been removed from Australia to return without a visa if the unlawful non-citizen was refused entry into the destination country. It does not currently allow for the return without a visa of a non-citizen who we have attempted to remove from Australia in other circumstances where it may be necessary. For example, there is no facility to return a person to Australia without a visa if a transit country refuses to allow the removed person to transit, or if the United Nations Human Rights Committee makes an interim measures request that the removal not be completed. The amendments in Schedule 1 will address this inconsistency.
Similarly, the current law provides that when a non-citizen is returned to Australia without a visa because they were refused entry to their destination country then the bars on making further applications imposed by sections 48 and 48A of the Migration Act will continue to apply as if they had never left Australia. The amendments will ensure that the same rule applies to a non-citizen who is returned to Australia without a visa in any circumstance covered by these amendments.
The amendments in Schedule 2 of this Bill are required to give full effect to the substantive amendments made to the Migration Act last year by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. The Character and General Visa Cancellation Act significantly strengthened the character and general visa cancellation provisions in the Migration Act to ensure that non-citizens who commit crimes in Australia, pose a risk to the Australian community or represent an integrity concern are appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation.
The Character and General Visa Cancellation Act also introduced mandatory cancellation of visas held by non-citizens in prison who do not pass certain limbs of the character test, a revocation power specifically for mandatory cancellation decisions, and a new power for the Minister to personally set aside, in the national interest, a decision made by his or her delegate or the AAT to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation decision.
The consequential amendments set out in Schedule 2 of this Bill will ensure that the mandatory cancellation- related powers are reflected comprehensively throughout the Migration Act, according to the original intent of the changes made last year. This will ensure that the Government has the capability to proactively and robustly address character and integrity concerns.
In particular, Schedule 2 of the Bill will ensure criminal intelligence and related information which is critical to the making of all character-related decisions can be protected from disclosure under section 503A of the Migration Act. This Bill will also give full effect to the policy of mandatory cancellation, by putting beyond doubt that a non-citizen who is the subject of a mandatory character cancellation decision is available for removal from Australia if they do not seek revocation within the relevant time period, or are unsuccessful in having their visa reinstated.
Further, Schedule 2 of the Bill seeks to strengthen my department's ability to identify non-citizens suspected of being of character concern by aligning the definition of 'character concern' in the Act with the strengthened 'character test' in section 501. Consistent with the original intent of the Character and Cancellation Act, this will facilitate the lawful disclosure of non-citizens' identifying information where a non-citizen is suspected of being of character concern.
Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Bill makes an amendment to subsection 48A(1C) of the Migration Act to clarify that a person who has previously been refused a protection visa application that was made on their behalf (for example because they were a minor at the time), cannot make a further protection visa application, irrespective of the ground on which the further protection visa application would be made or the criteria which the person would claim to satisfy, and irrespective of the grounds on which the previous protection visa application was made. This amendment is a technical amendment to ensure that the bar on further protection visa applications in section 48A of the Migration Act operates as originally intended.
Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the Bill includes a number of separate amendments to the Migration Act :
The first of these are amendments to give full effect to the amendments made to the Migration Act last year by the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014 (the Legacy Act), which introduced the Fast Track process for certain protection visa applicants who are defined in the Migration Act as a fast track applicant. The applicant cohort to which this process applies are unauthorised maritime arrivals in Australia who came on or after 13 August 2012, but before 1 January 2014, and any other person, or class of persons, specified by the Minister as a fast track applicant by legislative instrument.
This Government's intention during the development of the Legacy Act was always that a fast track applicant, whose protection visa application is refused on certain character or security grounds, should be able to make an application for review of that decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) under the existing provisions in the Migration Act. These amendments implement this intention, and clarify the types of fast track decisions that can be reviewed by the Immigration Assessment Authority which is established within the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT.
Certain character or security decisions relating to protection visa applications are often evidentially and legally complex. The Government is providing a consistent and rigorous, but fair and expert process by ensuring that the AAT's current jurisdiction to review these types of character or security based decisions will also apply where the applicant is a fast track applicant.
Consistent with the rest of this Bill, these items demonstrate this Government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that non-citizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively.
The second group of amendments in Schedule 3 of the Bill clarify the ways that visas can cease under the Migration Act. As the Act currently provides for visas to be extinguished by "ceasing to be in effect", it has created room for possible argument that a visa which is dormant, i.e. not in effect, cannot cease to be in effect even if a relevant ceasing provision applies to it.
To ensure that the visa ceasing provisions under the Act are interpreted consistently with policy, amendments in Schedule 3 to this Bill clarify the operation of the visa ceasing provisions. That is, a visa will always cease or be extinguished if a relevant ceasing provision applies to it, even if the visa is not in effect at the relevant time, except in one expressly carved out circumstance.
Schedule 3 of the Bill also makes a minor technical amendment to subsection 38B(5) of the Migration Act to fix an incorrect referencing error.
Finally, the amendments proposed in Schedule 4 of the Bill are intended to confirm the Government's clear intent that powers under the Maritime Powers Act are able to be exercised in the course of passage through or above the waters of another country in a manner consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention).
Section 8 of the Maritime Powers Act defines a 'country' to include the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of the country. Section 40 prevents the exercise of powers under the Maritime Powers Act at a place in another country except in defined circumstances. Section 40 could be interpreted as preventing the exercise of powers under the Maritime Powers Act in waters within another 'country' in circumstances where, under the Convention, it would be permissible to exercise those powers, for example when a vessel is in the course of 'transit passage' through an international strait.
Schedule 4 to the Bill amends section 40 to confirm the ability to exercise powers under the Maritime Powers Act in circumstances where vessels or aircraft are permitted or entitled under the Convention to exercise rights of passage through or above those waters. Under the amendments, the exercise of the maritime powers in these circumstances can occur when three criteria are met.
First, the exercise of the powers is to be part of a continuous exercise of powers that commenced in accordance with the existing framework for the exercise of powers. Secondly, the exercise of the powers occurs in the course of passage of a vessel or aircraft through or above waters that are part of a country (which includes the territorial sea, archipelagic waters and international straits). Finally, a relevant maritime officer (including a commander of a vessel. as well as more senior maritime officers who have knowledge, involvement in, or command over the operation) or the Minister, considers that the passage is in accordance with the Convention.
Schedule 4 demonstrates this Government's clear intent to ensure that the powers exercised under the Maritime Powers Act are consistent with the Convention.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015
It will also discourage companies from engaging in aggressive tax avoidance.
The Government would like more companies, particularly large multinationals … to publicly disclose their tax affairs.
(1) Page 2, clause 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Page 17 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 5—Reporting of information about corporate tax entities
Part 1—Repeal of Act
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Act 2015
1 The whole of the Act
Repeal the Act.
Part 2—Application
2 Application
(1) This item applies if the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Act 2015 receives the Royal Assent before this Schedule commences.
(2) Despite section 7 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , theTaxation Administration Act 1953 as in force immediately before that Royal Assent continues to apply, by force of this item, as if the amendments made by theTax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Act 2015 had never been made.
Part 3—Reporting of information
Taxation Administration Act 1953
3 Subsection 3C(2)
Omit "The Commissioner", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), the Commissioner.
4 After subsection 3C(2)
Insert:
(2A) If:
(a) an entity applies to the Commissioner in writing; and
(b) at the end of the income year the entity is an Australian resident that is a private company for the income year that neither:
(i) is a member of a wholly‑owned group that has a foreign resident ultimate holding company; or
(ii) has a foreign shareholding percentage of 50% or greater; and
(c) the Commissioner is satisfied that to make the information publicly available may be significantly prejudicial to any of the entity's current or future commercial negotiations;
the Commissioner may determine that subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the entity. An expression used in this subsection that is also used in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 has the same meaning as in that Act.
(2B) A determination under subsection (2A) is not a legislative instrument.
5 After subsection 3C(3)
Insert:
(3A) The Commissioner must ensure that the information made publicly available under subsection (2) includes:
(a) a statement to the effect that:
(i) the information may not reflect the full financial position of the entity; and
(ii) more comprehensive information may be available from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; and
(b) the address for the part of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's website via which the information referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii) may be found.
6 Application of amendments
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an entity for the 2013‑14 income year and each later income year unless the Commissioner has, before the commencement of this Schedule, made publicly available information about the entity for the income year under subsection 3C(2) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 .
If:
(a) an entity applies to the Commissioner in writing; and
(b) at the end of the income year the entity is an Australian resident that is a private company for the income year that neither:
(i) is a member of a wholly owned group that has a foreign resident ultimate holding company; or
(ii) has a foreign shareholding percentage of 50% or greater; and
(c) the Commissioner—
is satisfied that to make the information publicly available may be significantly prejudicial to any of the entity's current or future commercial negotiations;
the Commissioner may determine that subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the entity. An expression used in this subsection that is also used in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 has the same meaning as in that Act.
After subsection 3C(3)
Insert:
(3A) The Commissioner must ensure that the information made publicly available under subsection (2) includes:
(a) a statement to the effect that:
(i) the information may not reflect the full financial position of the entity; and
(ii) more comprehensive information may be available from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; and
(b) the address for the part of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's website via which the information referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii) may be found.
The government would like more companies—
particularly large multinationals operating in Australia, to publicly disclose their tax affairs.
The committee divided. [16:38]
(Chairman—Senator Marshall)
That this bill be read a third time.
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Bill 2015
Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015
Foreign investment is a crucial part of the investment landscape and vital to growth and productivity. Our sector has relied on it. We must resist basic calls that tread too close to fear without evidence, as this sends a negative message that the process for investment in Australian agriculture is too complicated and risky.
Reducing the Foreign Investment Review Board screening threshold for private investors from $252 million to $15 million will make it more difficult for the sector to access much needed capital for expansion, by introducing an additional layer of regulation, another step in approval process, and additional costs for foreign investors embarking on projects.
This is particularly relevant to high-growth, often mid-tier food manufacturers seeking access to foreign investment to fund rapid expansion, including to meet export growth potential.
Given the lack of a clear public policy objective, the significant increase in red tape and regulatory cost, and its application to more than half of Australia's food manufacturing sector, the AFGC opposes the imposition of these changes on food processing.
Why has the government lost confidence in local agribusiness developing our agricultural future?
Australia has a critical role to play in meeting the demand created from that expected 40 per cent increase—
Sixty per cent of the food produced by our farms is exported, something that is missed with the constant focus on Australia's role in the global mining boom.
Time is of the essence in determining how we are to meet the projected global demand for food, and Australia is well positioned as we have significant natural agricultural assets that can be developed; our northern regions are ripe for expansion.
There is no time for floundering. Food demand is relentless and decisions have to be made around the scale of development and the location of ports, roads and irrigation infrastructure.
Agriculture in Australia has the ability to conduct a development of this scale and we have the resources.
… why China is looking for external agricultural investments, and is exploring the role it can play in the long-awaited expansion of the Ord irrigation project. But why should China have the inside running on a project of national significance?
Agriculture in Australia has the ability to conduct a development of this scale and we have the resources.
First, we have the capital, with our large superannuation base and an attractive taxation development environment. Our super funds have made it known they are keen to be involved. At the moment they are forced to invest offshore because of a shortage here of large, scalable agricultural infrastructure projects.
Second, we have the production skills—in cotton, wheat, sugar, oil seeds, rice and pastoral pursuits.
Third, Australia has a track record of successful agricultural development. There are numerous examples, including the Murray and Goulburn Valley irrigation schemes, the Darling Downs and the Victorian Mallee development.
Australia is also a global leader in agri-technology adoption, which will be important in opening up northern Australia.
Our political and business leaders are arguing that we need to pay more respect to China and put more effort into our relations with the Chinese at the expense of our neighbouring South-East Asian countries.
I would say more respect should be paid to the expertise contained in our own agricultural industry and more effort put into making sure that Australia is equipped to play its role in the global demand for food.
… there is a need to review foreign investment proposals to ensure proposals are consistent with Australia’s interests.
This legislative package shall ensure Australia maintains a welcoming environment for investment—but one that ensures that the investment is not contrary to our national interest.
These reforms shall ensure that from 1 December 2015, Australia's foreign investment framework is more modern, simple and effective.
Importantly, it will add integrity to the system, so that everybody plays by the rules. With integrity comes compliance.
By granting new compliance powers to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), and additional powers to the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), the government is ensuring that Australians can have confidence that our foreign investment framework will be effectively enforced.
Australians expect our foreign investment rules to be strong, effective and enforceable.
Our foreign investment rules have not been significantly revised since introduction in 1975, 40 years ago—
and they have not kept pace with the changes in global investment.
The government recognises the changing landscape and has already taken active steps to enforce the existing rules and act decisively on foreign investment breaches.
The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 makes essential changes to simplify the system, strengthen the framework and ensure the rules are enforced.
Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.
That the debate on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 be adjourned.
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Bill 2015
Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015
That these bills be now read a third time.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015
Removing complex and unnecessary means tests and improving the operation of the parental income test is a good first step …
… … …
This bill is boosting assistance for working families, particularly in rural and regional areas, and better supporting young people into study to build their careers, develop economic opportunities and contribute to our economy.
… for regional and remote students: cost, socio-economic status and distance are barriers to accessing higher education; and inequities in the Youth Allowance Parental Means Test arrangements create difficulties for some families.
Currently the aspirations of rural and remote young people are being driven and dictated by their ability to access financial support to assist with relocation and living costs while they study.
I believe these young people should be encouraged, nurtured and supported into a positive learning environment so that we can have educated rural talent returning to agriculture. We are losing them at an alarming rate, without support from government for remote families and youth to enable them to continue study; we will not be sustainable for the future.
… a larger number of geographically isolated students the option to take up tertiary studies the year after finishing school and reduce the risk of not returning to study after deferring, by giving them some financial support. Once a rural and remote student qualifies for dependent Youth Allowance, they are then able to access the Relocation Scholarship and Student Start‐up Scholarship thus further assisting this group of students to access university courses.
… basic principle of our income support system is that people who have the financial means to provide for themselves do so. Any inconsistency in the treatment of assets between youth and family payments could be dealt with by extending assets testing to family payments.
Distributions to parents from the trust are assessed under the PIT, even if the funds are loaned back to the trust. This is the same outcome as under the FAMT.
They are ‘run only to benefit members’
They are governed by trustee boards specifically representing employees and employers—typically these trustees are appointed by both the ACTU and/or unions and employer associations. A two-thirds majority is necessary for all decisions
They do not pay sales commissions to financial planners
They have sound investment strategies, which include long-term investment in Australian infrastructure
These differentiating factors have contributed to the impressive and competitive performance of industry super funds over the long term
No one seems to want to take on the issues of industrial relations—Tony Abbott, I was quite surprised in the national debate, put on record that they are not going to go near penalty rates if they are elected.
I think we need a bigger discussion nationally about weekends versus weekday and that lot of people are happy to work weekends and not work during the week.
Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the clubs and the fresh air.
Cape Wickham is so spectacular that I was, still am to a certain extent, in a state of shock.
Visitors will have the chance to get a real taste for what King Island has to offer and I'm sure they'll realise that this location is world-class and will only improve once the courses mature and come into their own.
With the federally funded airport upgrade nearing completion and the massive investment on the island by a number of stakeholders, the scene has been set for a booming tourist industry to grow and prosper.
People, when they think of Tasmania, often think about Hobart, Salamanca, MONA, and Port Arthur. l want them to start thinking about landing in Launceston and thinking of Launceston as a hub, be it for mountain biking adventures, enjoying the best food and drink that you can, in Tasmania, or going to play a game of golf at Barnbougle, which is the 11th best golf course in the world.
Ratho Farm Golf Links is a time capsule, among the best preserved of all the world's early golf courses. Its most apparent uniqueness is the sheep, which graze and keep the playing areas short, with fences to keep them from the square greens.
Tasmania richly deserves being named Undiscovered Golf Destination of the Year. To earn such an accolade is no mean feat. The winner is voted for by members of the International Golf Travel Writers Association, which is administered by the IAGTO. These journalists are the cutting edge of golf tourism trends.