The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
… prejudice to law enforcement investigations is a ground of public interest immunity recognised by the Senate.
For this ground to be invoked it should be established that there are investigations in progress by a law enforcement agency, such as the police, and the provision of the information sought could interfere with those investigations.
There are several generally accepted grounds on which a minister or, in appropriate circumstances, a statutory office holder, may rely when claiming PII. For example, PII claims may be made in relation to information and documents the disclosure of which would, or might reasonably be expected to:
… … …
(d) prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law or the enforcement of the law in a particular instance.
The AFP has commenced an investigation into the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information concerning recent search warrants executed in support of a Registered Organisations Commission investigation. As this matter is under investigation, it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter further.
… the courts have recognised that disclosure of matters the subject of an ongoing investigation 'might inhibit[ing] the willingness of persons to volunteer information relevant to the investigation', and that investigating authorities should be allowed to obtain 'the fullest possible information without the persons volunteering such information being inhibited by any possible repercussions which might flow from the disclosure of the information'.
That the Senate take note of the statement.
Whatever the Registered Organisations Commission might think or say, there's been no doubt in the minds of the Government what the inquiry is about.
When Employment Minister Michaelia Cash referred the donation to the commission in August, she and her colleagues knew it was all about Bill Shorten.
Once again the Government was trying to put Shorten in the frame over his behaviour in his union days. Previous attempts have fallen short of hopes.
It seemed extraordinary that Cash could have been left in ignorance all day.
Even more odd was that she (and the staffer in question, David De Garis) attended Malcolm Turnbull's pre-Question Time briefing on Wednesday, when she assured him she had not given the tip-off, but neither he nor others present asked the obvious question: 'what about your office?'
When media are being alerted, it is rarely by a call from the minister—it's done by the media adviser. Everyone at the briefing would have known that. Assuming we're hearing the truth, failing to ask was sloppy at best.
But even before this week, her reputation had started to tarnish, when the head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), Nigel Hadgkiss, had to resign after admitting to breaching the Fair Work Act while in his previous position. Cash was aware of the civil proceedings against him when he took over the ABCC.
… … …
The government—which, incidentally, is on a jihad against GetUp, a campaigning body far too effective for its liking …
But the government’s obvious attempt to use the recently established Registered Organisations Commission for political purposes is an abuse of power …
BuzzFeed also heard ROC and FWO officers say "I could do this all day" and Labor was "getting pretty desperate" during the committee break.
Let me give a dire warning to them ABCC inspectors—
be careful what you do.
… … …
You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to expose them all.
We will lobby their neighbourhoods. We will tell them who lives in that house. What he does for a living, or she.
… … …
Their kids will be ashamed of who their parents are when we expose all these ABCC inspectors.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to condemning the government for not following their own disclosure regime.
That a motion relating to condemning the government for not following their own disclosure regime may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today.
That the question be now put.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that a number of Members of the House of Representatives—the chamber where Government is formed—may not be eligible to sit in that House under section 44 of the Constitution;
(b) expresses its deep concerns that the number of members lacking legal clarity in their eligibility means that the Government can no longer legitimately guarantee a majority in the House of Representatives;
(c) condemns the government for not complying with their. disclosure regime thus continuing this crisis; and
(d) urges the House of Representatives to refer all members whose eligibility is in question to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, to ensure that we do not have an illegitimate government.
That government business order of the day No. 1, Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, be postponed till a later hour.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017
There is no evidence that drug testing welfare beneficiaries will have any positive effects for those individuals or for society, and some evidence indicating such a practice would have high social and economic costs.
In addition, there would be serious ethical and legal problems in implementing such a program in Australia. Drug testing of welfare beneficiaries ought not to be considered.
It's simply unfair and it already picks on an impaired and marginalised group. It's not evidence-based. It's not fair. And we stand against it.
… quite honestly, at a loss to see why a drug-testing trial is considered a necessary or effective way to address these issues.
Our analysis and advice is that the measures will be costly and ineffective and that government should consult with the sector on the development of evidence-based solutions to prevent and better address substance use disorders and increase the availability of treatment services across the nation.
International experience shows when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse. There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society.
Had the Turnbull government consulted experts before unveiling this plan, they would have been advised to drop these measures pronto. Drug testing trials for people on income support have been trialled and abandoned in a few countries. In addition to causing significant harm to affected people and the wider community, they came at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Isn’t the government supposed to be reining in wasteful spending?
It is important we stop characterising penalties as punishment.
The way that Australians frame a drug user is that they are a person who uses drugs because it was their bad choice. That's not what the evidence says. The evidence says it's poverty or trauma—or all of these other scientifically validated reasons why a person becomes addicted to drugs. We still have a large percentage of our population that believes that a person addicted to drugs is addicted because they're a bad person. We know that's not the case, but I can't convince everyone.
… there might be some people who think they can win some points by doing so and jumping onto the wagon of penal populism—that's what we call it in criminology.
Australia already has one of the most targeted and compliance-heavy social security systems in the world.
The proposed system relies very heavily on drawing a clear distinction between people who are willing to comply but face difficulties, and people who wilfully and repeatedly avoid activity requirements. Our experience is in fact more blurred, people's circumstances do change, and many vulnerabilities go unreported. Discretions to tailor responses to noncompliance is essential to ensure that any compliance system remains humane.
The power to be given to the secretary is far broader than what is necessary if the purpose is only to exclude remote participants from schedules 13 and 15 of the bill. The power allows the secretary to modify how social security laws will apply generally, including after a person has left the program. More fundamentally, it delegates far too much legislative power in an unelected government official with only limited parliamentary scrutiny, including a power to create different classes of social security recipients subject to different conditions. This extraordinarily broad power to be given to the secretary would create a dangerous precedent and render it easier for future governments to alter access to basic social security entitlements and protections for remote Aboriginal communities or to other classes of people determined to be declared program participants.
It should be noted that section 45 of the Disability Discrimination Act already exempts special measures "designed to assist people who have a disability to obtain greater equality of opportunity or provide them with benefits to meet their special needs". An exemption therefore is not required in order to pay benefits to people with disabilities, but would be required for measures which negatively impact people with a disability, such as reducing or suspending payments to those who fail to meet mutual obligation requirements due to their disability where that disability is a drug or alcohol dependency.
Addiction is a disorder that's described by the WHO and in the DSM-5—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—as involving impairment or loss of control; the continuation of use, notwithstanding harm to the individual; and compulsions and cravings, alongside the physiological changes of tolerance and withdrawal. We know that there are structural and functional brain changes that are increasingly identified in the literature. There's work being done through the National Institutes of Health in America. This is not something that is amendable to simply saying, 'We're going to manage your income.' It is, really, magical thinking, or at least it's uninformed thinking. We're quite gobsmacked by this idea that we have a value system that says we want people to behave well and not spend their money on unhealthy commodities. As a doctor, I wish that the entire Australian community would spend less on unhealthy commodities.
… quite honestly at a loss to see why a drug testing trial is considered a necessary or effective way to address these issues.
… to have a trial where you do not seek the consent or guidance of the health professionals, nor of the local communities, it is no trial, it is simply a political showpiece.
We call on Parliament to abandon attempts to strip people with alcohol and drug problems of income support payments. Pushing people into poverty only serves to undermine their chance of recovery—and puts lives at risk.
It certainly hasn't got much chance of reducing crime. It does have the potential in some cases to aggravate it.
Really what it will do is create more damage, and most damage and most harm to those people who are most vulnerable and most in need of support and protection …
It's an absolute disgrace. It fails to recognise that mental illness and drug and alcohol problems nearly always coexist, they're a health problem and not a lifestyle choice.
There is no evidence that drug testing welfare beneficiaries will have any positive effects for those individuals or for society, and some evidence indicating such a practice would have high social and economic costs.
In addition, there would be serious ethical and legal problems in implementing such a program in Australia. Drug testing of welfare beneficiaries ought not to be considered.
From our early origins as a very small company Marlinspike Debt Acquisitions had turned itself into a very aggressive debt collection company which specializes in the recovery of the maximum amount of debts for small business who remain unpaid. We will chase people to the ends of the earth and will pursue all legal avenues to vindicate our client's commercial interests. At the end of the day we only get paid if you get paid. We look forward to collecting debts on your behalf no matter how small the debts and no matter how difficult pursuing it may seem.
… assess the value of drug testing as a way of identifying those for whom drug misuse is a barrier to work, and as a means of supporting them to undertake treatment … This trial is not about penalising jobseekers with drug abuse issues. It is about finding new and better ways of identifying these jobseekers and ensuring they are referred to the support and treatment they need.
… to provide the evidence as to whether an additional trigger for people who are receiving unemployment payments and have substance abuse problems will encourage them to self-disclose and/or be found to have that problem and to be quickly linked to treatment.
Existing evidence shows drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs and it will not bring about behaviour change. It is an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people.
International experience shows when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse.
Drug testing trials for people on income support have been trialled and abandoned in a few countries. In addition to causing significant harm to affect people and the wider community, they came at an enormous cost to the taxpayer.
That the debate be now adjourned.
The routine of business for the remainder of the day be as follows:
(a) consideration of the following government business orders of the day until 2 pm:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017;
(b) after question time and motions to take note of answers:
(i) notices of motion,
(ii) tabling of Selection of Bills Committee report,
(iii) placing of business,
(iv) introduction of following bills:
Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017
Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017,
(v) formal motions,
(vi) committee memberships,
(vii) messages,
(viii) tabling of a delegation report,
(ix) tabling and consideration of committee reports,
(x) ministerial statements,
(xi) from not later than 4.30 pm, the bills listed in paragraph (a), and
(xii) motions relating to the next meeting of the Senate and leave of absence for all senators;
(c) the Senate shall adjourn without debate on a motion moved by a minister; and
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017
At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate is of the opinion that an independent, comprehensive public review of the current jobseeker compliance system should be carried out, including what is needed to reform the system".
The mechanism in the Bill to give effect to the exclusion of CDP participants from the changes is one whereby the Secretary may identify people in a particular employment program as 'declared program participants' and then determine (by legislative instrument) the way that social security laws apply to them (Schedule 13 Items 1 and 2).
A similar proposal was put forward in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2015. That Bill would have allowed the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to declare an area to be a 'remote income support region' and to vary the application of certain parts of the social security law to income support recipients in those regions.
The mechanism proposed for excluding CDP participants from changes in the Bill would give the Government extraordinary powers over these participants. … the Bill would open up the possibility for future Governments of making rules that reduce the rights and entitlements of any group of unemployed citizens.
… the percentage of all penalties applied to Indigenous people since June 2010 has increased from 15% in the quarter ending June 2010, to 61% in the quarter ending March 2017. The percentage of penalties applied to Indigenous people for 'persistent non compliance'—that is, where at least 3 minor breaches have occurred—went from 17% in the quarter ending June 2010 to 84% in the quarter ending March 2017.
… nothing but contempt for comfortably-off people who try to solve their problems by picking on the down-and-out.
If Australians can't do better than that, what hope is there for us?
The expected savings (which may or may not eventuate) of $478 million over four years are minor in a budget of almost $2 trillion over the same period.
… be coming out of the hides of those most in need, those whose first lack of moral discipline was failing to pick the right parents, those whose luck has been worse than ours, those who've failed to deny themselves and their children the slightest treat at any time, the way we undoubtedly would had we been in their shoes.
… the cuts a government makes when it wants to be seen to be acting to reduce the budget deficit, but lacks the courage to take on a fight with the medical specialists, drug companies, chemists, mining companies or other powerful interest groups guarding their own, much bigger slice of budget pie.
… freezing benefit rates to wives and widowed pensioners until they're no greater than the "jobseeker payment"—
getting rid of the 14-week bereavement allowance.
They're the cuts a government makes when it wants to be seen to be acting to reduce the budget deficit, but lacks the courage to take on a fight—
with medical specialists, drug companies, chemists, mining companies or other powerful interest groups guarding their own, much bigger slice of budget pie.
We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row. It is clear that the people have made up their mind about Mr Abbott's leadership.
The AFP has commenced an investigation into the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information concerning recent search warrants executed in support of a Registered Organisations Commission investigation.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to the Turnbull Government.
Some families, some communities, some cultures breed strife. Governments cannot always fix it. Compulsory contraception for those on benefits would help crack intergenerational reproduction of strife.
Too many charities in Australia do little or no charity work, too many receive most of their income from government, and too many lobby government for more.
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 7.19 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 March 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 March 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 March 2018 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 April 2018 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 April 2018 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(h) the Family Law Amendment (Parenting Management Hearings) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2018 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (Charges Imposition) Bill 2017
Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(David Bushby)
Chair
7 December 2017
That the report be adopted.
At the end of the motion, add 'and, in respect of:
(a) the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report on 12 February 2018; and
(b) the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report on 12 February 2018.'
At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 19 March 2018."
Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017
Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
That the following bills be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to create a framework for managing critical infrastructure, and for related purposes.
A Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters in connection with the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2017, to amend the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, and for related purposes.
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
Security o f Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017
Critical infrastructure is integral to the prosperity of the nation.
Secure and resilient infrastructure underpins the effective functioning of Australian society - ensuring we have continuous access to essential services for everyday life, such as food, water, energy and communications.
Foreign involvement in Australia's critical infrastructure plays an important and beneficial role in supporting economic growth. It can also improve productivity by enabling the development of much-needed infrastructure, introducing new technology, allowing access to global supply chains and markets, and enhancing Australia's skills base.
However, while recognising its many benefits, increasing foreign involvement in our national critical infrastructure means that Australia's critical infrastructure is more exposed than ever to sabotage, espionage and coercion.
Foreign involvement can increase a malicious actor's ability to access and control Australia's critical infrastructure. Such access could enable them to target activity in a way that can affect the continuity of services to citizens, as well as having extreme consequences for other dependant infrastructure or defence assets.
In January this year, the government took steps to address these risks by establishing the multi-agency Critical Infrastructure Centre. The centre, housed in the Attorney-General's Department, is a central point for government and industry to better understand and mitigate national security risks to Australia's critical infrastructure.
The centre was established to develop a deeper understanding of the national security risks across our high-risk critical infrastructure sectors, and to develop and implement mitigation strategies. The centre works collaboratively with industry and states and territories to ensure national security risks are being managed in a way that does not inhibit the ability of business to operate in a global economy, and to ensure that Australia remains an attractive place to invest and do business.
To enhance the centre's ability to manage these risks, today the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017 is introduced. This Bill will support the operation of the Critical Infrastructure Centre and supplement existing federal, state and territory regulations. It will ensure the government has the necessary powers to protect Australia from the national security threats of sabotage, espionage and coercion stemming from malicious foreign involvement in our critical infrastructure.
The bill will apply to a specified set of critical infrastructure assets in the high risk electricity, water, gas and ports sectors approximately 140 assets in total. These reforms build upon and complement measures the government has already taken to manage these same risks in the telecommunications sector, by passing through the Parliament the Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms in September this year. The Attorney-General's Department is working closely with the telecommunications sector during the 12 month implementation period of this legislation.
Overview of key measures
The bill introduces two new measures. Register of critical infrastructure assets
The bill will establish a register of critical infrastructure assets, which will enhance the capability of the centre to understand who owns, controls, and has access to Australia's critical infrastructure. This register will support more proactive management of the risks faced by assets in our high-risk sectors.
The bill will require owners and operators of specified critical infrastructure assets to provide specific, high-level information concerning the ownership and operation of the asset. This will include information on ultimate beneficial owners. This
information is essential to informing a deeper understanding of who has access to, control of, or the ability to influence, the critical infrastructure on which we all rely.
The reporting requirements have been designed to impose a minimal compliance burden on industry.
Given the sensitivity of the information required to be provided and stored in aggregate, the register of critical infrastructure assets will be held on the government's secret network. This will ensure that all information provided for the register, including commercially sensitive information, is kept secure.
Ministerial directions power
The bill also contains a ministerial directions power. This will enable a direction to be issued to an owner or operator of a critical infrastructure asset to mitigate national security risks which cannot be managed through cooperation or existing regulatory mechanisms. It is modelled on a similar power in the telecommunications sector security reforms.
The 'last resort' directions power could be used to direct asset owners and operators to undertake or refrain from certain actions. Importantly, this power is limited to instances where:
- there is a risk identified which is prejudicial to security
- through collaboration, the owner or operator does not or
cannot implement mitigations to address the risk, and
- there are no existing regulatory frameworks that can be used to enforce mitigations.
In this way, it operates as a necessary safeguard to address national security risks where they cannot otherwise be managed.
Safeguards
The bill includes a range of important safeguards. Before a direction is able to be issued, the minister will be required to be satisfied of certain matters, to consult with stakeholders, and to give consideration to a number of factors, including:
- giving primary consideration to a mandatory ASIO adverse security assessment
- being satisfied that the government has negotiated in `good faith'
- consulting directly with, and considering any representations made by, the relevant first minister and state or territory minister and the entity to which the direction applies
- considering the costs to the entity and consequences to services in implementing the mitigation, and
ensuring the direction is a proportionate response to the risk.
The minister's directions power is also subject to judicial review while the ASIO adverse security assessment will be subject to merits review.
Consultation
Recognising the significance of these reforms, the government has consulted widely over the course of 2017 to ensure the proposed measures are appropriately designed and targeted. The government released an initial discussion paper following the establishment of the centre in February. Consultations were then held with states and territories in the middle of 2017, and an exposure draft of the bill was subsequently released for public consultation.
The bill introduced today reflects the consultation with state and territory governments and industry stakeholders. The government has made some important changes to the bill in response to the exposure draft consultations. This includes refining key definitions, strengthening consultation requirements, and applying the legislation to specific critical assets in the gas sector.
Gas plays the most versatile role in the energy network, and the security and reliability of the electricity sector is reliant on gas supply. Gas, in particular, is relied upon to respond quickly to stabilise unstable networks and respond to periods of high
demand. The application of this legislation will ensure government continues to work closely with industry, states and territories to ensure the ongoing security of our gas systems and networks.
Establishment of a broader security framework
The government's Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy recognises that no one party alone can effectively manage risks to critical infrastructure. Ensuring the resilience of Australia's critical infrastructure is a responsibility shared by states and territories, the Commonwealth government and owners and operators of critical infrastructure. The government acknowledges the significant role played by industry and states and territories in working closely together over a number of years to ensure the ongoing resilience of our critical infrastructure.
Conclusion
This bill aligns with the government's clear intention to continue to cooperate and collaborate with all levels of government, regulators, owners and operators of critical infrastructure. It strikes an appropriate regulatory balance by acknowledging the shared responsibility for managing national security risks, while empowering the Commonwealth to
intervene to mitigate a risk where existing regimes cannot be used.
While maintaining competitiveness in a rapidly changing global market is essential, with this bill, the government is taking the steps necessary to strengthen the security and resilience of Australia's critical infrastructure.
Security o f Critical Infrastructure (Consequential And Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
The Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 will deal with consequential and transitional matters in connection with the enactment of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2017. Additionally, it will amend theForeign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017
Export Control Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017
That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to Whistleblowing and related purposes.
A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and related purposes.
A Bill for an Act to provide for the control of the export of certain goods and for related purposes.
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (ENHANCING WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS) BILL 2017
This Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 and theTaxation Administration Act 1953 to improve Australia's corporate and tax whistleblower protections.
First, it will extend the corporate whistleblower protection regime in the Corporations Act.
Second, the Bill introduces new protections for tax whistleblowers, not available under the existing law.
The importance of protecting corporate whistleblowers has been recognised for many years. However, legislative protections under the Corporations Act since 2004 have been sparingly used and are increasingly perceived as inadequate, having regard to recent advances in the public sector, other parts of the private sector and overseas.
As part of the Government's tax integrity package, new arrangements to better protect those who blow the whistle on non-compliance with taxation laws were announced in the 2016‑17 Budget.
Together these reforms will help protect whistleblowers who often expose themselves to significant personal and financial risk in order to help play a critical role in the early detection and prosecution of corporate or tax misconduct.
These reforms will also improve practices within Australian businesses, including in the areas of corporate governance and integrity. Officers, employees and taxpayers will now be aware that there is a significantly higher likelihood that misconduct will be reported.
The amendments in Part 1 of the Bill extend the corporate protection regime to a broader class of people, and expand the types of disclosures that will be eligible for protection.
In addition, the Bill strengthens the whistleblower regime in a number of ways, including by preventing companies from using the protections as a defence for failure to commence an internal investigation, or to take appropriate action in response to a disclosure. The Bill also makes it easier for a whistleblower to seek redress for detriment or damage that is caused as a result of a disclosure, or a suspected disclosure, and permits anonymous disclosures, which are currently not protected under the existing law. Finally, the Bill mandates that all large companies have a whistleblower policy.
These reforms will encourage the Australian business community to assess corporate governance frameworks, and to take stock of current whistleblower practices and procedures.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
Part 2 of the Bill amends the TAA 1953 to introduce tax whistleblower protections that are broadly consistent with the Corporations Act amendments.
This taxation reform is aimed at introducing arrangements that protect individuals who report breaches or suspected breaches of taxation law or misconduct in relation to an entity's tax affairs. Importantly, the new protections give whistleblowers clarity regarding those to whom they can make protected disclosures. Authorised recipients include the Australian Taxation Office and persons who are in a position to take action or investigate the alleged misconduct, such as an entity's tax agent or senior person within the entity whose tax affairs are the subject of disclosure.
The new tax whistleblower regime protects the identity of eligible whistleblowers through strict protocols on the sharing of a whistleblower's identity. The regime also allows for anonymous disclosures to be made.
The regime also protects whistleblowers from victimisation and provides them with access to remedies including compensation should they suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure or if their identity is revealed.
The tax whistleblower regime is intended to encourage whistleblowers to disclose information relating to actual or suspected non-compliance with taxation laws to the ATO and those eligible recipients who are able to take action or investigate the alleged misconduct.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
EXPORT CONTROL BILL 2017
Agricultural exports are an economic powerhouse for Australia, worth around $48 billion in 2016-17. We are among the top ten agricultural exporting countries in the world – exporting around two‑thirds of our agricultural production annually.
Future opportunities to grow Australia's agricultural exports are bright. We sit on the edge of one of the strongest growing regions of the world.
Strengthening the competitiveness and productivity of Australia's agriculture sector is a key undertaking of this Coalition Government. From day one we have delivered practical policies and genuine investment to transform agriculture in this nation.
We demonstrated this commitment through the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper – a $4 billion investment in our farmers and our competitive strengths in agriculture. We have been working to create a better business environment for farmers—and to build the infrastructure needed to support continued growth—through a whole raft of policies, which our agriculture sector is responding to with enthusiasm.
Maintaining market access is becoming increasingly complex and challenging – consumer demand changes and we are not the only country competing for lucrative overseas markets.
To realise opportunities for growth in our region and globally, we need our trading partners' continued confidence in the safety of Australian produce and that they are receiving what they purchased. Appropriate regulation provides assurance to our trading partners and deters that small minority whose conduct would undermine the integrity of the system and, in doing so, damage Australia's trading reputation.
We need to ensure there are appropriate regulatory settings in place to help drive productivity and increase returns at the farm gate in the future.
Over the 35 years since the Export Control Act 1982 commenced, the legislation governing agricultural exports has ballooned into a complex web of regulation to meet the needs and challenges of our dynamic international trade environment.
As a result, a total of 17 Acts and more than 40 legislative instruments are now part of the legislative framework that regulates the production and export of Australian agricultural products.
For example, under the existing legislation, a meat exporter needs to comply with requirements under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 and its regulations, theExport Control Act 1982 , theExport Control (Prescribed Goods General) Order 2005 and theExport Control (Meat and Meat Products) Order 2005 to sell Australian meat into international markets.
The Agricultural Export Regulation Review conducted by the Coalition Government found that while this serves our exporters well and provides our trading partners with confidence that our exports meet their import requirements, there is scope for this regulatory framework to be modernised to make it more cohesive.
The rules for exporting need to be simpler and easier to understand and comply with.
The Export Control Bill 2017 will streamline and consolidate existing legislation concerning export certification while maintaining the standard of regulation that our trading partners expect.
The bill will make export requirements easier to understand, administer and use through reduction of complexity, duplication and ambiguity.
It will provide our exporters more opportunity to innovate and the confidence to pursue lucrative export opportunities, particularly for new and emerging industries.
The bill will also allow the Australian Government to certify a greater range of agricultural goods for export reflecting not only the importance of trade, but the increasing calls on the Australian Government to certify a broader range of agricultural goods.
The bill will incorporate existing regulatory powers that underpin our export certification into a single Act. It will introduce a broader range of monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers and include a clearer basis for the performance of verification activities across the supply chain.
These changes will improve the options for managing compliance of exporters of agricultural goods. By providing a range of compliance tools and sanctions, non‑compliance can be dealt with in a swift and proportionate way—ensuring that those doing the wrong thing don't bring the system down for everyone.
This gives trading partners a further level of assurance of the integrity of Australia's export system, which upholds our international reputation as a reliable supplier of safe, high quality, premium agricultural produce.
This bill is another step in the right direction for Australian agriculture – supporting the Coalition's commitment to increase access to high-value premium markets for Australia's agriculture sector.
This bill ensures that Australian agricultural exports can continue to capitalise on the international markets of the future and meet the challenges and opportunities that come with changing demand and consumer preferences.
Extensive work has been undertaken with stakeholders throughout the development of the legislation, including industry, state and territory governments and our trading partners. The outcome is a bill that is robust, effective and meets the needs of those who use the system.
Stakeholder engagement will continue during the development of the rules and policies that support the bill so that we all have the benefit of the best export system and each set of rules is tailored to each commodity sector so that there is no greater regulatory burden than necessary.
This suite of reforms is another demonstration of the Coalition Government's commitment to opening more overseas markets and supporting the agricultural sector which feeds and clothes millions and is now is the largest contributor to Australia's national GDP growth.
For Australian farmers, reliable access to overseas markets means increased profitability and certainty for further investment in their properties and people.
For the Australian economy, it means more jobs, more exports, and higher incomes in a competitive and profitable agricultural sector.
For the Australian community more broadly, it means stronger regional communities and a more prosperous and productive Australia.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL FUNDING AND DISCLOSURE REFORM) BILL 2017
I am pleased today to present this bill, that will significantly reform the electoral funding and disclosure regime in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 . Reform is necessary to support the integrity of Australia's electoral system, and Australia's sovereignty, by ensuring that only those with a meaningful connection to Australia are able to influence Australian politics and elections through political donations. It will also ensure that the Commonwealth's electoral funding and disclosure regime keeps pace with international and domestic developments and provides transparency for Australian voters.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017 will improve the consistency of the regulatory treatment of all political actors. This includes political actors that have emerged in the Australian political landscape, who neither endorse candidates nor seek to form government, yet actively seek to influence the outcome of elections through their campaigning activities. While this is a positive indicator of the strength of Australian civil society and civic engagement, it is important that these actors are subject to the public accountability of more traditional actors, such as registered political parties or candidates.
The Electoral Act has long recognised that a range of political actors participate in Australian elections. These include political parties and their associated entities (which include unions and fundraising entities), candidates, and third party campaign groups. This bill makes several changes to the regulation of political actors, which are necessary to keep pace with modern campaigning and to assist the implementation of restrictions on foreign interference.
Firstly, a registration regime will be introduced for all third party campaigners who incur political expenditure above the disclosure threshold. Political expenditure includes the production of material that is "intended or likely to affect voting in an election". These groups are already required to report annually to the Australian Electoral Commission on this expenditure. A registration scheme will improve transparency for voters and complement this Government's reforms to the authorisation of electoral matter – enabling voters who receive material attempting to influence their vote to look up an entity on the register. Registration will also assist the AEC's compliance and education activities, by identifying political actors and providing a contact person for AEC communications. Registration of third party campaigners reflects current practices in other jurisdictions, including the UK, Canada and New Zealand.
In the 2015-16 financial year, which included the last election, third party campaign groups spent almost $40 million on election advertising, polling, and campaigning. It is clear that elections are no longer just fought between political parties and candidates, and it is appropriate that all participants who choose to expend significant amounts of political expenditure are subject to transparency.
In recognition of the prominent role that third party campaign groups play in public debate and their growing influence in elections, a new category of political campaigners who incur significant political expenditure (such as those who spend more than $100,000 in a financial year) will have disclosure obligations in-line with other prominent political actors, such as political parties. The creation of this new "political campaigner" category enables significant political actors to be subject to greater transparency, befitting their significant expenditure, while providing less onerous compliance measures for smaller third party campaigners.
The relevant disclosure obligations applicable to all political actors will also be expanded to require reporting of directors' names, political memberships and the details of government grants and contracts received.
Additionally, the bill will clarify the current definition of 'associated entity' to include the activities of groups who operate to the benefit of political parties.
The requirement to register and disclose will not curtail in any way the freedom to participate in political activity. Instead, it will provide transparency, allowing Australian electors to access better information when evaluating the efforts of those who seek to influence Australians' voting decisions, and the outcomes of Australian elections.
There has been growing concern amongst the community about foreign interference with our domestic political landscape. Media reports of foreign donations to parties, candidates and third parties have affected the perceived integrity of elections, which is critical to our peaceful democratic government. The need to address this concern was highlighted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its Second Interim Report on the Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2016 Federal Election, which recommended that legislative action be taken to prohibit foreign donations.
To keep foreign money out of Australian elections, political parties, candidates, Senate groups and significant political campaigners will be banned from receiving foreign gifts over $250, or any money transferred from foreign accounts.
Because many third party campaigners (such as charities) also carry out non-political activities, they will not be prevented from receiving foreign gifts. Instead, third parties will be prevented from using foreign money for political expenditure. It is important that third party campaigners are covered by the measures in the bill to level the playing field. Banning foreign gifts to political parties, but allowing third parties to use foreign gifts to incur political expenditure, would have the effect of allowing foreign interests to fund political campaigning by some entities but not others.
A special exemption has been provided for significant political campaigners, where they are registered charities, or registered organisations under Fair Work legislation, to afford these entities the less onerous compliance measures required of third party campaigners. This reduces the regulatory burden on such organisations while maintaining the integrity of the foreign donations ban.
As a consequence, this bill does not restrict the ability of charities to receive foreign gifts for non-political purposes. Nor does it restrict the political activities that charities can engage in with contributions from Australians.
To maintain the integrity of the foreign donations ban, no entity will be permitted to use foreign money for their political expenditure. Foreign interests do not have a legitimate role in Australian elections, so they should not be funding things like election advertising, or handing out how-to-vote material at polling booths – regardless of whether these activities are carried out by a political party or any other entity. This approach is consistent with foreign donations bans in other jurisdictions.
Appropriate anti-avoidance measures are also included in the bill so that funnelling foreign donations through an intermediary, setting up a shell company in Australia, or splitting donations to avoid thresholds are banned.
The bill also contains improvements to the public election funding regime. Public election funding is payable in relation to any candidate who received more than four percent of the total first preference votes cast in an election. While this qualification requirement remains unchanged, the bill will limit public election funding to demonstrated electoral spending, which will prevent political actors from profiteering and achieving private gain by standing candidates.
The bill introduces reforms to one of Australia's oldest pieces of legislation – the 99-year-old Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 – to improve the funding and disclosure regime for the benefit of the Australian public and Australian voters. This will improve public confidence in Australia's political process by increasing the accountability of those involved in political finance and election campaigns. It will also restrict foreign influence on Australian political actors, including campaigners, through restrictions on foreign donations.
That the Senate—
(a) joins with the people of Australia, and throughout the Commonwealth, in recognising and paying tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh on the celebration of their 70th wedding anniversary on 20 November 2017;
(b) congratulates Her Majesty and His Royal Highness on this remarkable achievement of 70 years of marriage; and
(c) recognises that this royal partnership continues to provide strength to Her Majesty in the fulfilment of her royal duties as Queen of Australia.
That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for inquiry and report by 20 June 2018:
The Turnbull Government's management of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in and around Defence bases, with particular reference to:
(a) the extent of contamination in and around Defence bases, including water, soil, other natural assets and built structures;
(b) the response of, and coordination between, agencies of the Commonwealth Government, including, but not limited to, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment and Energy, the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force;
(c) communication and coordination with state and territory governments, local councils, affected local communities and businesses, and other interested stakeholders;
(d) the adequacy of health advice and testing of current and former defence and civilian personnel and members of the public exposed in and around Defence bases identified as potentially affected by contamination;
(e) the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, and any other relevant legislation;
(f) remediation works at the bases; and
(g) what consideration has been given to understanding and addressing any financial impact to affected businesses and individuals.
Omit "Turnbull Government's" and substitute "Commonwealth Government's".
That the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be amended to provide for participating membership, as follows:
After paragraph (3A), insert:
(3B) for the purposes of the inquiry into matters relating to Section 44 of the Constitution only, participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination, in the House of Representatives, of the Government or Opposition Whips or any minority group or independent Member, and, in the Senate, of the Leader of the Government or Opposition, or any minority group or independent Senator, and such participating member:
(a) shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes of forming a quorum; and
(b) may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member, except that a participating member may not vote on any question before the committee.
That the Senate notes—
(a) the need for the executive to respect and protect the non-political role of the security services;
(b) the need to keep confidential information secure;
(c) the importance of the principle that intelligence material should not be used for partisan purposes;
(d) the offences for communicating intelligence information under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 , including penalties; and
(e) the recommendations of the Hope Royal Commissions on Intelligence and Security, in particular, relating to the relationship between the security services and executive government and the responsibility of the Government to protect and adhere to the above principles.
At the end of paragraph (e), add—
", and further affirms that enhanced scrutiny of the security services as proposed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015, and extending to appropriate oversight of agency operations, would increase confidence that the security services strictly adhere to their non-political role and that intelligence material will not be used for partisan purposes."
Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.
Senator Dastyari did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash
Senator O'Sullivan did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Trump Administration has succeeded in passing, through both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America (US), over USD$1 trillion in company tax cuts over 10 years, including a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% to potentially 20%;
(b) expresses concern that these US company tax cuts will affect Australian companies' global competitiveness;
(c) also notes the Australian Department of Treasury research, published earlier this month, revealing that if Australia's corporate tax rate was cut from 30% to 25% by 2026, there would be $30 billion in additional company tax revenue due to stronger economic growth, and increased GST revenue from additional consumer spending;
(d) further notes the recent comments of the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry supporting Australian company tax cuts; and
(e) supports tax relief for Australian companies to ensure our companies remain globally competitive.
The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre was formally shutdown on 31 October 2017,
(ii) more than 600 men refused to leave the centre, for reasons including fears for their safety, and were forcibly removed on 24 November 2017,
(iii) the detainees were transferred to the expanded East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre and West Lorengau Haus, with non-refugees housed at Hillside Haus,
(iv) from the time of the processing centre’s closure, until at least 17 November 2017, a number of media reports, photographs and eyewitness accounts indicated the accommodation at West Lorengau Haus – meant to house up to 300 men – was still incomplete, and
(v) according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and media reports, West Lorengau Haus had intermittent power and water and incomplete security fencing up to mid-November
(b) further notes that:
(i) during supplementary Budget estimates in October 2017, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection advised that the Government’s contract with the International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) would be extended to 28 February 2018,
(ii) refugee advocates have raised concerns about what appears to be a reduced level of medical and health services provided to detainees during this transition period,
(iii) the Australian Medical Association has asked the Government to allow its doctors to treat detainees on the island, but its offer has been rejected by the Government, and
(iv) Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) has also called for access to the men in the transit centres, expressing concern the medical and psychological needs of the men are not being met; and
(c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, by the start of business 9 am on 20 December 2017:
(i) any correspondence with contractors, reports, memos or photographs relating to the progress of the construction of West Lorengau Haus accommodation, fencing and essential services, made since 1 October 2017 until 6 December 2017,
(ii) any correspondence between the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and its contractors seeking extensions of time or budget to deliver the accommodation, security or essential services at West Lorengau Haus, or regarding difficulties in providing agreed services,
(iii) the parts of any existing contract, MOU, letter of intent or agreement made with IHMS, with regard to the health and medical services to be provided to detainees, including the type of services to be provided, the specialities (such as psychiatric, general practice, counselling, etc) to be made available at each of the three facilities and the number of practitioners within each, provision of medication, hours to be worked, and the range and limits of responsibilities to be exercised by practitioners,
(iv) any variations, in respect of paragraph (c)(iii), to the previous contract or agreement,
(v) the parts of any existing contract, MOU, letter of intent, memo or agreement made with Palladin, with regard to the services to be provided, the timeframes in which they are to be provided, obligations on staff, and any requirement or prohibition on using or allowing access to external service providers (such as MSF),
(vi) any variations, in respect of paragraph (c)(v), to the previous contract or agreements,
(vii) the parts of any existing contract, MOU, letter of intent, memo or agreement made with the following providers, with regard to the range and quality of services to be provided, the timeframes in which they are to be provided, any requirement or prohibition to use local subcontractors: JOA Wokman, Toll Group and NKW, and
(viii) any variations, in respect of paragraph (c)(vii), to previous contracts or agreements.
The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on 5 December 2017, certain staff members of Senator Rhiannon's office verbally abused an official guest of Senator Leyonhjelm;
(b) condemns the actions of those staff members;
(c) observes that senators host guests on a regular basis who might be persons whom other senators or their staff might dislike, or with whom they might disagree;
(d) recognises that access to private areas of Parliament House is a privilege;
(e) requires all passholders to honour the expected courtesy and respect for differences of opinion that comes with the granting of passes;
(f) calls upon all senators to exercise discipline over their staff; and
(g) urges the respectful conduct of senators, their staff and events they participate in within Parliament House.
The Senate divided. [16:20]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's alleged53,700 breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), significantly contributed to the Government's decision to launch a Royal Commission into the banking industry;
(b) calls on the Commonwealth Bank of Australia:
(i) to act as a model litigant in its defence of the civil proceeding brought by AUSTRAC in the Federal Court of Australia, and
(ii) if ordered by the Federal Court of Australia to pay a civil penalty, not to pass on, directly or indirectly, the costs of paying the penalty to its customers;
(c) calls on the Government to closely monitor the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to ensure that if the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is ordered to pay a civil penalty, that the costs associated in doing so are not passed onto its consumers, directly or indirectly; and
(d) calls on the Minister representing the Treasurerto table a report to the Senate within 12 months of the decision by the Federal Court of Australia, detailing whether or not the Commonwealth Bank of Australia has passed on the costs of any civil penalty the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is ordered to pay, to its customers, directly or indirectly.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the report of the High-Level Working Group for Health and Human Rights of Women, Children and Adolescents delivered to the World Health Organization and the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights in May 2017,
(ii) that this working group was tasked with securing political support for the implementation of the human rights-related measures contained in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the Global Strategy based on a commitment to the rights 'to health and through health', and
(iii) that this report urgently calls on leaders to take up the challenge of translating human rights 'to health and through health' into a reality for all, and calls on leaders to commit to three key areas:
1.Create enabling environments for rights to and through health:
uphold the right to health in national law
establish a rights-based approach to health financing and universal health coverage
address human rights as determinants of health
2.Partner with people themselves by:
removing social, gender and cultural norms that impede realisation of human rights
enabling women, children and adolescents to claim their human right
empowering and protecting human rights defenders
ensuring accountability to the people by the people
3.Strengthen evidence and public accountability by:
collecting data on the status of human rights in and through health
systematically reporting on progress; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government, as we celebrate International Day for Human Rights, on 8 December, to continue to work with the international community, and here in Australia, to join in the leadership on human rights.
That Senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Patrick to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry
Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Leyonhjelm [for matters relating to Section 44 of the Constitution only]
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Patrick for the committee's inquiry into the implications of climate change for Australia's national security
Participating member: Senator Patrick
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—
Senator Hanson-Young
Participating member: Senator Steele-John
Appointed—
Senator Steele-John
Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiry into the regulation of mobility scooters
Participating member: Senator Rice
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment 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.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2017 implements a first phase of reforms from a comprehensive review of Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime.
The report on the review was tabled in Parliament in 2016. It made 84 recommendations to strengthen, streamline and simplify Australia's AML/CTF regime.
Australia's AML/CTF regime must keep pace with international trends and developments in order to combat and disrupt money laundering and terrorism financing.
Money laundering and terrorism financing methods – by their very nature – evolve to exploit opportunities, finding new ways to circumvent controls and avoid detection.
Technological advances, market developments and the emergence of new products and services can create new and emerging risks that currently fall outside the scope of Australia's AML/CTF regime.
Technological advances can also generate opportunities for more efficient and effective regulation.
The Bill implements a number of priority measures that will modernise the AML/CTF regime. It will:
Closing a regulatory gap
Australia's AML/CTF regime was developed at a time that did not contemplate the use of digital currencies such as Bitcoin. Bitcoin now represents more than half of the total market capitalisation of all digital currencies, which is currently close to 112 billion Australian dollars.
Digital currencies largely operate outside the regulated financial system. They are becoming an increasingly popular method of payment for goods and services, and transferring value, in the Australian economy.
It is recognised globally that convertible digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, pose significant money laundering and terrorism financing risks because they allow people to move money around the world on a peer-to-peer basis with a high level of anonymity.
In view of these risks, the report on the review recommended that the AML/CTF Act should be amended to regulate activities relating to convertible digital currencies.
The Bill regulates digital currency exchanges, as this is the point where digital currencies intersect with the regulated financial system.
Businesses that trade digital currencies for money, and vice versa, will be required to:
Closing this regulatory gap will have a number of important benefits. It will:
The Attorney-General's Department has consulted extensively with the digital currency sector about regulating it under the AML/CTF regime.
Most businesses in the digital currency exchange sector welcome the introduction of AML/CTF regulation, as they are already mindful of the risks posed by the services they provide. Many digital currency exchange providers already comply with a voluntary code of conduct that includes guidance on measures for protecting their services from illicit exploitation for money laundering and terrorism financing purposes. Industry representatives have noted that AML/CTF regulation of activities relating to convertible digital currencies will bolster public and consumer confidence in the sector.
Regulation under the AML/CTF regime will formalise these measures and reinforce the legitimacy of digital currency exchanges. An appropriate transition period will also ensure the burden of complying with the new regulatory regime is limited.
Providing regulatory relief to industry
The report on the review made a number of recommendations to provide industry with regulatory relief by simplifying and streamlining regulatory requirements.
These recommendations are consistent with the Government's agenda to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, cut red tape, and reduce the costs of complying with Commonwealth regulation.
The Bill deregulates two sectors:
The money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by the services provided by these two sectors is low. The report on the AML/CTF regime considered the risk and recommended deregulation by repealing these designated services.
The deregulation of the cash-in-transit sector will deliver regulatory savings of approximately $326 million over the next ten years. Deregulating some insurance intermediaries and general insurance providers will also deliver regulatory savings of over half a million dollars over the same period.
The Bill also makes a number of changes to improve the operation of the correspondent banking provisions under the AML/CTF Act and better align them with current international banking practice.
This includes:
The latter change will remove a competitive disadvantage currently faced by Australian banks when engaging in correspondent banking relationships with 'non-banks'.
The Bill also enhances the ability of related corporate bodies to share information within their group about the money laundering and terrorism risks associated with a shared customer.
The AML/CTF Act allows some associated businesses or persons to join together as a 'group' and share certain obligations to minimise regulatory and compliance burden.
The existing definition of a 'group' does not reflect the way businesses actually structure themselves into 'corporate groups', particularly multi-national corporate groups. This prevents related businesses from sharing information about shared customers and impedes the ability of the group to manage risks associated with that customer.
The Bill will insert a new definition of a 'group' to better reflect the reality of business structures and allow these related corporate bodies to better manage risks across the group.
Enhance enforcement of cross-border reporting obligations
The AML/CTF Act establishes a reporting regime for the cross-border movement of physical currency and bearer negotiable instruments, such as travellers cheques.
The Bill will strengthen the ability of police and customs officers to enforce these reporting obligations, establishing search and seize powers for cash, travellers cheques and other items.
The search and seizure powers will be available for the police and customs officers to use where:
The Bill will also establish civil penalty orders for the offences under sections 199 and 200 of the AML/CTF Act, which are currently only subject to criminal penalties. A civil penalty option would provide law enforcement greater flexibility in responding in a proportionate manner to such breaches.
Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: Expanded powers and functions
AUSTRAC has a dual role as Australia's financial intelligence unit and AML/CTF regulator.
Over the past eleven years, the role played by AUSTRAC has evolved. AUSTRAC now plays a greater role in supporting international and collaborative efforts to combat and disrupt money laundering, terrorism financing, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other serious crimes.
The Bill will update the powers and functions of the AUSTRAC CEO to better reflect and support the full range of work performed by AUSTRAC, giving a legislative basis to this work.
This includes:
Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: Retrospective remedial directions
The report on the AML/CTF review recommended that the AUSTRAC CEO be given a power to issue remedial directions to require regulated businesses to retrospectively rectify contraventions of a civil penalty provision.
Where a regulated business has failed to submit certain financial transaction reports, the ability to retrospectively secure compliance may enable a financial intelligence gap to be addressed.
The Bill establishes checks and balances for the exercise of this power. In particular, it will not apply to any conduct that occurred before this Bill enters into law.
Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: Registration of remitters
The Bill will implement a number of review recommendations to clarify and strengthen the ability of the AUSTRAC CEO to deal with the registration of remitters.
The remittance sector is diverse, ranging from large organisations that oversee international remittance networks to smaller, informal money transfer systems that often operate outside the regulated financial system.
The services provided by remitters are considered to pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorism financing because they operate outside of the conventional banking system and often involve sending money to places that do not have established, modern banking networks.
Remitters operating in Australia are regulated under the AML/CTF Act. They must register with AUSTRAC, apply for renewal of registration every three years, and are subject to AML/CTF compliance and reporting obligations.
The Bill will give the AUSTRAC CEO stronger powers to effectively supervise the registration of remitters and assist in addressing some of the risks posed by the sector.
The Bill will enable the AUSTRAC CEO to cancel the registration of a person if the AUSTRAC CEO is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person is no longer conducting remittance activities.
A power to suspend or cancel a remitter's registration once the registered remitter ceases to carry on a remittance business would ensure that dormant registration certificates are not used by third parties to avoid AUSTRAC scrutiny.
If a registered remitter appears to have an inactive registration, the AUSTRAC CEO would be required to issue a notice setting out the CEO's decision to cancel registration and the date from which registration will be cancelled. A decision to cancel registration would be reviewable.
The Bill will also clarify that the AUSTRAC CEO has the power to renew registrations with conditions and that a decision to refuse an application for renewal of registration is reviewable.
Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: Expanded infringement notice provisions
The use of infringement notices under the AML/CTF Act is currently restricted to six minor regulatory offences.
For contraventions of other minor regulatory offences under the AML/CTF Act, the AUSTRAC CEO must conduct civil proceedings through the Federal court.
This process is costly and time consuming, and does not always allow AUSTRAC to respond in a timely and proportionate manner to secure compliance.
The report on the review recommended extending the use of infringement notices under the AML/CTF Act. The Bill implements this recommendation and extends the use of infringement notices to an additional 11 minor regulatory offences.
This will give the AUSTRAC CEO additional, more expedient and efficient means for promoting and encouraging compliance, as an alternative to applying for a civil penalty order through the Federal Court.
Administrative and definitional changes
The Bill will implement a number of minor amendments to the AML/CTF Act.
This includes:
Conclusion
This Bill is the first legislative step to implement recommendations of the review of AML/CTF regime.
The statutory review provided an opportunity to shape a modern AML/CTF regime that positions Australia to address current and future challenges.
The Attorney-General's Department and AUSTRAC consulted extensively with industry during the review of the AML/CTF regime to ensure any reforms are relevant, efficient and effective.
The Attorney-General's Department and AUSTRAC also consulted with industry during the development of the reforms in this Bill.
This genuine dialogue between government and industry will continue during the implementation phase of the Bill.
Additional estimates 2016-17—
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee— Additional information received between—
12 April and 18 May 2017—Environment and Energy portfolio.
21 April and 25 May 2017—Communications and the Arts portfolio.
Hansard record of proceedings.
Budget estimates 2017-18—
Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Additional information received between—
29 May and 24 October 2017—Health portfolio.
31 May and 21 July 2017—Social Services portfolio.
1 June and 24 October 2017—Department of Human Services.
Hansard record of proceedings
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information received between—
23 June and 11 September 2017—Communications and the Arts portfolio. 26 June and 21 August 2017—Environment and Energy portfolio.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 15 November and 7 December 2017— Parliamentary departments.
Budget estimates 2017-18 (Supplementary)—
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—
Additional information received between 15 November and 7 December 2017—
Finance portfolio. Parliamentary departments.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Hansard record of proceedings.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 15 November and 5 December 2017—
Defence portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
That the Senate take note of the report.
I'm pleased to table the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade's report for its inquiry into modern slavery. The inquiry particularly focussed on assessing the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's Modern Slavery Act 2015 and whether similar or improved measures could be introduced in Australia.
During the inquiry, the Committee received 225 submissions and held 10 public hearings. The Committee heard from a range of dedicated individuals, businesses and organisations working to combat modern slavery. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all those who made a contribution to this important inquiry.
The Committee's report makes 49 recommendations to improve Australia's efforts to combat modern slavery here and around the world. The Committee found that modern slavery is often 'hidden in plain sight', with evidence of these crimes present across a range of industries in Australia and in the global supply chains of businesses and organisations operating here.
The Committee acknowledges the significant work that the Australian Government has undertaken to address modern slavery here and around the world. However, evidence to the inquiry suggests that more can be done to combat these crimes and to better support victims.
The Committee heard strong support for key elements of the UK Modern Slavery Act, particularly the establishment of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and the introduction of global supply chain reporting requirements. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce a Modern Slavery Act including a range of measures as outlined in this report.
The Committee recommends the establishment an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to lead and coordinate Australia's response to combatting modern slavery. Evidence suggests that the UK Commissioner has made an important contribution to raising awareness of modern slavery, better coordinating UK law enforcement agencies and advocating for improved supports for victims.
Building on its interim report of August 2017, the Committee recommends establishing a supply chain reporting requirement for certain entities operating in Australia. This would require entities to take responsibility to ensure that they are not profiting, or gaining a competitive advantage, from modern slavery in their global supply chains. The Committee welcomes the announcement by the Minister for the Justice that the Australian Government plans to introduce a reporting requirement and makes a series of recommendations to improve the Government's proposed model.
The Committee found that there are still gaps in the way victims are identified and supported, and the way our criminal justice agencies cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice. The Committee recommends changes to the way Australia's victim support programs operate, including by introducing a national compensation scheme. The Committee has also makes a series of recommendations to improve coordination and training for Australia's law enforcement and criminal justice agencies. These support the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's recommendations from its July 2017 report into human trafficking and slavery.
A number of submitters raised particular concerns about the practice of orphanage trafficking and the exploitation of children in overseas residential institutions. The Committee recommends a series of measures to ensure Australian donations and volunteers do not inadvertently perpetuate these exploitative practices overseas.
The Committee was also concerned by allegations of exploitation and slavery-like practices here in Australia, particularly for migrant workers and backpackers in regional areas. The Committee recommends that these workers be better protected through changes to Australia's visa framework, particularly by eliminating or replacing 'tied' visa conditions and by introducing a national labour hire licensing scheme.
Modern slavery describes some of the greatest crimes of our time. The recommendations from this inquiry make a significant contribution to ensuring that, here in Australia, we are doing all we can to eradicate these crimes.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017
… I think it's pretty obvious that welfare money should not be used to buy drugs.
If you love someone who is addicted to drugs, if you love somebody whose life is destroyed by drugs, don't you want them to get off drugs?
We are quite honestly at a loss to see why a drug testing trial is considered a necessary or effective way to address these issues.
Our analysis and advice is that the measures will be costly and ineffective and that government should consult with the sector on the development of evidence-based solutions to prevent and better address substance use disorders and increase the availability of treatment services …
… [it] could inadvertently result in increased incarceration for welfare recipients with a substance dependence. Moves to disregard or discount medical advice about the capacity of those with substance dependence is also problematic. In order to minimise the risk of unintended consequences associated with the Bill, thorough consultation and refinement of the Bill is recommended.
Instead of pursuing these, at best ineffective and at worst directly harmful, measures we call on the Australian Government to appropriately invest in alcohol and drug treatment services and suitably trained workforce and work with experts in the field of addiction medicine and alcohol and other drugs …
In our expert assessment this proposed amendment is poorly conceived and counterproductive. It is not based on reliable research, and there are no grounds for adopting it as a measure to reduce alcohol or other drug use or related harm. Instead it has the potential to increase harm, including stigma, marginalisation and poverty.
Although substance use disorders attract widespread attention, they appear to be no more common, and are no more important to employment and welfare receipt, than are such concerns as poor physical health, poor academic skills, psychiatric disorders, transportation difficulties, and more general concerns such as racial minority status, language barriers and immigration concerns.
… we are absolutely committed to that policy of drug testing welfare recipients in a trial … and the reality is at the moment we can't quite get the crossbench support …
In many cases, testing costs more than it saves monetarily, for example, a four month trial occurred in Florida in 2011, the cost of this trial outweighed the savings in welfare payments.
… increase the risks of people becoming homeless and have negative outcomes for their physical and mental health, self-esteem, relationships and engagement with the labour market.
It certainly hasn't got much chance of reducing crime. It does have the potential in some cases to aggravate it …
All of my experience tells me that this policy won't work.
… what it will do is create more damage, and most damage and most harm to those people who are most vulnerable and most in need of support and protection.
At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work.
Doctors don't necessarily speak with a united voice—we're a very varied group of specialists and people with different backgrounds across the country, so when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen.
Existing evidence shows drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs and it will not bring about behaviour change. It is an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people.
It's an absolute disgrace. It fails to recognise that mental illness and drug and alcohol problems nearly always coexist, they're a health problem and not a lifestyle choice.
International experience shows when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse.
There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society. We can expect at Centrelink offices there will be aggression and violence as people react to this. Had [the government] spoken to the various bodies who work in this area and know about this work, we would have been able to advise them this is not the right way. Pushing people to the brink won't make it better.
… the AMA considers these measures to be mean and stigmatising. The AMA considers substance dependence to be a serious health problem, one that is associated with high rates of disability and mortality. The AMA firmly believes that those affected should be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions, including access to treatment and supports to recovery.
It simply won't work.
… … …
If you discriminate against them, if you impair their return to full functioning by labelling them as a drug user, then you impair their ability to get their life back on track.
… … …
It's not evidence-based. It's not fair. And we stand against it.
The RACP and AChAM are concerned that these measures are not based on evidence of what works—either at a policy or a clinical level.
In our view, they will not only fail to achieve the Bill's stated aim of assisting people struggling with drug and alcohol addiction to access treatment and secure employment, but will harm an already vulnerable group of people and increase their social and financial disadvantage.
What it can do is actually make people's social circumstances even more precarious and perhaps tip people into more dangerous ways of living, and even more criminal ways of living if they can't support themselves.
There is no evidence that any of these measures will directly achieve outcomes associated with reductions in alcohol or other drug use or harms, and indeed have the potential to create greater levels of harm, including increased stigma, marginalisation and poverty.
I strongly urge the Government to reconsider and reverse this retrograde approach to welfare before we see the increase in crime it is likely to create.
In Australia there is a real lack of funding for drug treatment services—including medically supported drug treatment. The Government would have been better off making stronger investments there rather than attacking the vulnerable.
As an experienced and respected leader in the volunteer sector, I am responsible for a (400 strong) volunteer program in Geelong, Victoria. This region, encompassing a Victoria's second city and outlying townships, has experienced drastic changes in the employment market in recent years with closures at Ford and Alcoa and other employers in the region forcing many folk into early redundancies and unemployment. I meet many hundreds of potential volunteers each year and a significant number of these individuals are 55 to 59 years of age and above. Invariably, the experience recounted to me is of a demoralising period of job hunting, applying for roles that they are never offered, let alone interviewed for, within a job market so competitive that they rarely if ever receive an acknowledgment for the considerable effort made in each application.
This measure—
fails to understand, and indeed actively ignores the … nature of addiction and the complex biological, psychological and social underpinnings of drug addiction ...
Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.
Senator Farrell did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash
Senator Pratt did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
The Senate divided. [17:54]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [17:59]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Amendments :
Clause 2, page 3 (table item 16), omit "Schedules 12 and 13", substitute
"Schedule 13".
Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 23), after item 93, insert:
93A Subsection 603AA(2)
Omit "newstart allowance", substitute "jobseeker payment".
93B Subsection 603AA(2) (note)
Omit "newstart allowance", substitute "jobseeker payment".
93C Subsection 603AA(2A)
Omit "newstart allowance" (wherever occurring), substitute "jobseeker payment".
Schedule 1, item 352, page 46 (after line 8), after subitem (1), insert:
(1A) If:
(a) immediately before the commencement of this item, a person was receiving newstart allowance under the Social Security Act 1991 ; and
(b) at the commencement of this item, the person starts to receive jobseeker payment;
then, while the person continuously receives that jobseeker payment on and after that commencement, the reference in subsection 603AA(2) of that Act to jobseeker payment is taken to be a reference to newstart allowance.
Schedule 9, items 1 and 2, page 166 (lines 5 to 19), omit the items, substitute:
1 Subsection 603AA(1)
Omit "subsection (3)", substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".
Schedule 9, page 166 (after line 27), after item 6, insert:
6A After subsection 603AA(1)
Insert:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a person who has reached 55, but is under 60, years of age and to a period of 2 weeks (the relevant period ) if that period begins before the end of 12 months starting on the day the person starts to receive newstart allowance. Instead the person is taken to satisfy the activity test in respect of the relevant period if the person:
(a) is engaged, for at least 30 hours in the relevant period, in a combination of:
(i) approved unpaid voluntary work for an approved organisation; and
(ii) paid work that the Secretary regards as suitable and that is at least 15 hours in the relevant period; or
(b) is engaged for at least 30 hours in the relevant period in paid work that the Secretary regards as suitable.
Note: Because of the definition of receive in section 23, this subsection applies separately in relation to each occasion the person starts to receive newstart allowance.
(2A) If newstart allowance ceases to be payable to a person for a period of less than 3 months (except because the newstart allowance was cancelled), then, for the purposes of subsection (2), the person is taken to be receiving newstart allowance during that period.
Schedule 9, items 8 and 9, page 167 (lines 4 to 20), omit the items, substitute:
8 Subsection 731G(1)
Omit "subsection (3)", substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".
Schedule 9, page 167 (after line 22), after item 10, insert:
10A After subsection 731G(1)
Insert:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a person who has reached 55, but is under 60, years of age and to a period of 2 weeks (the relevant period ) if that period begins before the end of 12 months starting on the day the person starts to receive special benefit. Instead the person is taken to satisfy the activity test in respect of the relevant period if the person:
(a) is engaged, for at least 30 hours in the relevant period, in a combination of:
(i) approved unpaid voluntary work for an approved organisation; and
(ii) paid work that the Secretary regards as suitable and that is at least 15 hours in the relevant period; or
(b) is engaged for at least 30 hours in the relevant period in paid work that the Secretary regards as suitable.
Note: Because of the definition of receive in section 23, this subsection applies separately in relation to each occasion the person starts to receive special benefit.
(2A) If special benefit ceases to be payable to a person for a period of less than 3 months (except because the special benefit was cancelled), then, for the purposes of subsection (2), the person is taken to be receiving special benefit during that period.
Schedule 9, item 13, page 168 (line 3), after "item", insert ", whether the person started to receive newstart allowance or special benefit before, on or after that commencement".
Schedule 13, item 2, page 189 (lines 21 to 24), omit subsection 28C(3).
Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 26 to 34), omit paragraph 42AC(1) (a), substitute:
(a) the person fails to comply with a requirement that was notified to the person under subsection 63(2) or (4);
Schedule 15, item 1, page 196 (lines 6 to 8), omit "(except a notice containing a requirement described in subparagraph (a) (i) of this subsection)".
Schedule 15, item 1, page 196 (line 36), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".
Schedule 15, item 1, page 197 (lines 1 and 2), omit note 2.
Requests :
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:
Schedule 4, item 39, page 100 (line 25), after "period", insert "(the relevant period )".
Schedule 4, item 39, page 100 (line 34) to page 101 (line 1), omit section 567FB, substitute:
567FB Amount of payment
(1) The amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula (except if paragraph 567FA(g) applies in relation to the person):
Daily rate of person's youth allowance on the relevant day x 14 x 2
(2) If subparagraph 567FA(g) (i) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula:
[Daily rate of person's youth allowance on the relevant day x 14 x 3] x $2,000
(3) If subparagraph 567FA(g) (ii) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula:
[Daily rate of person's youth allowance on the relevant day x 14 x3] + Additional amount
where:
additional amount means the amount worked out in accordance with the following table:
Schedule 4, item 54, page 105 (line 27), after "period", insert "(the relevant period )".
Schedule 4, item 54, page 106 (lines 1 to 4), omit section 660LI, substitute:
660LI Amount of payment
(1) The amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula (except if paragraph 660LH(g) applies in relation to the person):
Daily rate of person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day x 14 x2
(2) If subparagraph 660LH(g) (i) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula:
[Daily rate of person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day x 14 x3] + $1,000
(3) If subparagraph 660LH(g) (ii) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula:
[Daily rate of person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day x 14 x3] + Additional amount
where:
additional amount means the amount worked out in accordance with the following table:
Schedule 6, item 3, page 141 (lines 29 and 30), omit paragraph 603AC(1) (c), substitute:
(c) she ceased to be a member of a couple after turning 40;
(2) Schedule 3, item 25, page 75 (after line 23) , after subsection 654(5) , insert:
(5A) The woman’s wife pension transition rate during the period from the day after the transition day to the day before the day on which the transition rate is ceased ( the transition period ) is worked out using Pension Rate Calculator A at the end of section 1064 (see Part 3.2).
(3) Schedule 3, items 45 to 49, page 79 (line 20) to page 80 (line 4), to be opposed.
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the Senate adopt the recommendations in the report.
PROCEDURE COMMITTEE FIRST REPORT OF 2017
Acting Deputy President, as is common for the Procedure Committee, this report deals with a number of matters. The motion I have moved would provide for the Senate to adopt two recommendations.
The first deals with some proposed changes to the Senate's hours of meeting and routine of business. Earlier in the year, the former President and I convened a working group on procedural matters, with representation from the main parties in the Senate and crossbench senators. One of the drivers for that group was a desire from crossbench senators to increase their opportunities to participate in different types of debates. To a large degree, discussions on those matters have not yet concluded, and the working group will reconvene next year to continue its work.
In the meantime, though, the Procedure Committee has agreed to what I think is a useful set of changes to the Senate's routine of business. These changes:
Adoption of recommendation 1 will see those changes in place as temporary orders for the first half of 2018, and the committee will review them during that time.
The second recommendation proposes a continuing order of the Senate to help track responses to public interest immunity claims made in respect of Senate orders for documents. In its second report of 2015 the committee endorsed a set of principles to be followed when making PII claims against the disclosure of information sought by the Senate. There has been some improvement in the way such claims are made, but the committee also noted that rates of compliance with orders remains low. The proposed continuing order would require the government to table a report every six months providing an update on the PII claims it has made.
Again, the committee will keep a watching brief on the operation of that order. Three other matters are dealt with in the report.
First, the former President referred to the committee a request from Senator Reynolds that it consider the circumstances of a vote being taken again in June this year following a claim that a vote was missed due to misadventure the previous sitting day, some 4 weeks earlier. The committee has published and endorsed a short paper on the principles involved.
The next matter, also referred by the former President, asked the committee to consider whether the Senate should develop rules for the mode of dress of senators. The committee considers that current practice, which leaves the matter to the judgment of senators, should continue.
Finally, the Senate referred two matters to the committee on 6 September, on the motion of the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Di Natale. They dealt with a proposed code for Respecting Cultural Diversity and amendments to standing order 193, dealing with the rules of debate. The committee did not consider that these matters should be progressed through adoption of a Senate order in the form proposed, nor through amendment of the standing orders. However, I expect that there will be further discussions among senators and parties about different approaches to these matters.
Acting Deputy President, as I have said, the motion I have moved would adopt the recommendations relating to the hours and routine of business, and tracking public interest immunity claims, and I commend that motion to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator Dastyari appears to have engaged in conduct amounting to a serious breach of privilege. In accepting payments, he has, to adapt the language of the Privilege Resolutions, limited his independence or freedom of action as a senator.
A senator shall not ask for, receive or obtain, any property or benefit for the senator, or another person, on any understanding that the senator will be influenced in the discharge of the senator's duties, or enter into any contract, understanding or arrangement having the effect, or which may have the effect, of controlling or limiting the senator's independence or freedom of action as a senator, or pursuant to which the senator is in any way to act as the representative of any outside body in the discharge of the senator's duties.
The freedom of individual members of the Parliament to perform their duties on behalf of the people they represent, and the need for them to be seen to be free of any improper external influence are of fundamental importance. Matters such as these go directly to the central purpose of the law of parliamentary privilege which is to protect the integrity of proceedings in parliament.
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 5 February 2018 at 10 am or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting day to the day on which the Senate next meets.
That the Senate do now adjourn.