The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Senate take note of the Attorney-General's explanation.
That—
(1) The Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 have precedence over all government business until determined.
(2) General business order of the day no. 38 (Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Preliminary Assessment Process) Bill 2017) be considered under the order relating to private senators’ bills for not more than 1 hour and 20 minutes.
(3) If by 2 pm today, the bills listed in paragraph (1) as well as the Treasury Laws Amendment (Bourke Street Fund) Bill 2017, have not been finally considered:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports shall not be proceeded with;
(c) the routine of business from not later than 6 pm shall be government business only;
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(e) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bills listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Preliminary Assessment Process) Bill 2017
It is not clear why the Commission should proceed to conciliate complaints of acts which the President is satisfied are not unlawful. Hence, it may be better to oblige the President to terminate the complaint once he or she reaches that state of satisfaction. Further, it might be of assistance to require the President, upon first receiving a complaint, to make an assessment as to whether the alleged act would, prima facie, appear to be unlawful, before proceeding to engage in the conciliation process.
I feel compelled to inform you, and the Committee, that the explanation given by Professor Triggs for her refusal to answer questions concerning the QUT Case is arrant persiflage and falderal.
Had such an excuse been trotted out by a person without legal training or qualifications, it might (perhaps) be dismissed as a genuine misconception. But when a lawyer of the standing of Professor Triggs mouths such tendentious drivel—and does so, moreover, before a standing committee of the Upper House of the National Legislature—it has to be called out for the diversionary tactic which it plainly is.
On its face, it is a very noble and high sounding sentiment to wish to avoid prejudicing proceedings before a court … And, if there were any genuine risk of such a prejudice, I am (speaking for myself) completely confident, both that no Honourable Senator—regardless of political affiliations and agendas—would knowingly ask a question which exposes such a risk; and also the committee as a whole would disallow such a question, or excuse the witness from answering it, once any such a risk became apparent. But the demonstrable reality is that no such risk exists, ever existed, or (indeed) could exist. It is rather less noble and high sounding for a witness, like Professor Triggs, to suggest the existence of such a risk merely as a calculated subterfuge to avoid answering embarrassing questions, where the only potential for prejudice is a prejudice to the witness's own reputation (assuming that she possesses one) for honesty, integrity, competence and diligence.
I’m not going to deny, some countries run by Muslims are violent and sexist, but that’s not down to sharia. That’s down to the culture and the patriarchy and the politics of those … countries.
…once advocated killing Indonesian journalists, and attacked "poofters", Muslims and black people…
… a real estate agent contesting an upper house seat in the South Metropolitan region of Perth … called Muslims "little sheet heads", derided gay relationships as "poo games" and advocated taking up arms against "extreme Muslims".
In one extraordinary rant about Indonesians in November 2013, Mr Eldridge—
said we should "Balibo" Indonesian journalists—
an apparent reference to the 1975 murder of the Balibo Five group of Australian journalists in Timor.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 2 OF 2017
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 at 7.24 pm.
2. The committee recommends—That—
(a) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2017 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 March 2017 (see appendix 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 and the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2017 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(David Bushby)
Chair
16 February 2017
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Australian Broadcasting Corporations Amendment (Restoring Short wave Radio) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Consideration of the impact of the requirement for the ABC to retain its shortwave radio transmission radio service provided in the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The ABC
Australian Strategic and Policy Institute
Friends of the ABC
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of Communications
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications
Possible hearing date(s):
3 April 2017
Possible reporting date:
10 May 2016
(signed)
Senator Kakoschke-Moore
APPENDIX 2
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Native Title Amendment {Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department
Native Title Law Council
National Native Title Council
National Native Title Tribunal
Native Title Services
Australian Law Reform Commission
Minerals Council of Australia
National Parks Associations
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
17 March 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 3
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Stakeholder views on the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Native Title Council, Northern Land Council , Kimberley Land Council, South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, Central Land Council , Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Traditional Owners Council and other Native Title groups
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
27 March 2017
(signed)
Senator Siewert
APPENDIX 4
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017
Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impact of these bills on the Australian government's budget position
Impact of these bills on the investment environment
Impact of these bills on equality
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Business sector
Trade unions
Social justice sector
Academics
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
Early March; April
Possible reporting date:
9 May 2017
(signed)
Senator Siewert
That the report be adopted.
That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Selection of Bills Committee on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 that has been referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee be extended to 8 May 2017.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business orders of the day:
no. 39 Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017
no. 3 Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Payne for today on account of ministerial business.
That I, personally, be granted leave of absence for the period of 20 March 2017 to 30 March 2017, on account of parliamentary business overseas.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2017:
The biosecurity risks associated with imports of seafood and seafood products, including, but not limited to, uncooked prawns and uncooked prawn meat into Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the management of the emergency response measures implemented to control the outbreak of White Spot Syndrome Virus in the Logan and Albert river areas;
(b) the effectiveness of biosecurity controls imposed on the importation of seafood and seafood products, including, but not limited to, uncooked prawns and uncooked prawn meat into Australia, including the import risk analysis process concluded in 2009 that led to these conditions being established;
(c) the effectiveness of post-entry surveillance measures and 'end use' import conditions for seafood and seafood products, including, but not limited to, uncooked prawns and uncooked prawn meat into Australia, since the import conditions implemented in 2010 were put in place;
(d) the impact of the outbreak on the Australian prawn industry;
(e) domestic and foreign trade implications for Australian industries resulting from the suspension of importation of seafood and seafood products, including, but not limited to, uncooked prawns and uncooked prawn meat into Australia;
(f) the matters to be satisfied in the management of biosecurity risk before imports of seafood and seafood products, including, but not limited to, uncooked prawns and uncooked prawn meat into Australia, could recommence; and
(g) any related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report:
The biosecurity risks associated with imports of seafood and seafood products, including, but not limited to, uncooked prawns and uncooked prawn meat into Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the management of White Spot virus in Australia;
(b) the impact of the outbreak on Australia's wild and farm prawn sectors;
(c) the economic impact on Australian wholesalers and retailers;
(d) the adequacy and timeliness of the Commonwealth's response;
(e) the adequacy of Commonwealth resourcing of biosecurity measures, including Import Risk Assessments; and
(f) any related matters.
The Senate divided. [11:25]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry and report by 23 March 2017:
Whether the form of the register should be amended to include a declaration from senators as to whether they either:
(a) spend the money allocated to them known as an electorate allowance on their electorate and their electorate responsibilities, or
(b) take the money allocated to them known as an electorate allowance as a wage.
The Senate divided. [11:31]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That—
(a) the Senate notes the failure to comply with the Senate orders for the production of documents agreed to on 13 and 14 February 2017, relating to the Perth Freight Link;
(b) in order to investigate the subject of the Senate orders, the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for hearing on or before 24 February 2017, and reporting on or before 6 March 2017 - The continuation of construction of the Perth Freight Link in the face of significant environmental breaches;
(c) it be an instruction to the committee that it hold at least one hearing in Perth; and
(d) the following witnesses be invited and answer questions:
(i) Department of the Environment and Energy compliance and environmental standards officers,
(ii) the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Josh Frydenberg,
(iii) Federal Legal Counsel to the Minister and the Department,
(iv) the Western Australian Minister for Environment, Mr Albert Jacob,
(v) the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, in particular, senior compliance managers Mr Ian Munro and Mr Paul Zahara,
(vi) the proponent, Main Roads Western Australia,
(vii) Leightons contractors,
(viii) subcontractors completing the surveying work, fencing and trapping,
(ix) witnesses who have directly documented breaches with federal approval conditions, and reported these to the minister, and
(x) other witnesses as determined by the Environment and Communications References Committee.
The Senate divided. [11:41]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate notes that:
(a) over many years, state and federal governments and local communities have seen the benefits of decentralisation through the relocation of government agencies to rural and regional areas;
(b) the New South Wales Nationals in government relocated the Department of Agriculture to Orange in 1992;
(c) the New South Wales Labor Government moved at least seven agencies from Sydney to a regional centre between 2000 and 2005;
(d) during that time the then New South Wales Premier Mr Bob Carr confirmed Labor was committed to relocating government jobs to rural and regional areas;
(e) the Victorian Labor Government relocated the Transport Accident Commission to Geelong in 2009, and has commenced relocating Worksafe Victoria to Geelong;
(f) the Keating Labor Government moved the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to Traralgon in the early 1990s;
(g) unlike its state and federal counterparts in previous years, the current Federal Labor Opposition does not show any interest in supporting the regions;
(h) the Australian Government is in the process of relocating several agencies, many to rural and regional areas, including:
(i) the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale,
(ii) the Grains Research and Development Corporation to Toowoomba, Dubbo, Perth and Adelaide,
(iii) the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to Wagga Wagga, and
(iv) the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation to Adelaide;
(i) planning is underway for new regional offices of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia; and
(j) the movement of agricultural agencies to locations will result in unprecedented engagement with farmers, growers, scientists, research experts, business and the community in general.
The Senate divided. [11:45]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) senators are paid an annual allowance of $32,000, known as an electorate allowance, and
(ii) the purpose of this allowance is to cover expenses incurred by a senator in discharging their electoral responsibilities; and
(b) calls on all senators to commit to spending their electorate allowance on their electorate and their electorate responsibilities, rather than using it to top up their already generous salary.
The Senate divided. [11:50]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes the essential role of social security payments in the budgets of many struggling Australians and Australian families;
(b) notes the likely unfair impact on individual and family budgets of the Government's proposed cuts, including to Family Tax Benefits, Paid Parental Leave, Newstart, the Energy Supplement, the Pensioner Education Supplement and the Education Entry Payment, and to pensions of certain migrant pensioners;
(c) opposes the Government's proposed cuts, due to their unfair impact on individual and family budgets; and
(d) calls on the Government to scrap its proposed $50 billion tax cut for banks and other multinational companies, instead of making these harsh and unfair cuts to individual and family budgets.
That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, be established to inquire into and report on the regulation and practices of financial institutions in relation to primary production industries, including agriculture, fisheries and forestry, with particular reference to:
(a) the lending, and foreclosure and default practices, including constructive and non-monetary default processes;
(b) the roles of other service providers to, and agents of, financial institutions, including valuers and insolvency practitioners, and the impact of these services;
(c) the appropriateness of internal complaints handling and dispute management procedures within financial institutions; and
(d) the appropriateness of loan contract terms particular to the primary production industries, including loan-to-value ratios and provision of reasonable written notice.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 18 October 2017.
(3) That the committee consist of seven senators:
(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and
(d) one nominated by the Leader of the Pauline Hanson's One Nation.
(4) 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 party or independent senator; and
(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.
(5) That the presence of a quorum for the committee and any subcommittee be determined in accordance with the provisions of standing order 29.
(6) 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.
(7) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and as deputy chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(9) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(10) 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 and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(11) 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.
(12) 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.
The Senate divided. [11:58]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the deeply concerning United Nations report, released on 3 February 2017, documenting atrocities against the Rohingya people in Myanmar, based on interviews with Rohingya refugees fleeing their home country,
(ii) that the Australian Government has a history of diplomatic and political influence in the region, and is therefore well-placed to play a role in resolving this escalating crisis, and
(iii) that the Australian community is becoming more and more concerned about the human rights situation in Myanmar; and
(b) invites the Australian Government to consider:
(i) calling on the Government of Myanmar to assert religious and ethnic equality of all people in Myanmar, including the persecuted Rohingya people in Rakhine State, and
(ii) calling for a United Nations Commission of Inquiry into human rights abuses in Myanmar.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) dumping of imported goods on Australian shores puts the future of sustainable Australian manufacturing and agricultural production at risk,
(ii) dumping of imported goods on Australian shores is harmful to Australian jobs throughout the entire supply chain and future economic diversity of the nation,
(iii) the complexity and cost of Australia's anti-dumping system remains prohibitive to small and medium-sized manufacturers, especially at a time when Australian businesses are already suffering economic loss caused by dumped imports, and
(iv) exporters and importers of dumped goods continue to circumvent anti-dumping measures causing Australian manufacturers further harm, placing further Australian jobs at risk and defrauding the Commonwealth of revenue; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) urgently introduce administrative reform to the Australian anti-dumping system to increase the effectiveness of the system with immediate focus on small and medium-sized businesses,
(ii) immediately establish a joint taskforce between the Anti-Dumping Commission and the Australian Border Force to address the problem of circumvention of anti-dumping measures, and
(iii) where countervailing measures are not successful, pursue illegal subsidy programs through the WTO disputes settlements process, and join as third-parties such disputes instituted by other member states.
The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to the costs of actions taken by persons who suffer loss or damage as a result of breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes. Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, Labor introduces the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017.
This private senators' bill amends two acts, the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Act 2015. The primary aim of the bill is to allow judges in the Federal Court to waive liability for adverse costs to small business private litigants in cases related to the misuse of market power.
This bill addresses a prominent problem with the operation of section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 without changing its intention.
The problem is that when private parties litigate breaches of the competition law, the risk of significant adverse cost orders and the time taken to finalise action in the courts have an excessively inhibiting effect on small businesses.
These disincentives within the legal system allow the well-resourced legal teams of our larger corporations to stare down potentially legitimate claims from small businesses and suppliers who can't sustain a long legal case and can't risk testing their claim where there is a prospect of adverse costs.
The mechanisms, as they stand, can act as an unintended filter keeping legitimate cases out of the courts.
Almost by definition, cases in which the misuse of market power may be at play reflect an asymmetry in the resources and the organisational capacities of the businesses involved.
Too many smaller businesses are having to make a decision about calling out bad conduct based on the resources they can invest in the pursuit of a court ruling, rather than on the merits of their case.
Their access to justice is being compromised by the same asymmetries the law is supposed to address.
This issue was addressed by the Harper Competition Review that found small business access to remedies to be wanting, stating:
"From submissions and consultations with small business, the Panel is convinced that there are significant barriers to small business taking private action to enforce the competition laws"
Access to Justice
In recent years, small businesses have consistently been asking: what really are the government's plans? This was the question my predecessor as shadow minister for small business, the member for Greenway, would hear most often over the course of the 44th Parliament. Sadly, with livelihoods at stake, the situation has not changed.
When the current Prime Minister toppled the member for Warringah, he promised leadership.
Many people took the Prime Minister at his word, but we seek to judge him by his actions.
And when it comes to key reforms for small and medium sized businesses, the Prime Minister's actions have been few and fainthearted.
Prime Minister Turnbull has failed to deliver a coherent plan for our economy. A phoney war on multinational tax avoidance and three word slogans have left many small and medium sized businesses wondering if the Prime Minister is truly in charge of the economy.
And they're right to wonder. After all, it's Labor that has been setting a clear economic policy agenda – taking the lead on tackling multinational tax avoidance, and setting out a pathway to fairer superannuation and more affordable housing.
We've been making our policy announcements, doing the hard work, doing consultation and announcing detailed policy as the Turnbull government has found itself again and again without an agenda, without thoughtful policy and without an economic strategy. Slogans don't cut it.
Like all Australians, small businesses seek confidence and certainty from their government.
But the Turnbull government has instead come to them with a confidence trick. The government's proposed "effects test" (which I will return to in more detail) is bad policy.
Yes, it is appropriate we discuss the deliberate and intentional misuse of market power by large players, as this hurts competition and small businesses.
We know this because Labor put in place the Trade Practices Act under Gough Whitlam.
And we know this because Labor continues to find ways to ensure that Australian consumers can rely on the benefits of competitive markets.
Since its inception, the Trade Practices Act 1974 (now the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) has included section 46, a section designed to prevent firms with substantial market power from using that power to eliminate or substantially damage a competitor, prevent the entry of a competitor, or deterring or preventing competition.
But it's not just about writing the right laws. It's also about making sure they are enforced.
The problem is not the existing law – but the risks associated with pursuing litigation.
It was made clear to us that the biggest barrier in bringing such actions was the threat of adverse cost orders in the event that a case failed.
That is why Labor will make it easier for small businesses to bring actions and seek remedies in cases of alleged anti-competitive behaviour.
Labor's Access to Justice for Small Business policy will empower judges to remove liability for the defendant's legal fees if a small business brings a case in the Federal Court.
Effective competition law should not be about who has the deepest pockets.
This reform will level the playing field - where small and medium businesses allege anti-competitive behaviour, they will be better placed to fight it in the courts.
This is good for competition and good for small businesses.
The feedback on access to justice has been consistent. The major barrier to private litigation under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is the potential cost liability to the applicant if a case is lost.
Small businesses typically have limited experience with legal action and little if any experience in the courts. They worry about the prospect that costs will be awarded against them, leaving them liable for their own legal costs as well as those of their competitors.
These Federal Court cases are often David versus Goliath, and Goliath has those aforementioned deep pockets and is sure-footed in the courts.
Labor's reform will waive the liability of private litigants where they can demonstrate that their case has merit and that they are opposing anti-competitive behaviour.
Labor will permit Federal Court justices to waive the liability of litigants for the legal costs of opponents with deeper pockets in Part IV litigation under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
This means that before a case has been moved, and before legal costs have started to build up, the court will have an opportunity to indicate that a case has merit. Once that decision has been made, the small business can proceed to test the law, knowing that a failed case won't leave them accountable for the cost of a big business's legal defence.
Labor will also allow the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman to provide professional assistance to small businesses and their representatives with respect to the merits and likelihood of success of an application for a no adverse costs order.
While this assistance will not amount to a legally binding decision, it will provide more certainty for the private litigants in a forum outside of the courts.
This is in keeping with the ombudsman's remit of assisting small businesses in alternative dispute resolution.
This is about protecting the competitive process, and competition is about advancing the interests of consumers.
This will remove an unnecessary element of jeopardy in the decision making process for small businesses and their representatives as they consider seeking recourse to private litigation.
It will mean that those who resort to uncompetitive practices, such as price-fixing or the misuse of market power, will be subject to closer scrutiny.
This will remove one of the biggest barriers to bringing litigation, the potential liability for adverse costs of powerful vested interests.
Facilitating private litigation where there is a legitimate case to be made about anti-competitive behaviour is good for competition, good for consumers and good for the currently anaemic case law that has defined the terms in which courts can judge the misuse of market power.
It allows small businesses to go forward in certain instances with confidence that even if they lose, they won't be hit by a multi-million dollar cost order for the big business's costs. That's in the public interest.
We see this in other jurisdictions and other places, where litigation in the public interest is valued. And here, under this policy, a number of cases will go forward that wouldn't have gone forward before.
This is a modest, sensible proposal to empower small businesses to pursue failures in the competitive process.
Detail in the b ill
Schedule 1 of this Bill amends the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Act 2015 to add the meaning of conduct under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and define the assistance the Ombudsman may give to parties seeking no adverse cost orders in proceedings in relation to contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Parliament passed the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Act 2015 and Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2015 in 2015 to establish the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman.
The ombudsman commenced operations on 11 March 2016. The ombudsman replaces the former Office of the Australian Small Business Commissioner. The role of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (ASBFEO) is to:
To assist in the process of a private litigant requesting a 'no adverse cost order', this bill will allow the Small Business Ombudsman to provide an initial assessment on whether a private litigant is likely to be granted a no adverse cost order.
The representatives of small business private litigants will be able to submit their proposal to the ombudsman and receive professional assistance and advice with respect to the likelihood of success. This includes advice on the arguments that might be made and the evidence that might be adduced to satisfy a court that a no adverse costs order should be made. It also includes assistance with preparing arguments.
While this will not be legally binding, the ombudsman will assist small businesses in better understanding the merits of their case and their prospects of successful application for a no adverse costs order under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Schedule 2 of this Bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to allow no adverse cost orders in certain circumstances in litigation undertaken under the Act.
Allowing judges in the Federal Court to waive liability to adverse costs of small business private litigants will empower private litigants under Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act to bring meritorious litigation without the prospect of prohibitive legal fees.
At an early stage of the court case, the private litigant will be able to request a 'no adverse cost order', preventing large legal fees of the defendant being transferred to the litigant. The judge will then assess the initial arguments and decide whether there is merit to the case. If merit is established, any liability for the defendant's legal fees will be waived.
The court may make a no adverse costs order in circumstances where:
Labor is the party of competition policy
This policy complements the other pro-consumer and pro-competition policies Labor took to the 2016 election – this was a space left conspicuously vacant by those opposite.
Labor proposed to:
This bill, and the policies I've just mentioned, all build on Labor's proud competition policy legacy.
The Labor Party is the party of the Trade Practices Act 1974, the National Competition Policy, the Australian Consumer Law and the criminalisation of cartels.
Australians can trust Labor to get it right when it comes to competition and consumer protection.
The Government's dangerous 'effects test'
An 'effects test' is shorthand for a test that looks at whether conduct engaged in by a firm with a substantial degree of market power has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition.
This is dangerous economic policy.
The effects test risks making business afraid to compete, which ultimately hurts consumers.
This will create a legal risk for a business every time it seeks to lower prices for its customers. Consumers are the losers under the effects test.
The Council of Small Business Australia (COSBOA) have also set out a concern that "the wording… will create a 'lawyers picnic' as predicted by the opponents of the effects test".
Labor welcomes strong competition policy but it must be informed and enforced. The Government's package is neither.
What we see are dangerous legislative proposals without addressing either the resources of the ACCC or making it easier for small businesses to litigate in their own private capacity.
Since 1974 at least 10 inquiries into Australia's competition laws have considered the proposal of an effects test and have rejected it. Apart from Professor Harper's review, only one other inquiry has ever recommended it.
In submissions to the Harper review, the effects test has been described as 'legally unworkable', something that 'will chill competition' and something that 'will create uncertainty for business'.
These changes will deter job-creating investment in Australia by adding to the new layers of red tape and barriers to investment which have already been imposed by the Liberal-National government.
Little wonder the government's own former Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb was opposed to this latest anti-investment measure.
The Turnbull government's proposed effects test is a move to satisfy internal politics.
This is not about policy. A level headed analysis of the effects test shows Malcolm Turnbull is using competition policy as a political prop.
Barnaby Joyce has become the government's chief economic spokesperson. This is detrimental to the Australian consumers and the broader economy.
What will the effects test mean?
Conclusion
The only people who need to be nervous about the Access to Justice policy in this private senators' bill, are those who are systematically misusing their market power, safe in the knowledge that their disadvantaged competitors don't have the resources to bring the law to bear on them.
I encourage all those who consider themselves friends to small business to support this bill and help us deliver greater access to justice for Australia's thousands of small businesses.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) pursuant to a decision of the 2016-17 Federal Budget, the Department of Social Services is currently undertaking a redesign of the Strengthening Communities Grants, to be known as the Strong and Resilient Communities Grants from 1 January 2018,
(ii) the Strengthening Communities Grants currently provide around $18 million per year to projects which address disadvantage and build opportunity in communities around Australia,
(iii) under the current Grants program, there is a specific funding stream for volunteer management programs, which in 2017 will fund volunteer support services in local communities to a total of around $7.4 million,
(iv) the Department of Social Services has proposed that this volunteer management stream of grants funding will be abolished from 1 January 2018, meaning volunteer support services will be forced to compete with other worthwhile community services and removing any guarantee that they will be funded at all,
(v) this is the latest reduction in funding allocated to volunteer management since the decision was made to transfer responsibility for volunteering from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Social Services in 2014, a move which volunteering peak bodies and representatives opposed,
(vi) the national peak body for volunteering, Volunteering Australia, states that this move will "rip the heart out of local volunteer support services", organisations which play an important role in Australian communities by leading, enabling and building capacity to recruit and retain volunteers in a wide variety of organisations and services, from the human services and the arts to environmental, animal welfare and sporting groups,
(vii) approximately 5.8 million Australians, or 31 per cent of the population, volunteer, with Dr Lisel O'Dwyer of Flinders University estimating their annual contribution to Australia as $290 billion,
(viii) volunteering plays an important role in delivering the priorities of the Government, with volunteers contributing many thousands of hours per year to the aged care workforce, the disability services, schools and hospitals, art galleries, libraries and sporting clubs, and with volunteering often acting as a driver in bolstering economic participation, mitigating isolation and loneliness and increasing social inclusion and participation,
(ix) while volunteering is defined as "time willingly given, for the common good and without financial gain", it does not happen free, and requires the investment of resources in volunteer support services in order to maintain a professional, responsive and efficient volunteer workforce,
(x) the withdrawal of funding to volunteer management services will threaten the viability of the thousands of volunteering organisations and will have a huge impact on the community; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) congratulate community-based volunteer support services for the work that they do to support strong, healthy and resilient Australian communities through an effective and professional volunteer workforce, and
(ii) recognise the importance of funding volunteer management services and Volunteering Australia's campaign to retain funding for volunteer management as part of the Federal Budget.
Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Provisions that have a retrospective operation adversely affecting rights or imposing liabilities are to be included only in exceptional circumstances and on explicit policy authority …
Tony Burke: Taxpayers slugged $2.2 million for travel costs including charter flights on VIP jets
Labor frontbencher Tony Burke has slugged taxpayers close to $2.2 million for travel costs, including charter planes and flying on VIP jets. On top of $2.4 million in office and phone expenses, this makes him the parliament’s $4.6 million dollar man … Mr Burke was forced to pay back a $94 Comcar fare, which he had used to take him to a Robbie Williams concert, and admitted he flew his family business class to Uluru during the 2012 school holidays, under the family entitlements scheme.
There will be no change to the 50 per cent CGT discount for individuals.
The Labor Party's target is at least 50 per cent by 2030. We don’t believe that that is going to push up prices … we believe it will be done on a competitive basis and, as I say, I think setting a target leads to policy action and I think there are a lot of policy actions that are required.
There will be no renewable energy target, at a state level, under any government I lead.
The balance of the savings achieved through that bill will be provided and debited into the NDIS special account. The NDIS's account will be poorer for it, if this bill is not passed.
… the answer is no - but what the Treasurer is doing is again pointing out the critically important fact that this big program, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, this big program is currently short of money.
Labor left it unfunded. It was another Labor promise - which we all support, we all support the objective and the scheme - but we've got to find the money to pay for it. Now what we're seeking to do is to ensure, demonstrating, that as we make savings, we will be able to apply them to support that vitally important program.
The alternative … is just to pay for it with more debt. Everyone at least pays lip service to bringing the Budget back into balance. It is only my Government that is doing the hard yards, making the case to bring the Budget back into balance. Your commitment to the NDIS is not measured in words, it is measured in deeds. What we are doing is taking the steps, making the decisions, to ensure we've got the money to pay for it.
There had been some resistance from the Prime Minister's office to the timing of announcing it. The PMO urged caution but Morrison, for whatever reason, was insistent.
The Turnbull Government will commit $3 billion in funding to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), taking an important step towards fully and responsibly paying for the scheme, which will transform the lives of around 460,000 Australians living with disability, their families and carers.
Since coming to office, the Government has sought to bridge Labor’s $4.1 billion NDIS funding gap in 2019-20, growing to over $6 billion in future years, in order to provide certainty for Australians with disability, their families and carers. The $3 billion in funding will be directed to the NDIS Savings Fund Special Account …
When you have a 100-year-old copper it will have to be replaced eventually. The Government would have saved a lot of money if they just put politics aside and went ahead with the original plan.
The Copper Age was 5,300 years ago, and that is where copper belongs.
I have and we have a rock solid commitment to the future of Medicare …
I understand that GPs have all sorts of expenses in running their surgeries and employing staff and so on, but the average billing from Medicare is more than $350,000 a year.
Will some people respond in a way that is unhelpful for their patients? Perhaps.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by Senator Brandis to the question I asked.
The government has absolutely no intention of reducing the capital gains tax discount or making changes to negative gearing.
The [Commonwealth] tax system provides households with incentives for leveraged real estate investment that likely amplifies housing cycles.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by me today.
Parliamentary Joint Committee On Human Rights
Tabling Statement
THURSDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2017
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Report 1 of 2017.
The committee's report examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. Twenty-eight new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns, the committee is seeking further information in relation to six bills and legislative instruments, and the committee has also concluded its consideration of a number of matters .
Before discussing the report further, I would like to take this opportunity to speak a little about the progress of the committee's inquiry into Freedom of Speech in Australia.
The committee received approximately 11,500 items, including approximately 9,500 form letters; 375 items accepted by the committee as submissions and published to date; and approximately 1,400 items accepted by the committee as correspondence.
The committee has completed seven public hearings to date, in Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane. It is scheduled to conduct a further hearing in Canberra tomorrow, and its final hearing in Darwin next Monday, 20 February 2017. The committee is due to report on 28 February 2017.
I will now turn to a brief discussion of the three matters that the committee finalised in this report:
I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's work.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 1 of 2017 to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Australian Government response to the Senate Economics References Committee report:
Future of Australia's Steel Industry—Interim Report
February 2017
Background
On 26 November 2015, the Senate referred the following matters to the Senate Economics References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report:
(a) The future sustainability of Australia's strategically vital steel industry and its supply chain; and
(b) Any other related matters.
On the dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 9 May 2016 for a general election on 2 July 2016, the parliamentary committees of the 44th Parliament ceased to exist. At that time, the committee's inquiry lapsed.
On 11 October 2016, the Senate agreed to the committee's recommendation that the inquiry be re-referred in the 45th Parliament and for a final report to be presented by 1 December 2017.
The committee resolved to re-open submissions with a closing date of 17 February 2017. This was notified on the committee's website and additional direct invitations were issued to stakeholders.
At the time of the tabling of the committee's interim report on 1 December 2016, the committee had received 39 submissions to the inquiry.
On 1 December 2016, the committee tabled its interim report which included three recommendations.
Go vernment response
The Government notes the recommendations of the Interim Report and Senators' additional comments, and advises that it is working closely with Arrium's administrator, KordaMentha, and the South Australian state government to secure the long-term sustainable operations of the Whyalla steelworks.
During 2016 the Government made significant commitments to help secure the ongoing viability of the Whyalla steelworks and support the wider region. This included:
Building on these commitments, the Government has highlighted further loan support which can be made available to the new owners of Arrium's Whyalla steelworks through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. This loan support will help attract investments for the long-term sustainable operations of the steelworks.
The Government understands the challenges facing Arrium and the wider steel sector, including pressure from low prices impacted by global overcapacity. The Government has recently implemented a range of initiatives that support Australian steel making and the manufacturing sector more broadly. These include:
The Government will continue to liaise closely with the Administrators as they prepare Arrium's businesses for sale, and will work with the new owners of the Whyalla steelworks to help secure the ongoing viability of its operations.
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration report: Seasonal change
Inquiry into the Seasonal Worker Programme
FEBRUARY 2017
Overview
The Australian Government welcomes the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration into the Seasonal Worker Programme.
The Government is committed to ensuring that the Seasonal Worker Programme delivers results for all stakeholders and continues to contribute to:
The Seasonal Worker Programme is a whole-of-government programme administered by the Department of Employment in collaboration with other agencies including the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Australian Taxation Office and Austrade.
Under the Seasonal Worker Programme, many thousands of workers from Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste have benefited from the opportunity to work in the agriculture and accommodation sectors where employers cannot source enough Australian labour.
The majority of seasonal workers that participate in the programme have a positive experience and are able to remit earnings back home to their families and communities. A study by the World Bank into remittances under the Seasonal Worker Programme pilot in 2011 indicated that a typical seasonal worker earned $12,000-$13,000 in Australia, of which approximately $5,000 was sent back home. The World Bank is currently updating this study.
The Seasonal Worker Programme provides a reliable and returning seasonal workforce to employers. Employers sourcing labour under the Seasonal Worker Programme report efficiencies by having access to a productive seasonal workforce with reduced absenteeism and staff turnover.
There have been significant reforms to the Seasonal Worker Programme over the last eighteen months. These include the uncapping of the programme from 1 July 2015 so that demand is driven by employers' need for labour and expanding it to the broader agriculture sector. A trial of the programme in the tourism sector in Northern Australia has also commenced.
The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to communicate these reforms and build the ongoing success of the Seasonal Worker Programme.
Australian Government response
The Government's response to Seasonal Change is set out in detail below.
Role of seasonal workers in the horticulture industry Recommendation one:
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Australian Government does not support further reviews of the Working Holiday Maker and Seasonal Worker Programmes by December 2017. A number of comprehensive reviews into these programmes have either been completed or are currently underway.
The Government has completed a review of the Working Holiday Maker Visa programme. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation completed a study on the productivity of new migrants, including seasonal workers, in Australia on 12 October 2016.
A number of domestic and international reviews of the Seasonal Worker Programme will be undertaken during 2017. These reviews will take account of the changes to expand and streamline the Seasonal Worker Programme announced by the Government in June 2015 in Our North, Our Future: White Paper on Developing Northern Australia .
They will:
(1) assess the development impact of the programme on workers, labour sending communities and countries, with a particular focus on gender aspects.
(2) assess the productivity of seasonal workers and the costs, benefits and other factors impacting on farm profits associated with the Seasonal Worker Programme.
(3) ensure Australian job seekers are not being displaced by the Seasonal Worker Programme.
The Government will continue to consider a number of issues and suggestions that emerged during the Working Holiday Maker Tax Review. In addition, in October 2016, the Government established a Migrant Workers' Taskforce, to target those involved in unscrupulous labour hire practices and the exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers.
Workforce requirements for sectors that may benefit from seasonal workers
Recommendation two:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake improved qualitative and quantitative research on full-time, part-time and seasonal labour workforce requirements to better inform Government policy.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Department of Employment collects information from around 12,000 employers across the country each year about their recent recruitment experiences. The Survey of Employers ' Recruitment Experiences was modified in January 2016 to identify employers with seasonal staffing requirements. Findings on the recruitment and retention difficulties experienced by employers who have seasonal staffing requirements will be available in early 2017.
Expanding the Seasonal Worker Programme Recommendation three:
The Committee recommends the Australian Government consider expanding the Seasonal Worker Programme to include the aged, child, and disability care sectors, which have already been included in the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia.
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Seasonal Worker Programme is designed to meet short-term seasonal labour needs of Australian employers in industries that experience seasonal peaks. The skills requirements and lack of seasonal peaks in demand in the aged, child and disability care sector go beyond the parameters of the Seasonal Worker Programme.
To address non-seasonal labour needs in Northern Australia, the Government is piloting the potential for workers from specific Pacific Islands to work in aged care, as well as other sectors, through the Pacific Microstates–Northern Australia Worker Pilot Programme. This initiative was announced by the Government in June 2015 in Our North, Our Future: White Paper on Developing Northern Australia .
The pilot will run for five years, allowing up to 250 citizens (around 50 per year) from Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu to work for two to three years in Northern Australia. It aims to address labour and skill shortages in Northern Australia and provide workers from Pacific Microstates with better access to employment opportunities.
Impact on the Australian labour force Recommendation four:
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government agrees that attracting, employing and retaining local labour in the broad agriculture sector is vital to ensuring that the industry remains sustainable in the long term. The Seasonal Work Incentives for Jobseekers pilot will provide incentives for young jobseekers to undertake seasonal work in the horticultural industry.
The Government also has a range of initiatives to support young people into employment:
Increased access for women and youth workers Recommendation five:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement the following measures to increase gender equality and provide women greater employment opportunities:
The Government notes this recommendation.
All Memoranda of Understanding with partner countries set out critical success factors for the Seasonal Worker Programme, which state that the arrangements will be effective if opportunities for employment facilitate inclusive participation by women and under-represented groups.
To support this, the Government is working with Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste to improve women's participation in the Seasonal Worker Programme. A key objective of the Labour Mobility Assistance Program ($5.8 million, 2016–2017) is to increase the number of women from Pacific Island Countries and Timor-Leste taking up and benefitting from seasonal work opportunities.
Under the Labour Mobility Assistance Program each partner country has negotiated a work plan that includes specific activities to improve gender equity in the Seasonal Worker Programme. For example, in Papua New Guinea the Australian funded 'Women in Agriculture Program' will promote the participation of women agricultural workers, and help returning seasonal workers share and apply their new skills to the local industry.
In September 2016, the Office for the Chief Trade Adviser for PACER Plus released a Sustainability Impact Assessment of the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of trade liberalisation under PACER Plus on the Pacific Islands Forum Countries and made recommendations for mitigating these impacts. The Sustainability Impact Assessment found that PACER Plus will generally improve the livelihoods of Pacific Island populations, contribute to poverty alleviation, and in some instances narrow the gender gap by providing more employment opportunities to women. Australia will provide development assistance to support Forum Island Countries' participation in PACER Plus; this assistance will include resources dedicated to improving women's ability to benefit from trade.
Development outcomes in the Pacific Recommendation six:
The Government does not support this recommendation.
As outlined in the response to Recommendation 3, the Seasonal Worker Programme is designed to meet short-term seasonal labour needs of Australian employers in industries that experience seasonal peaks.
The Government is piloting the potential for workers from specific Pacific Islands to work in aged care, as well as other sectors, through the Pacific Microstates–Northern Australia Worker Pilot Programme.
The Microstates Pilot will allow the Government to test an employment pathway for Australia Pacific Technical College health and community services industry graduates. Because these industries are not seasonal in nature, the Seasonal Worker Programme is not suited to employment in these areas.
Possible legislative and other impediments Recommendation seven:
The Government notes this recommendation.
The purpose of labour market testing is to ensure that overseas workers are a supplement to, and not a substitute for, Australians. As the report of Joint Committee notes, 'the requirement to undertake market testing is not overly burdensome' (Section 9.27).
The variation in labour market testing requirements reflects a range of factors, primarily the duration and skill level of employment opportunities and the purpose of the visa programme that an employer is looking to utilise. For example, the community would reasonably expect the labour marketing testing requirements to vary according to whether an employer is seeking one highly skilled individual for up to four years (under a 457 visa) compared to short term, seasonal opportunities for a number of unskilled or lower skilled positions (under a 403 visa for the Seasonal Worker Programme).
In all cases employers' recruitment practices must satisfy Australian equal opportunity, anti- discrimination and workplace relations laws. Vacancies and job advertisements published by Australia businesses cannot discriminate against Australian applicants and should not invite applications from persons holding certain types of temporary visas.
Recommendation eight
The Committee recommends that the Department of Treasury undertake a review of current superannuation arrangements for Seasonal Worker Programme participants, having regard to:
The review should be conducted primarily with a view to ensuring seasonal workers receive their full entitlements as efficiently and quickly as possible.
The Government notes this recommendation.
Seasonal Worker Programme participants are subject to the same superannuation rules as most other overseas workers on temporary visas, including that they can claim their superannuation after they leave Australia and their visa is cancelled or expires by applying for a Departing Australia Superannuation Payment.
Australian Government agencies are working to address barriers to participants claiming their superannuation and improve claim rates. Some of the initiatives include educating seasonal workers and governments on the claims process and encouraging governments from labour sending countries to help seasonal workers complete their application.
The Australian Government through the Labour Mobility Assistance Programme is currently updating and enhancing information provided to seasonal workers on living and working in Australia. This includes providing improved pre-departure information that is translated to increase understanding by participating governments' labour sending units and seasonal workers.
The Department of Treasury, Australian Taxation Office and other Australian Government agencies will continue to identify opportunities to streamline administrative processes for seasonal workers to receive superannuation payments once they have departed Australia.
Compliance and related issues Recommendation nine:
The Australian Government response to this recommendation will be addressed in its response to Recommendation 32in the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report
A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders .
Australian Government response to the Senate Select Committee on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan report: Refreshing the Plan
February 2017Introduction
The Senate Select Committee inquiry on the Murray–Darling Basin Plan presented its final report on 17 March 2016. The majority report made 31 recommendations addressing issues that are of great importance to farmers and communities throughout the Murray–Darling Basin and other stakeholders. The Committee received almost 400 submissions to this inquiry.
Minority reports from the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, and Senator Nick Xenophon support the Murray–Darling Basin Plan and associated water reform. The report by the former Senator John Madigan includes 19 recommendations.
There are a number of recommendations made in the Committee's final report which focus on state issues, such as the operation of state desalination plants, water entitlement purchases by state governments and management of water storages. All such issues are for the relevant state government to consider in the first instance.
The Australian Government recognises the importance of the issues raised in the report and provides the following responses to the recommendations.
The Australian Government ' s approach to implementing the Basin Plan
The Australian Government is determined to implement the Basin Plan in a way that ensures the economic and social wellbeing of Basin communities, while delivering on the environmental objectives of the Plan.
In the north, the Northern Basin Review has provided an opportunity to closely examine the impacts of water recovery on Basin communities and explore the most effective way to deliver environmental outcomes. The highly variable nature of the less‑regulated northern Basin presents unique challenges and opportunities in water resource management.
The Northern Basin Review was enabled under the Basin Plan because at the time it was written, less was known about the northern Basin than the more developed southern connected system. The data generated as part of the Northern Basin Review and the subsequent recommendations made by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will lead to amendments to the Basin Plan, and guide its implementation. On 22 November 2016 the Northern Basin Review was released together with proposed Basin Plan amendments, including those arising from the Northern Basin Review. Public consultation on the proposed Basin Plan amendments will occur between November 2016 and February 2017. The Government is grateful to the many stakeholders who have engaged in the review.
The Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL) Adjustment Mechanism provides an opportunity to optimise the economic, social and environmental outcomes in the southern Basin. Supply measures provide the opportunity to deliver environmentally equivalent outcomes without requiring as much water to be recovered from consumptive purposes. Thirty-seven supply measures were agreed to by the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council on 22 April 2016. A previous independent stocktake showed that supply measures have the potential to provide an offset of around 508 gigalitres in the southern Basin.
Following a request by the Ministerial Council the Basin Plan was amended to provide for a second notification of measures to the SDL adjustment mechanism by 30 June 2017. This additional step will allow for a second tranche of supply measure projects to be considered. Basin state ministers also reiterated their request for Basin state government officials to consider opportunities for a wider range of complementary projects, such as carp control, to provide triple bottom line benefits under the Basin Plan.
The Ministerial Council also agreed to the types of projects that may be considered as efficiency measures under the SDL Adjustment Mechanism. In accordance with the Basin Plan, any efficiency measure projects must have positive or neutral social and economic outcomes.
A list of all agreed SDL adjustment projects is available on the Authority's website.
Committee majority recommendations
1. The committee recommends that no further reductions in water entitlements occur until the Northern Basin review, and any subsequent assessments, have been completed. The committee recommends that the review should also consider alternative means of water recovery, particularly in the Condamine-Balonne catchment, in order to minimise the economic and social impact of the Plan in the Northern Basin. This would include consideration of the following options:
Agreed.
The Murray–Darling Basin Authority has completed its review of the northern Basin. The focus of the review was to improve the evidence base from which decisions about water recovery settings could be confidently made using a triple-bottom line approach — weighing up social, economic and environmental considerations. As a part of the review, the Authority has consulted with various stakeholder groups in the north to seek their views on the implementation of the Basin Plan.
The Authority also considered a range of actions in addition to water recovery that could be implemented to reduce the adverse social and economic impacts of the Basin Plan while also providing opportunities for improved water management to enhance the use of environmental water.
As a result of its review, the Authority has proposed that the overall water recovery target in the northern Basin reduce from 390 gigalitres on average to 320 gigaligtres provided there are commitments from Basin state governments to implement a range of measures to improve water management.
Through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, the Australian Government has established the Northern Basin Programmes Taskforce to investigate how to achieve the remaining water recovery in the northern Basin in ways that minimise the impact on communities. Drawing from key industry and community stakeholder input, the taskforce will provide advice on ways that avoid further water purchase and deliver social and economic benefits to communities. The Taskforce may also make recommendations to assist progress of toolkit measures.
The Taskforce may also make recommendations to assist progress of toolkit measures, including temporary trade of environmental water. Temporary trade of water from one location to another provides protection for water holders to ensure the water reaches its destination. As a toolkit measure, temporary trade is important to ensure environmental water can be delivered at appropriate times to key environmental assets, and will help to meet environmental targets under the proposed 320 gigalitre water recovery target.
Under the Healthy Headwaters Water Use Efficiency Program, entitlement holders above Beardmore Dam became eligible to participate in this on-farm infrastructure programme from January 2016.
The Government will consult with Basin state governments on its water recovery strategy and ensure that any recoveries are strategic and minimise risk of over-recovery.
2. The committee recommends that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, as part of its ongoing social and economic work, undertake and publish a thorough assessment of the estimated and actual social and economic impacts of the implementation of the Plan, including of pursuing the remaining water recovery for the Condamine-Balonne catchment and other similarly distressed areas.
Agreed.
The Water Act 2007 and Basin Plan require regular periodic reporting of social and economic impacts. The first of these reports will be completed in 2017, with a second report due in 2020 and subsequent reports every 5 years thereafter.
The Murray–Darling Basin Authority is collecting social and economic data to inform its role in evaluating and reviewing the Basin Plan, including through the Northern Basin Review. Reporting of this work occurs in a number of ways including through Basin Plan annual reports and in the reports prepared for the Northern Basin Review. The social and economic assessment conducted as part of the Northern Basin Review is available on the Authority's website.
3. The committee recommends that the MDBA address the existing over-recovery in the Macquarie Valley and other 'terminal' systems such as the Gwydir Valley, with a view to limiting recovery to amounts which address valley-specific environmental needs.
Agreed.
The Basin Plan identifies only the Lachlan and Wimmera-Mallee as terminal systems. The northern Basin is regarded as a connected system. Both the Macquarie and Gwydir valleys connect into the Barwon−Darling River above certain flows.
The final recovery amounts required in these rivers will not be settled until the process to amend the Basin Plan is completed. Public consultation on the current proposed Basin Plan amendments, which includes amendments related to the Northern Basin Review recommendations, is taking place between November 2016 and February 2017.
The proposed new local recovery volume in the Macquarie is 55 gigalitres, which is a 10 gigalitres reduction from Basin Plan settings. The results of the northern Basin review show that local environmental needs in the Macquarie can be met with this lower volume.
The proposed local recovery target for the Gwydir Valley is the same as the current Basin Plan settings. The modelling scenario used as the basis for the proposed amendment assumed that the Gwydir would not need to contribute to the shared reduction amount. The opportunity exists for the New South Wales and Queensland governments to request changes to the way in which the shared reduction is distributed between catchments, which may minimise the risk of over‑recovery in any catchment.
4. The committee recommends that federal and state governments examine options for securing Broken Hill's water supply as recommended by the Broken Hill City Council, including raising the trigger point for releases, and improving infrastructure storage at Menindee Lakes.
Agreed.
Broken Hill's water supply is the responsibility of the New South Wales Government. On 16 June 2016, the New South Wales Government announced that it would fund the construction of a pipeline from the River Murray to secure water supply to Broken Hill.
The Australian Government is committed to improving the management of the Menindee Lakes in partnership with the New South Wales Government.
The rules for the operation of the Menindee Lakes, including the trigger points, are an important element of the operation of the River Murray system. Any rule changes require the agreement of all relevant Basin jurisdictions.
5. The committee recommends that an environmental watering plan be developed for the Menindee Lakes, provided that Adelaide's water supply and that of South Australian irrigators and landholders dependent on the Murray, is secure.
Agreed.
There is an existing agreement between the Australian and New South Wales Governments, which provides funding to investigate infrastructure and operational changes at the Menindee Lakes which could help reduce significant evaporation losses without adversely impacting third parties including downstream users and the environment. As part of this work, the New South Wales Government is investigating the environmental watering requirements for the Menindee Lakes to ensure that the environmental values are maintained under potential changed operational arrangements being investigated for the system.
6. The committee recommends the Commonwealth assume liability for damage to private property from environmental watering events, including to both landholders and third parties, except to parties who have given prior consent to such flooding.
Not agreed.
Legal responsibility for any adverse impacts due to the release of water from storages is with the relevant authority that manages the storage. Operators are bound to act at all times in accordance with the relevant operating procedures in fulfilling orders placed for consumptive or environmental water.
River operators will not deliver environmental flows at levels above the operational limits that apply to all water deliveries, including irrigation orders.
7. The committee recommends that the MDBA and state governments address the issue of third party impacts from environmental watering events during the development of constraints proposals, and clearly communicate with landholders who are likely to be affected by such events.
Agreed.
The development of constraints proposals is the responsibility of Basin state governments as set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray ‑Darling Basin . The Murray–Darling Basin Authority's 2013 Constraints Management Strategy, developed under the Basin Plan to assist states in the development of constraint proposals, stated that projects need to:
State government agencies in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia will be responsible for the ongoing consultation with potentially affected landholders and communities on their proposals to deliver higher flows while managing any potential impacts.
8. The committee recommends that the MDBA review its communication methods, particularly with regard to projects still in development such constraints proposals, and improve its ability to incorporate the views of communities and landholders into decisions and reports.
Agreed.
The Murray–Darling Basin Authority has its communications methods under continuous review.
9. The committee recommends the federal government work with the Victorian government to ensure adequate accountability and scrutiny of the Goulburn Murray Water Connections Project, by initiating a judicial inquiry into the operation of the Goulburn Murray Water Connections Project. Further, given the use of Commonwealth funds on the project, the committee recommends the Australian National Audit Office should consider an audit of the project.
Not agreed.
The Australian and Victorian governments jointly commissioned an independent review of the Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project Stage 2 which identified concerns about the ability of the project to deliver the agreed outcomes on time and within budget. In response to the review, the Victorian Government - which is responsible for delivering the project - is resetting the project using the remaining funding. The reset announced by the Hon. Lisa Neville on 7 September 2016 was agreed with the Australian Government.
The Auditor-General, Mr Grant Hehir has advised the Inquiry Committee that on the basis of the number of previous investigations and reviews undertaken, and the commitments of the Australian and Victorian Governments, he does not intend to commence an audit of the project at this time.
10. The committee recommends the government evaluate the effect on irrigators and the environment of the SA government purchasing irrigation water on the water market while declining to use its desalination plant. The committee also recommends the government undertake a study of the cost of upgrading pipeline delivery of water to irrigators and livestock owners on both sides of the lower lakes.
Agreed in part.
The Australian Government's financial contribution to the Adelaide desalination plant was subject to South Australia reducing its reliance on the River Murray as detailed in the Implementation Plan for Augmentation of the Adelaide Desalination Plant .
South Australia has provided annual reports on Environmental Water Allocations, use and outcomes in line with the requirements in Schedule 1 of the Implementation Plan.
SA Water trade is subject to the Basin Plan water trading rules, and their own State water trading rules. These rules are consistent for all water market participants.
Under the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program, the Government provided $116.9 million to South Australia to fund a suite of projects under South Australia's Lower Lakes Integrated Pipeline Project . Three components funded were:
Any further investment in upgrading pipelines for irrigators and livestock owners at the Lower Lakes is a matter for the South Australian Government.
11. The committee recommends that Bird Island be removed by the South Australian Government and MDBA to improve water flow through the Murray mouth.
Not agreed.
A combination of barrage flows and dredging is achieving the minimum connectivity targets required to allow sufficient tidal exchange between the ocean and the Coorong. This programme is managed under arrangements agreed by all Basin governments.
The wet winter in the eastern states has produced large, unregulated flows down the river system. Recent wet conditions have significantly increased the volumes of water flowing over the barrages. These flows serve a number of important functions, such as improving water quality by flushing salt from the system and alleviating the need for dredging.
Removing Bird Island and other additional accumulated sand will not only require a major one‑off expense but would also incur additional dredging effort and cost into the future, as increasing connectivity increases the rate of sand deposition.
12. The committee recommends the MDBA calculate the economic value of fresh water evaporated from the lower lakes.
Not agreed.
Such an analysis would imply an objective of drying the Lower Lakes, which is not the Government's intention.
13. The committee recommends the government undertake a detailed study to inform whether a reassessment of the Coorong's Ramsar listing from a fresh water system to an estuarine system is more appropriate.
Not agreed.
The Coorong, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland Ramsar site comprises twenty-three wetland types, including estuarine waters, coastal brackish/saline lagoons, permanent freshwater lakes, permanent freshwater marshes, and seasonally flooded agricultural land. As such, it is not listed primarily as a freshwater system, but as a complex of freshwater, estuarine and saline wetlands.
The South Australian Government is about to update the Ramsar Management Plan that is anticipated to include variable water levels actions, and management triggers for salinity and ecological connectivity, including Murray Mouth openness.
14. The committee recommends the government undertake cost-benefit analyses of the following options for adapting the management of the Lower Lakes and Coorong, and their social, economic and environmental impacts throughout the basin:
Should such analysis indicate that one or more of these leads to more positive social, economic and environmental outcomes than the current basin plan, the committee recommends the Plan be amended accordingly.
Agreed in principle.
The Australian Government has already funded the preparation of the 'Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Recovery Project' . From this project 'A long-term plan for the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth' was developed to address the problems facing the Lower Lakes and Coorong by:
The negative effects of sea water introduction identified in the Long-Term Plan include acidity mobilisation, release of metal contaminants, hypersalinity, eutrophication and impacts on freshwater ecological functions.
The Basin state governments have also jointly funded work by SA Water to upgrade or automate the barrages to enable management which is more responsive to local conditions.
15. The committee recommends the government commission an independent feasibility and hydrology study into a connector between Lake Albert and the Coorong to assess the environmental and economic costs and benefits of the connector, and compare this to the current practice of lake cycling.
Noted.
This work has already occurred.
The feasibility, costs and benefits of a connector between Lake Albert and the Coorong was examined as one of six options in the Lake Albert Scoping Study undertaken in 2013-14 by the South Australian Government. The outcomes achievable by a Coorong Connector were directly comparable to Lakes Level Cycling (variable lake levels). The study was jointly funded by the Australian and South Australian governments under the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Recovery Project.
16. The committee recommends the government direct the Productivity Commission to investigate the value of foregone production and food processing due to reduced irrigation water under the Plan.
and
19. The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government request the Productivity Commission to undertake a full cost-benefit analysis of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
Agreed in principle.
The Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Act 2016 requires regular reporting of social and economic impacts of the Plan. The first report is due in 2017.
The Water Act 2007 also requires a five yearly audit of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Basin Plan. The Productivity Commission will be undertaking the first of these audits in 2018.
In the interim, the Murray–Darling Basin Authority continues to collect social and economic data to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Basin Plan. The Authority's most recent Basin Plan annual report was released in January 2016 and is available on the Authority's website. The 2016 annual report is expected to be released in early 2017.
There have been a number of other socio-economic studies undertaken to understand the costs and benefits of the Basin Plan by a range of organisations, researchers and consultants. These are available on the Authority's website. For example, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences undertook modelling of the potential impacts of water recovery under the Basin Plan in 2010, including possible changes in the gross value of irrigated agriculture.
17. The committee recommends that the government assess the operation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme to determine the priority of irrigation and energy production.
and
18. The committee recommends the operation of the scheme be assessed, and adjusted as required, to give more effect to social, economic and environmental considerations of local and downstream communities.
Agreed in principle.
The Snowy Water Licence is scheduled for a statutory review in 2017. The review will consider the obligations placed on Snowy Hydro under the Licence. Governments will have the opportunity at this time to consider the balance between water and energy production priorities.
20. The committee recommends that state governments make every effort to promote SDL Adjustment Mechanism projects in their jurisdiction to achieve the 650GL target.
Agreed.
On 22 April 2016 the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council agreed to a package of supply, efficiency and constraint measures which have since been formally notified to the Murray‑Darling Basin Authority to allow for the formal operation of the SDL adjustment mechanism. The volume of adjustment from the package of supply measures will be determined through the assessment of the projects through the assessment framework set out in the Basin Plan. The final SDL adjustment outcome will not be known until the Authority has modelled the full package of proposals.
As requested by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, the Australian Government passed amendments to the Basin Plan (through the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Act 2016) in November 2016 to provide for a second notification step by 30 June 2017. This will provide Basin state governments with an opportunity to develop and refine projects that can further improve the outcomes of the Basin Plan while ensuring the continued success of irrigation in the Basin through sound investment in infrastructure whether on or off farm.
21. The committee recommends that no further buybacks of water occur and that action to recover the additional 450GL of water through efficiency measures is delayed until the SDL Adjustment Mechanism target is met and the socio-economic impacts of water recovery to date are known.
Agreed in part.
The Australian Government is committed to implementing the Basin Plan in full and on time. The Government is also committed to adhering to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray Darling Basin and implementing the Basin Plan in ways that deliver environmental outcomes while ensuring the social and economic wellbeing of Basin communities.
The Government's approach to water recovery in recent years has been to prioritise investment in productivity-enhancing water infrastructure and to cap surface water purchases at 1,500 gigalitres.
The Government will review its water recovery strategy, including the need for any future purchase requirements, following the work undertaken by the Northern Basin Programmes Taskforce and the operation of SDL adjustment mechanism.
The Government is working with the States to investigate efficiency measures programmes that meet Basin Plan requirements. The first programme, a revised on-farm irrigation efficiency programme, is being piloted in South Australia. Efficiency measures programmes will only roll-out where water users can realise benefits from participating and where there are neutral or beneficial socio-economic outcomes.
Under the Principles for the newproposed IGA Schedule for implementing the SDL adjustment mechanism , the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council agreed on 22 April 2016 that the Government would ensure that any efficiency measures programme would complement gap‑bridging efforts. Therefore, the Government will not run efficiency measure programmes in ways that could conflict with gap-bridging efforts.
The Basin Plan requires that any efficiency measure programmes have neutral or positive socio‑economic outcomes. Open tender buybacks are not permitted as part of the efficiency measures programme.
22. The committee recommends that the government investigate the costs and benefits of a real-time national water trading register, and whether private platforms provide or can complement such arrangements.
Agreed in part.
The former National Water Markets System Project was a co-operative Australian and state government initiative. A number of challenges were encountered in developing and seeking to provide a common platform across all states and the initiative was terminated in 2014.
The Australian Government continues to monitor developments in technology as well as activity in markets with a view to future developments in trading platforms and the provision of information to markets.
The Business Research and Innovation Initiative was launched on 17 August 2016 by the Government. The focus is to help drive innovation within Australia's small and medium businesses whilst addressing Government service delivery challenges.
One of the five challenges launched is for proposals using emerging digital platforms to improve the ease of access to water markets, increase market participation, improve community confidence in Australia's water markets and also better assist in sustainable management of water resources.
23. The committee recommends that the government coordinate with the basin state governments to undertake a comprehensive assessment of carryover rules and regulations and investigate the potential for amendment of the rules.
Agreed in principle.
Carryover rules will be reviewed by the Basin state governments as part of the process of developing water resource plans for accreditation under the Basin Plan. Any carryover rules developed by the Basin state governments are to be included in water resource plans, where relevant under section 10.12(1)(b) of the Basin Plan.
24. The committee recommends the government assess, objectively value and publish data on the various uses of water in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Agreed.
Data are published regularly by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Science and the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the value of irrigated agricultural production in the Murray–Darling Basin. The Bureau of Meteorology publishes the National Water Account, which provides information about water stores and flows, water rights and water use. It also reports on the volumes of water traded, extracted and managed.
The Murray–Darling Basin Authority and Basin state governments also provide comprehensive reports on water take (surface and groundwater) on an annual basis.
Further information on data on the use of environmental water is provided in response to majority report recommendation 26 below.
25. The committee recommends that the government amend the Water Act 2007 to make clear the equal standing of economic, social and environmental needs and outcomes.
Not agreed.
In 2014, as required under Section 253 of the Water Act 2007 , a review of the Act was carried out by an independent Panel of experts - Mr Eamonn Moran PSM QC (chair), Mr Peter Anderson, Dr Steve Morton, and Mr Gavin McMahon.
The Panel found that "the Act's framework does provide for the achievement of economic, social and environmental outcomes". It also emphasised the continuing challenge of balancing these outcomes in implementing the Basin Plan.
The Basin Plan also specifies that a key objective is to optimise social, economic and environmental outcomes arising from the use of Basin water resources.
26. The committee recommends that the MDBA, Commonwealth Environment Water Holder and basin states conduct greater monitoring, objective evaluation and communication of environmental watering activities, and that the MDBA collate and publicly report this information.
Agreed.
The Basin Plan sets out the reporting obligations and principles for undertaking environmental monitoring and evaluation for state and Australian Government agencies, broadly as follows:
All environmental water holders report annually to the Authority on the use, purposes and results of environmental water use, including with regard to: the volume, timing and location of water delivery; the Basin annual environmental watering priorities, water quality and salinity targets; and, how local communities have been engaged. This information is collated by the Authority and informs its own evaluation and reporting processes, including the Basin Plan Annual Report.
The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has a comprehensive monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement programme including operational monitoring for all Commonwealth environmental watering actions, and intervention monitoring that aims to understand the environmental response to watering actions. All Commonwealth Environmental Water Office monitoring and evaluation design documentation, reports and results are made available on the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office website and by distribution through local stakeholders.
27. The committee recommends that the government fund the expansion of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's existing Long Term Intervention Monitoring Project to include more sites around the basin and provide greater monitoring and evaluation of basin environmental watering activities.
Not agreed.
The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's $30 million Long Term Intervention Monitoring Project is monitoring and evaluating the contribution of Commonwealth environmental water delivery in the Murray–Darling Basin over the 5 years to June 2019.
Under the project monitoring and evaluation is being undertaken at seven areas within the Murray–Darling Basin selected to provide optimal possible coverage of areas where Commonwealth environmental watering will occur and to complement monitoring activities already being undertaken by others including Basin state governments and the Murray–Darling Basin Authority.
28. The committee recommends the Victorian and NSW governments, as operators of the relevant storages, implement measures to mitigate cold water pollution that is undermining recovery efforts of native fish.
Noted.
This recommendation is a matter for the New South Wales and Victorian governments.
29. The committee recommends the MDBA conduct a review of the impact of cold water releases on native fish and develop risk assessments and mitigation strategies to ensure that cold water releases do not impact on native fish.
Agreed in principle.
The Basin-wide environmental watering strategy highlights the importance of addressing water quality issues such as cold water pollution to support native fish outcomes in the Basin.
Addressing cold water pollution is the responsibility of those owning and operating dams, which are generally state governments. In the case of the River Murray System, which the Murray-Darling Basin Authority operates on behalf of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, such studies have been undertaken and mitigation strategies are in place.
Environmental water holders also help manage cold water pollution through the timing of watering actions. Environmental watering typically targets the cooler time of year (particularly in the southern Basin), to align with natural cues including those for native fish spawning. Other options include timing releases with downstream tributary flows, which will dilute the cold water, and releasing water at a rate and/or volume unlikely to cause a significant risk in receiving water temperatures.
30. The committee recommends that the MDBA work with basin state governments to investigate the efficiency and effectiveness of salt interception schemes and combine their use and other complementary measures to manage salinity in the basin.
Agreed.
As part of the Basin Salinity Management 2030 (BSM2030) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is working with Basin state governments to conduct a three year trial, commencing in 2016, to investigate the efficiency and effectiveness of operation of salt interception schemes in response to forecasted salinity risk outlook. Depending on the findings of this trial, the salt interception scheme operations will be refined to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.
Under the BSM2030, the salt interception schemes and other on-going and new salinity control measures will continue to play a critical role in protecting the river system from salinity.
31. The committee recommends the Commonwealth fund and facilitate accelerated work on the restoration of surface flows from the south-east of South Australia into the lower Coorong, and undertake a feasibility study into the potential for redirecting all existing drainage discharges from the South East into the Coorong.
Agreed in part.
The South East Flows Restoration management action of the Coorong Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Recovery Project aims to divert additional water from the Upper South East area into the Coorong South Lagoon, using a combination of natural watercourses, new and upgraded constructed floodways and drains, to reduce salinity in the lagoon.
The existing South East drainage system already delivers on average 30 gigalitres per year to the Coorong at Salt Creek. The further project will provide an additional 26 gigalitres per year on average.
In addition to providing additional water to freshen the Coorong when needed, the system also includes structures so that water can be diverted away from the Coorong, or retained, to make sure too much fresh water does not enter the Coorong and lower salinity below the point that support local species.
Dissenting Report (former) Senator Madigan — Recommendations
1. The Commonwealth Water Act 2007 must be amended to indisputably give equal balance to the triple bottom line i.e. social, economic and environmental values.
See response to majority report recommendation 25.
2. The Water Act 2007 must be amended to remove reference to the 450GL and links to the Sustainable Diversion Adjustment mechanism. The $1.77 billion must be redirected to meet other objectives arising from the Basin Plan.
Not agreed.
Efficiency measures are an agreed component of the SDL adjustment mechanism as requested by all Basin governments to improve the socio-economic and environmental outcomes associated with the Basin Plan.
3. We must review the MDBA's Regulatory Impact Statement (2012) to account for omissions and inclusion of relevant information evident in the implementation phase of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
Agreed in principle.
Updated information on the impacts of the Basin Plan implementation is being collected and reported on an ongoing basis, including through the Basin Plan Annual Report.
4. We must amend/extend current timeframes and project eligibility for the Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL) adjustment mechanism.
and
5. We must have an allowance within the scope of 650GL of SDL projects to enable adaptive management and the development of further project options to deliver environmental outcomes that may not be fully explored or developed prior to the June 2016 deadline.
See response to majority report recommendation 20.
6. The Murray Darling Basin Plan's focus on flow objectives to the Lower Lakes must be reviewed to avoid massive third party impacts (social, economic and environment) on Basin communities. The Plan must incorporate the physical realities of the Murray, Edward and Wakool and Goulburn river systems and acknowledge that the Murray Darling Basin Authority's proposed flow targets to the SA border are unachievable.
Agreed in principle.
The baseline environmental targets and outcomes in the Basin Plan and the Basin‑wide Environmental Watering Strategy take into account the existing physical constraints of the system.
The Basin Plan also recognises the potential for flow constraints to be relaxed to allow enhanced environmental outcomes as set out in Schedule 5 of the Basin Plan
7. Federal, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australian governments should be encouraged to investigate the development of localised projects in South Australia to deliver environmental benefits for the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. Federal investments should be on the condition that SDL credits generated help offset the shared downstream targets for the Murray (971GL.) (The Coorong Connector should not be considered unless part of a broader package of measures.)
See response to majority report recommendation 14.
8. We need an independent investigation of the accountability, performance and independence of the MDBA with emphasis on the basis and validity of its conclusions and recommendations to government in the development and implementation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
and
9. The MDBA must be instructed and made accountable to facilitate open access and transparency on all of its models and assumptions used in decisions associated with the Plan.
Agreed in principle.
As a Commonwealth agency all Murray–Darling Basin Authority activities are subject to full disclosure and external scrutiny, including by the Parliament.
The Authority used a variety of tools and models when developing the Basin Plan. Technical reports describing how these tools and models were developed and used to inform aspects of the Basin Plan have been made publicly available.
The Authority also uses hydrological models developed by the states for rivers other than the Murray. These models have been developed over recent decades and are calibrated to large sets of observed and historical data (such as flows, river operator behaviour and irrigation trends). In developing their models, Basin state governments have engaged extensively with community and industry groups ensuring key stakeholders are familiar with state models and their underpinning assumptions.
In addition, the Productivity Commission will inquire into the effectiveness of the implementation of the Basin Plan in 2018.
10. The MDBA's roles, responsibilities and future functions must be reviewed and restructured to incorporate regional decisions in all aspects of the Basin Plan—social, economic, environment.
Agreed in principle.
The Basin Plan is delivered in part through accredited state water resource plans which cover all regions of the Basin. At present there are 36 such plans, and the Basin state governments are expected to adapt those plans to suit local conditions provided there is overall consistency with Basin Plan settings.
11. The Federal Government must cease acquisition of further productive water (except for strategic benefits which is agreed to by relevant parties) until there has been a full analysis of social and economic impacts, an evaluation of environmental benefits achieved with water already acquired and it is evident there will be no adverse third party impacts on irrigation and private property.
See response to majority report recommendation 21.
12. Federal and state governments must be completely transparent and ensure full consultation with affected parties and stakeholders on all Murray Darling Basin Plan implementation decisions. This includes the Sustainable Diversion Limits adjustment mechanism, the Constraints Management Strategy and any proposed river or storage dam operational changes to ensure decisions do not undermine the reliability of irrigation supplies or property rights of private landholders or cause detrimental environmental impacts.
See response to majority report recommendations 7 and 8.
13. The Constraints business cases must provide a realistic, compelling case, developed in full consultation with affected stakeholders, and establish that proposed measures will be achievable and will deliver the expected outcomes. The cases must provide a positive case for investment before any decisions to proceed are made.
See response to majority report recommendation 7.
14. Impacts on all upper tributary catchments must be acknowledged and investigated so that the focus is not only on the main stems of the Murray, Goulburn and Murrumbidgee rivers when delivering environmental flows.
Agreed.
In seeking smarter ways to operate rivers the focus is necessarily on the reaches downstream of major storages, as there is little opportunity to manage flows in unregulated reaches.
15. Government agencies must clearly establish timing, frequency, duration and extent of proposed environmental flows in order for stakeholders to make informed decisions in the development of the business cases on constraints.
Noted.
See response to majority report recommendations 7 and 8.
16. The MDBA must address how the Constraints Management Strategy can proceed considering Upper Goulburn Catchment landowners have refused to negotiate easements to mitigate flooding impacts, and the Federal and State governments have stated they will not forcibly acquire easements or intentionally flood private property without consent.
See response to majority report recommendation 7.
17. Federal and state governments must avoid manipulation of water markets or water use through references to high value crops or preferred industries.
Agreed in principle.
The Government does not determine what a 'high value use' is. The Government continues to monitor the market and be receptive to feedback from market participants. Any evidence of manipulating the water market should be brought to the attention of regulatory authorities.
18. I strongly object to overseas entities being permitted to trade in our water.
Noted.
19. Monitoring and evaluation of the Basin plan and environmental flows must include both negative and positive impacts to enable full evaluations.
See response to majority report recommendation 26.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
List circulated on 16 February 2017
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members:
Senator Smith to replace Senator Reynolds for the committee's inquiry into Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup Peninsula
Senator Hume to replace Senator Duniam for the committee's inquiry into the closures of electricity generators
Participating members: Senators Duniam and Reynolds
Government Procurement—Joint Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bernardi
Appointed—Senator Bushby
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members:
Senator Dodson to replace Senator Watt for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
Senator Siewert to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
Participating members: Senators McKim and Watt
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Ludlam to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the Bell Group litigation
Participating member: Senator McKim
Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT (INDIGENOUS LAND USE AGREEMENTS) BILL 2017
The Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 responds to the recent Full Federal Court decision in McGlade v Native Title Registrar. It provides certainty to indigenous and non-indigenous parties alike where they have voluntarily made, or are proposing to make, agreements about the use of land and waters subject to native title.
The effect of the McGlade decision was to overrule an earlier decision of a single judge of the Federal Court in 2010 in a case called Bygrave (No. 2).
Bygrave settled the law in relation to the necessary requisites for an Indigenous Land Use Agreement to be registered.
Bygrave held that it was not necessary for all members of the registered native title claimant (who are the authorised representatives of the broader native title claim group) to be a party to the ILUA.
Rather, Bygrave held that what was important was that the broader native title claim group, being those claiming to hold native title in the area, had authorised the making of the proposed agreement.
The McGlade decision has overturned this position, requiring that all members of the registered native title claimant be a party to the agreement.
This is a very significant development in relation to not only Indigenous land use agreements that have already been registered in reliance on the rule in Bygrave, but in relation to all Indigenous Land Use Agreements seeking registration.
This is because the effect of the decision in McGlade is that the will of the broader native title claim group may be frustrated because not all members of the registered native title claimant have signed the agreement.
This may happen for any number of reasons including that the member of the registered native title claimant does not agree with the decision that the broader claim group has made, or has passed away or became incapacitated before being able to sign the agreement.
These amendments seek to return to the status quo ante as established in Bygrave (No. 2) for agreements that have already been registered or were awaiting registration at the time of the McGlade decision, and which were duly authorised by the broader native title group and which followed the law as it was at the time.
These particular amendments will operate retrospectively to counter the potential impact of the McGlade decision.
The amendments will give primacy to the decision of the broader native title claim group for agreements in the future, as it is the group who claim to hold native title within the area of the agreement who should ultimately have the right to decide whether an agreement should be accepted or not. Greater reliance on collective decision-making reflects the communal nature of native title rights under the Act.
The amendments provide that the native title claim group may nominate one or more persons of the registered native title claimant to be a party to the agreement.
The group may also specify a process for determining who will be a party to the agreement. This will guard against the possibility that the person or persons they nominate become unable or unwilling to be a party to the agreement.
If the claim group does not specify a process for determining who is to the a party to the agreement it will be sufficient if a majority of the registered native title claimant are parties. This position is consistent with recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Connection to Country report that the registered native title claimant should be able to act by majority.
To give maximum flexibility to native title claim groups when making these key decisions, the bill also implements recommendations 10-1 and 10-2 of the ALRC report, by allowing the group to follow a traditional decision making process if one is available or to agree on another decision making method. Currently a group must use a traditional decision making process if one exists.
Taken together, the amendments in this bill will provide certainty to indigenous and non-indigenous parties who have already registered their agreements or whose registration is pending. These measures will protect the benefits and interests that have been granted on both sides, and provide certainty for parties who have commenced or are proposing negotiations for an indigenous land use agreement. The amendments return the control over the realisation of such agreements for indigenous parties to the hands of the wider group of native title holders, who can ensure that their will is carried out.
Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017
Though it is hard to imagine that the burka is a common sight on the streets of her home town of Burnie, it is clear from a series of recent public pronouncements that Senator Jacqui Lambie takes issue with aspects of Islamic culture. From an unfortunately shouty appearance denouncing “sharia law” on the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night, to her private member’s bill calling for a burqa ban, it is a curious preoccupation for a Senator from the nation’s least multicultural state.
… our nation is a beacon to the world of a successful and harmonious multicultural society based on the Australian principles of equality, mateship and a fair go. It is a model we should be proud of and we should work hard to defend and to spread. We have enough real problems here without dreaming up more.
Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015
Subsidiarity provides that functions should, where practical, be vested in the lowest level of government to ensure that their exercise is as close to the people as possible and reflects community preferences and local conditions. The principle of subsidiarity places the onus on those who seek to place a function with a higher level of government to make the case for it.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members: Senators Pratt and Lines to replace Senators Chisholm and Urquhart for the committee’s inquiry into the continuation of the construction of the Perth Freight Link in the face of significant environmental breaches
Participating members: Senators Chisholm and Urquhart
Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 12 to 16), omit "No person other than a retired former Prime Minister or the spouse or de facto partner of a retired former Prime Minister will have a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement after the day section 1 of the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Act 2017 commences.".
(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (line 20), omit "(1)".
(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 25 to 31), omit subsection 4B(2).
(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph 4C(1) (a), substitute:
(a) a person becomes a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement after 13 May 2014; and
(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 27) to page 9 (line 10), omit subsections 4C(4) and (5).
(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 11), omit " other ", substitute "certain ".
(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 13), omit "14 May 2008", substitute "14 May 2014".
(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 19), omit "(subject to subsection (8))".
(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 29), omit "14 May 2011", substitute "14 May 2014".
(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 35), omit "(subject to subsection (8))".
(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (lines 8 to 12), omit subsection 4C(8).
(12) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 21), after item 38, insert:
38A Amendments do not apply retrospectively
Despite anything else in this Schedule, the amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to a person who, immediately before the commencement time, had satisfied the relevant qualifying period for the issue of a Life Gold Pass under the old Act.
(13) Schedule 1, item 39, page 17 (line 23), after "this item", insert "and item 38A".
(14) Schedule 1, item 39, page 18 (lines 11 to 20), omit subitem (4).
The difficulty with that, however—
is that the power conferred on the Remuneration … is a power to determine allowances from time to time. It necessarily follows that the Life Gold Pass entitlement as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal was from its inception inherently subject to change from time to time.
The Tribunal—
itself had no power to alter rights attaching to a Life Gold Pass that had been issued to a retiring member in accordance with a subsisting determination by varying or amending that determination. That was because the power of the Tribunal under s 7(1) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act, to which s 7(4) was ancillary, was relevantly limited to determining allowances to be paid from time to time to current members of the Parliament by reason of their membership of the Parliament.
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 16) to page 5 (line 16), omit the item, substitute:
3 Section 3
Repeal the section, substitute:
3 Simplified outline of this Act
(a) there are limits on when a person must have entered Parliament, and when a person must have satisfied the qualifying period and retired from the Parliament, in order to become the holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; and
(b) a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires after a limited period.
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 25), omit "the Prime Minister or".
(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (lines 9 and 10), omit ", other than to members who become Prime Minister".
(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 22 to 24), omit ", unless the person is the Prime Minister, or a former Prime Minister, when he or she retires".
(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 29 to 31), omit ", unless the person is the Prime Minister, or a former Prime Minister, when he or she retires".
(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 1 and 2), omit "(other than for former Prime Ministers)".
(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 3 to 12), omit subsection 4C(1), substitute:
Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires in accordance with this section
(1) If a person is a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement on 13 May 2014, or becomes a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement after that day, the person's Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires in accordance with this section.
(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 18), omit "subject to subsection (3),".
(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 25 and 26), omit subsection 4C(3).
(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 33 and 34), omit "but is not a former Prime Minister".
(12) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 7), omit "a former Prime Minister or".
(13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 16 and 17), omit "but is not a former Prime Minister".
(14) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 32), omit "a former Prime Minister or".
(15) Schedule 1, items 13 and 14, page 10 (lines 13 to 19), omit the items, substitute:
13 Section 9 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
9 When return trip is in a year
13A Subsection 9(1) (heading)
Repeal the heading.
13B Subsection 9(1)
Omit "(1)".
13C Subsections 9(2), (3) and (4)
Repeal the subsections.
14 Sections 9A and 9B
Repeal the sections.
(16) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 10 (lines 23 to 28), omit the items, substitute:
16 Subsection 10(1) (table items 2 and 3)
Repeal the items.
17 Subsection 10(3)
Repeal the subsection.
(17) Schedule 1, item 20, page 11 (lines 3 to 17), omit the item, substitute:
20 Section 13
Omit:
(b) a pro‑rata adjustment where a person becomes the spouse or de facto partner of a former member or member during a year;
(c) a pro‑rata adjustment where, during a year, a member satisfies the relevant qualifying period for the issue of a Life Gold Pass.
substitute:
(b) a pro-rata adjustment where the maximum term of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement under subsection 4C(6) or (7) will end during a year.
(18) Schedule 1, item 21, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), omit " , or former Prime Minister nominates spouse or de facto partner, ".
(19) Schedule 1, items 23 and 24, page 12 (lines 1 to 6), omit the items, substitute:
23 Subsection 14(1) (table item 2)
Repeal the item.
(20) Schedule 1, item 26, page 12 (lines 9 to 24), omit the item, substitute:
26 Subsection 14(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) The number of domestic return trips for the purposes of the table in subsection (1) is the number of trips worked out using the formula in subsection (2A).
26A Subsection 14(2A)
Omit "paragraph (2) (a)", substitute "subsection (2)".
(21) Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (lines 18 to 31), omit subsection 18(3), substitute:
Interaction between items 1 and 2 of the table in subsection (2) and the rules in section 4C about expiry of Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlements
(3) If item 2 of the table in subsection (2) applies (whether or not item 1 also applies), then nothing in either of those items is to be taken to result in:
(a) the person resuming being the holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; or
(b) requiring a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement to be restored to the person;
on the revocation of the order if the revocation takes effect after the nominal expiry time for the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement that the person held when the order was made.
(22) Schedule 1, items 29 to 31, page 14 (lines 5 to 18), omit the items, substitute:
29 Paragraph 21(a)
Omit ", or the surviving spouse or de facto partner of a former member,".
30 Section 21
Omit ", or the surviving spouse or de facto partner, as the case may be," (wherever occurring).
31 Section 22
Repeal the section.
(23) Schedule 1, items 33 and 34, page 14 (lines 21 to 26), omit the items, substitute:
33 Subsection 28(2)
Repeal the subsection.
34 Paragraph 29(1) (b)
Omit ", or the person's spouse or de facto partner,".
34A Subsection 29(1)
Omit "traveller" (wherever occurring), substitute "person".
The committee divided. [17:48]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 11 to 15), to be opposed.
The committee divided. [18:18]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 28), after item 35, insert:
35A At the end of Part 8
Add:
36 Prime Ministers
Despite any other provision of this Act:
(a) any entitlement of a former Prime Minister to hold a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement, or to trips under this Act; and
(b) any entitlement of a spouse or de facto partner of a former Prime Minister to trips under this Act;
is to be determined proportionally, based on the length of time the former Prime Minister was the Prime Minister, in accordance with the regulations.
(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 23), after the definition of Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement , insert:
Prime Minister : see section 4AB.
(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (after line 5), after section 4AA, insert:
4AB Prime Ministers
For the purposes of this Act, a member is only taken to be the Prime Minister if the member has been the Prime Minister for a period of at least 4 consecutive years.
The committee divided. [18:43]
(The Chair—Senator Gallacher)
(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 23), after the definition of Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement , insert:
Prime Minister : see section 4AB.
(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (after line 5), after section 4AA, insert:
4AB Prime Ministers
For the purposes of this Act, a member is only taken to be the Prime Minister if the member has been the Prime Minister for a period of at least 4 consecutive years.
The committee divided. [18:49]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 16) to page 5 (line 16), omit the item, substitute:
3 Section 3
Repeal the section, substitute:
3 Simplified outline of this Act
(a) there are limits on when a person must have entered Parliament, and when a person must have satisfied the qualifying period and retired from the Parliament, in order to become the holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; and
(b) a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires after a limited period.
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 25), omit "the Prime Minister or".
(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (lines 9 and 10), omit ", other than to members who become Prime Minister".
(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 22 to 24), omit ", unless the person is the Prime Minister, or a former Prime Minister, when he or she retires".
(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 29 to 31), omit ", unless the person is the Prime Minister, or a former Prime Minister, when he or she retires".
(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 1 and 2), omit "(other than for former Prime Ministers)".
(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 3 to 12), omit subsection 4C(1), substitute:
Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires in accordance with this section
(1) If a person is a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement on 13 May 2014, or becomes a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement after that day, the person's Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires in accordance with this section.
(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 18), omit "subject to subsection (3),".
(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 25 and 26), omit subsection 4C(3).
(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 33 and 34), omit "but is not a former Prime Minister".
(12) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 7), omit "a former Prime Minister or".
(13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 16 and 17), omit "but is not a former Prime Minister".
(14) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 32), omit "a former Prime Minister or".
(15) Schedule 1, items 13 and 14, page 10 (lines 13 to 19), omit the items, substitute:
13 Section 9 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
9 When return trip is in a year
13A Subsection 9(1) (heading)
Repeal the heading.
13B Subsection 9(1)
Omit "(1)".
13C Subsections 9(2), (3) and (4)
Repeal the subsections.
14 Sections 9A and 9B
Repeal the sections.
(16) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 10 (lines 23 to 28), omit the items, substitute:
16 Subsection 10(1) (table items 2 and 3)
Repeal the items.
17 Subsection 10(3)
Repeal the subsection.
(17) Schedule 1, item 20, page 11 (lines 3 to 17), omit the item, substitute:
20 Section 13
Omit:
(b) a pro-rata adjustment where a person becomes the spouse or de facto partner of a former member or member during a year;
(c) a pro-rata adjustment where, during a year, a member satisfies the relevant qualifying period for the issue of a Life Gold Pass.
substitute:
(b) a pro-rata adjustment where the maximum term of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement under subsection 4C(6) or (7) will end during a year.
(18) Schedule 1, item 21, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), omit " , or former Prime Minister nominates spouse or de facto partner, ".
(19) Schedule 1, items 23 and 24, page 12 (lines 1 to 6), omit the items, substitute:
23 Subsection 14(1) (table item 2)
Repeal the item.
(20) Schedule 1, item 26, page 12 (lines 9 to 24), omit the item, substitute:
26 Subsection 14(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) The number of domestic return trips for the purposes of the table in subsection (1) is the number of trips worked out using the formula in subsection (2A).
26A Subsection 14(2A)
Omit "paragraph (2) (a)", substitute "subsection (2)".
(21) Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (lines 18 to 31), omit subsection 18(3), substitute:
Interaction between items 1 and 2 of the table in subsection (2) and the rules in section 4C about expiry of Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlements
(3) If item 2 of the table in subsection (2) applies (whether or not item 1 also applies), then nothing in either of those items is to be taken to result in:
(a) the person resuming being the holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; or
(b) requiring a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement to be restored to the person;
on the revocation of the order if the revocation takes effect after the nominal expiry time for the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement that the person held when the order was made.
(22) Schedule 1, items 29 to 31, page 14 (lines 5 to 18), omit the items, substitute:
29 Paragraph 21(a)
Omit ", or the surviving spouse or de facto partner of a former member,".
30 Section 21
Omit ", or the surviving spouse or de facto partner, as the case may be," (wherever occurring).
31 Section 22
Repeal the section.
(23) Schedule 1, items 33 and 34, page 14 (lines 21 to 26), omit the items, substitute:
33 Subsection 28(2)
Repeal the subsection.
34 Paragraph 29(1 ) ( b)
Omit ", or the person's spouse or de facto partner,".
34A Subsection 29(1)
Omit "traveller" (wherever occurring), substitute "person".
(24) Schedule 1, item 39, page 18 (after line 20), at the end of the item, add:
(5) Despite any other provision of this Act or the amended Act, if a travel entitlement of a former Prime Minister would (but for this subitem) expire at a time before the commencement of section 1 of the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Act 2017 , the travel entitlement is instead taken to expire at that time.
(25) Schedule 2, page 20 (after line 2), after item 5, insert:
5A After section 5
Insert:
5A Retired former Prime Ministers
(1) The Commonwealth must not provide any benefits under any administrative scheme to a person because the person is a retired former Prime Minister.
(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to superannuation.
The committee divided. [19:10]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (lines 31 to 33), omit subsection 10C(4), substitute:
(4) The recipient is liable to pay the Commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 7A (the current contravention ), an amount equal to:
(a) if the recipient has not contravened that section, or has contravened that section once, during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—200% of the amount to which this section applies; or
(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—400% of the amount to which this section applies.
… if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made—400% of the amount to which this section applies—
The committee divided. [19:26]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
That this bill be now read a third time.
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
… the arbiter in determining parliamentary business is the Member or Senator themselves.
… the AFP faces a number of impediments in proving a criminal offence (e.g. fraud) stemming from the misuse of given entitlements.
… proving the use of entitlements is not for the purposes of parliamentary business is difficult. The definition of parliamentary business is not outlined in legislation or any governance framework relating to parliamentary entitlements.
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate supports the establishment of a Compliance Officer position within the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority with the power to conduct an investigation if they have reason to believe that a Member of Parliament has received a payment that should not have been allowed and refer any breaches to the relevant authorities.".
… the bill was introduced to address perceived problems with the entitlements system arising from claims made by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. In the committee's view, ad hoc legislative reform is not the way to address concerns in relation to the parliamentary entitlements system. The appropriate forum for the discussion of the issues raised in the bill is the current independent review of the parliamentary entitlements system.
It is a pattern of unacceptable behaviour for which no responsibility is taken until somebody is caught out through the curiosity or the diligence of others.
The Electorate Allowance is an expense of office allowance for senators and members to provide them with funding for costs necessarily incurred in providing services to their constituents. It is paid monthly with the member’s salary.
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate notes that Senators are paid an annual allowance of $32,000, known as the
electorate allowance, and calls on all Senators to commit to spending their electorate
allowance on their electorate and their electorate responsibilities, rather than using it to top up
their already generous salary.".
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate calls:
(a) for the Independent Authority to make six monthly reports on the status of their investigations of any misuse of allowances by Members of Parliament or failure to comply with certification of allowance use; and
(b) that these reports are to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament and put on a public website.".
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate calls on Members of Parliament who have misused their expenses to pay back four times the amount that was incorrectly paid to them.".
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 8), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".
(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 14), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".
(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), after "members of parliament", insert ", Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees".
(4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 22), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".
(5) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 25), after the definition of claim , insert:
Commonwealth government employee means:
(a) an official (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 ) of a Commonwealth entity (within in the meaning of that Act); or
(b) an officer or employee of a Commonwealth company, within the meaning of that Act.
(6) Clause 4, page 9 (after line 20), after the definition of MP work expenses law , insert:
official travel allowance means an allowance payable to a Commonwealth judicial officer or Commonwealth government employee in connection with travel for official business.
official travel expenditure matter means:
(a) a matter relating to an official travel expense; or
(b) a matter relating to a claim for an official travel expense; or
(c) a matter relating to an official travel allowance; or
(d) a matter relating to a claim for an official travel allowance.
official travel expense means an expense incurred in connection with travel by a Commonwealth judicial officer or Commonwealth government employee for official business.
official work expense means:
(a) an official travel expense; or
(b) an expense (other than an official travel expense) prescribed by the legislative rules.
official work expense matter means:
(a) a matter relating to an official work expense; or
(b) a matter relating to a claim for an official work expense; or
(c) a matter relating to an official travel allowance; or
(d) a matter relating to a claim for an official travel allowance.
(7) Heading to Part 2, page 12 (line 1), after "Parliamentary", insert "andCommonwealthGovernmentEmployees".
(8) Clause 10, page 12 (line 5), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".
(9) Clause 10, page 12 (line 9), after "members of parliament", insert ", Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees".
(10) Heading to clause 11, page 14 (line 3), after "Parliamentary", insert "andCommonwealthGovernmentEmployees".
(11) Clause 11, page 14 (line 4), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".
(12) Clause 11, page 14 (line 8), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".
(13) Clause 12, page 17 (after line 35), after paragraph (1) (za), insert:
(zaa) such functions as are conferred on the Authority by section 12A;
(14) Page 18 (after line 28), after clause 12, insert:
12A Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees
(1) The Authority has the following functions:
(a) to give personal advice to:
(i) Commonwealth judicial officers; and
(ii) Commonwealth government employees;
about official travel expenditure matters;
(b) to:
(i) issue general advisory documents relating to official travel expenditure matters; and
(ii) if the Authority considers that a particular general advisory document should be published—publish that general advisory document on the Authority's website;
(c) to monitor official travel expenditure matters;
(d) to:
(i) prepare regular reports about official work expense matters; and
(ii) publish those reports on the Authority's website;
(e) to:
(i) prepare other such reports about official work expense matters as the Authority considers appropriate; and
(ii) if the Authority considers that a particular report should be published—publish that report on the Authority's website;
(f) to conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, such audits relating to official work expense matters as the Authority considers appropriate;
(g) such other functions (if any) as are prescribed by the legislative rules in relation to any of the following:
(i) official travel expenditure matters;
(ii) official travel expenses;
(iii) official travel allowance;
(iv) official work expense matters;
(v) official work expenses.
(2) The legislative rules may prescribe modifications of this Act for its application in relation to Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees.
(3) If the legislative rules prescribe modifications of this Act for its application in relation to Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees, then this Act has effect as so modified in relation to Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees.
(15) Page 19 (after line 3), at the end of Division 2, add:
14A Funding
It is the intention of the Parliament that the Authority be funded by a levy imposed on members of parliament, Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth government employees, in proportion to their total annual remuneration.
(16) Clause 36, page 30 (line 12), after "Parliamentary", insert "and Commonwealth Government Employees".
(17) Clause 63, page 43 (line 4), after "Authority", insert "or Independent Parliamentary and Commonwealth Government Employees Expenses Authority".
(18) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "Parliamentary", insert "andCommonwealthGovernmentEmployees".
Senior public servants control most government spending. They decide which businesses are invited to tender for government work; they sit on assessment panels for contracts and jobs. Their conflicts of interest are a far greater threat to good government. Yet the public knows almost nothing of them. Their conflicts, and expenses, are disclosed in secret to agency heads and no one else.
It's inevitable that this lack of transparency encourages indulgences, and worse. Most senior public servants are, of course, upstanding and deserving of respect; indeed, some sacrifice a more luxurious lifestyle to work in government. Others, however, will succumb to temptation. A little more public scrutiny would go a long way towards reducing the number of those who do.
(1) Clause 6, page 10 (line 23), omit "4 offices", substitute "5 offices".
(2) Clause 10, page 12 (line 28), omit paragraph (c), substitute:
(c) at least 3, and not more than 4, other members.
(3) Clause 15, page 20 (line 6), omit paragraph (c), substitute:
(c) at least 3, and not more than 4, other members.
(4) Clause 16, page 20 (after line 22), after subclause (4), insert:
(4A) One appointed member of the Authority must be a person (the community member) who the Minister is satisfied represents community expectations about the ethical standards to be followed by members of parliament in the use of public money.
(5) Clause 16, page 20 (line 23), omit "5 members", substitute "6 members".
(6) Clause 16, page 21 (line 4), omit "subsection (2), (3) or (4)", substitute "subsection (2), (3), (4) or (4A)".
(1) Page 29 (after line 24), at the end of Division 7, add:
34A Authority must refer fraud to the Australian Federal Police
(1) If the Authority suspects that a claim in relation to any of the following is fraudulent or misleading, the Authority must refer the matter to the Australian Federal Police:
(a) an MP work expense;
(b) an MP travel allowance;
(c) a designated parliamentary benefit;
(d) a MOPS travel expense;
(e) a MOPS travel allowance.
(2) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit a person's power to refer a matter to a member of an Australian police force.
(3) If:
(a) the Authority refers a matter to the Australian Federal Police under subsection (1); and
(b) the Australian Federal Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions decides not to pursue the matter;
the person who decided not to pursue the matter must notify the Authority of the reasons for the decision.
(2) Page 43 (after line 5), after clause 63, insert:
63A Electorate allowance
Despite any provision of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 , if the Remuneration Tribunal determines an electorate allowance for members of parliament, the Remuneration Tribunal must:
(a) require the electorate allowance to be deposited into a separate account of the member; and
(b) prevent the electorate allowance being taken as income by the member.
That these bills be now read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Bourke Street Fund) Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the Senate do now adjourn.