The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
We are stuck on a debt treadmill and many of us don't know how to get off … Identify you have a problem with debt, cut back on non-essential spending … and funnel the cash freed up into paying down your bad debt.
… the changes will align community expectations in respect of the use of the term 'bank' with the fact that ADIs are prudentially supervised by APRA and deposits are covered by the FCS guarantee—
That this bill be now read a third time.
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
10. Schedule 10 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.
(2) Page 195 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, insert:
Schedule 10—E-cigarettes Therapeutic Goods Act 1989
1 After section 52E Insert:
52EAAA Certain tobacco products to be treated in the same way
(1) The Secretary must ensure that the current Poisons Standard applies in relation to:
(a) nicotine in electronic nicotine delivery systems in concentrations no greater than 20 mg/mL; and
(b) nicotine in tobacco prepared and packed for heating;
in the same way as it applies in relation to nicotine in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking.
Example: If nicotine in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking is not included in Schedule 7 of the current Poisons Standard, the Secretary must ensure that Schedule 7 does not include nicotine in electronic nicotine delivery systems in concentrations no greater than 20 mg/mL or nicotine in tobacco prepared and packed for heating.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an electronic nicotine delivery system is a product that can be used for the production and consumption of nicotine-containing vapour, or a component of such a product (including a liquid, cartridge or tank).
(3) Subsection (1) applies on and after the day that is 12 months after the commencement of this section.
(4) Subsection (1) applies despite anything in section 52E.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item, substitute:
6. Schedule 6, The day 6 months after the day on which the
Part 2 report of the review provided for in item 51A
of Schedule 6 is tabled in the Senate.
(3) Schedule 6, item 38, page 97 (line 12), omit "may", substitute "must".
(4) Schedule 6, item 38, page 100 (line 5), omit "may", substitute "must".
(5) Schedule 6, item 38, page 100 (line 21), omit "may", substitute "must".
(6)Schedule 6, page 105 (after line 5), after item 51, insert:
51A Independent review
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted into the operation of the
amendments made by this Part, including, but not limited to, the effectiveness of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in the handling of complaints about therapeutic goods advertisements directed to the public.
(2) The review must be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of 3 years after this item commences.
(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.
(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
(2) Schedule 2, item 15, page 19 (after line 24), after subsection 26BF(5), insert:
(6) All indications citing traditional evidence must include the following statement: This traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the item, substitute:
6. Schedule 6, 1 July 2020. 1 July 2020
Part 2
That these bills be now read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017
Despite its important but complex role, the VET sector has been beset with a raft of problems leading to a sector characterised by rapidly rising student debt, high student non-completion rates, poor labour market outcomes for some students, unscrupulous and fraudulent behaviour on the part of some training providers.
Revenue for the fund will be highest when skilled migration is highest, and lowest when employment of locally skilled workers is highest. That means the revenue stream for the fund will be counter-cyclical to the purpose for which it was established: to increase the proportion of locally trained workers and to lessen reliance on temporary skilled migration visas.
… the Law Council is concerned that, should the number of skilled migrants decrease due to the Levy, so too would funding. If less funding for training and vocational education is provided to Australian and permanent residents, the demand for overseas labour may increase. Therefore, the Law Council suggests that the Levy should not provide the only source of revenue for the Fund.
The VET sector should never be in a position where the best it can do to ensure sustainable funding for apprentices, going forward, is to encourage increased skilled migrant employment.
… the levels of funding provided should first and foremost be driven not by the amount raised by migration charges but by the level required to train and educate Australians that maximises their contribution to Australia's economic success, future productivity and growth.
The budget of the fund needs to be guaranteed, consistent and decoupled from how much money is actually brought in by the levy. There needs to be a guarantee of funding to ensure there is adequate training and, obviously, the levy can be used to defray. We should not have a system where there is funding for training of Australian workers contingent upon the importation of temporary workers.
It is our opinion that the VET funding model outlined in this proposal fundamentally fails to address the real weaknesses in our current VET system.
Given there is no guarantee that the SAF will receive the amount of monies that are projected to be raised through the migration programme use, this has created uncertainty in the negotiations with the states/territories.
Unless the Commonwealth guarantees funding levels and continues to make up any shortfall in the revenue, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Commonwealth to enter meaningful, bilateral agreements with the states through the fund.
There have also been some discussions around the weakening of those guidelines to include things such as apprentice-like employment, and we have seen programs such as the builders program in South Australia and other institutional based trade training programs that fundamentally, through our experience with employers, do not necessarily result in employment capabilities of the individuals participating in them.
In the absence of real transparency and firm commitments from the federal government about guaranteed levels of VET funding, the measures proposed by these bills will simply never be enough.
… TDA wishes to raise the broader concern that the Skilling Australians Fund risks focussing on apprenticeships and traineeships at the expense of responding to other important priorities facing the Australian economy. The priorities include mitigating the impact of automation, artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies on the levels and types of skill workers, and ultimately ensuring that all Australians are active participants in the labour market, which is so central to sustaining the nation's GDP, and ensuring our ongoing international competitiveness.
It is our opinion that the VET funding model outlined in this proposal fundamentally fails to address the real weaknesses in our current VET system. A relatively small, unstable funding source is not an effective remedy for a system in which few of the current issues can be considered to be caused by lack of funding.
… revenue for the fund will be highest when skilled migration is highest, and lowest when employment of locally skilled workers is highest. That means the revenue stream for the fund will be counter-cyclical to the purpose for which it was established: to increase the proportion of locally trained workers and to lessen reliance on temporary skilled migration visas.
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 at 7.26 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Commitments for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 December 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 March 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Clarification of Jurisdiction) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 June 2018 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 March 2018 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(f) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 and Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-new Dwelling Interests) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 March 2018 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Chair
15 February 2018
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Commitment for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
On the 22nd of June 2017 an almost identical Bill was referred to Committee but most submissions were from the Refugee Industry or individual refugees.
I believe many Australians were unaware of the Government's Bill and the opportunity to make a submission. My Private Senator's Bill only differs from the earlier Government's Bill is the length of time required to be on a permanent visa before applying for Citizenship.
The proposal contained in this Bill is very important. I believe Senators should be given the opportunity to hear from a wider group of Australians.
I will publicize the opportunity to make a submission if the Bill is accepted for referral.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Those Australians who did not make a submission to the Government's Bill
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date is):
June-July
Possible reporting date:
December 2018
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability)
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Changes proposed in this bill could have a substantial impact on the delivery of higher education, and students.
The introduction of a new borrowing limit across the whole income-contingent loans scheme could have a number of unintended consequences.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Union of Students (and associated student associations)
Universities Australia
University groupings (Go8, RUN, IRU)
Individual universities
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
16 March 2018
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
I ntelligence Service Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To further investigate potential impacts and unintended consequences of the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Defence (Australian Signals Directorate) CPSU
Other TBD
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s):
TBC
Possible reporting date: 22 March 2018
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Clarification of Jurisdiction) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The complex nature of the Migration Act 1958 and theAdministrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the potential impact of these changes warrant further consultation and investigation to ensure there are no unintended consequences.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by committee Possible reporting date:
5 June 2018
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No.2)
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Stakeholder concerns about lack consumer protections
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
15 March 2018
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability No. 2) Bill 2018 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-New Dwelling Interests) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Stakeholder concerns around built-to-rent and the interface with the Government's changes to the CGT concessions for MITs who build 'affordable housing'.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Property Council, HIA, UDIA, academics, not-for-profits, affordable housing bodies.
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s): On the papers
Possible reporting date: 23 March 2018
That the report be adopted.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 3 (Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015);
(b) general business notice of motion no. 724, standing in the name of Senator Urquhart relating to South Australian and Tasmanian schools funding; and
(c) orders of the day relating to documents.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator McCarthy for today for personal reasons.
That the order of the Senate agreed to on 31 August 2016, as amended on 12 February 2018, relating to the allocation of departments and agencies to legislative and general purpose standing committees, be amended as follows:
Omit "Health and Aged Care", substitute "Health".
Omit "Infrastructure and Transport", substitute "Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities".
That the Senate requests that Ms Glenys Beauchamp, PSM and Dr Chris Pigram appear before the Economics Legislation Committee to answer questions at the additional estimates hearing on 28 February 2018 or 1 March 2018 when the committee is examining the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Australian Human Rights Commission Repeal (Duplication Removal) Bill 2018
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 , and for related purposes.Australian Human Rights Commission Repeal (Duplication Removal) Bill 2018 .
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The intent of this Bill is to end the duplication between states & territories and the Commonwealth regarding human rights.
Efforts to address human rights concerns at a Commonwealth level have been activated by the external affairs power granted by the Constitution.
Conversely, states have the residual jurisdiction to address the manifest and increasing number of claims for human rights that are coming out of the international and globalist movement, particularly from the United Nations.
This Bill leaves untouched the relevant federal legislation to prevent race discrimination, age discrimination, sex discrimination and the like.
As was the case in 2000 via amendments made by the Howard Government, the Human Rights Commission will cease hearing complaints—due to its abolition. Instead, aggrieved plaintiffs will retain the right to take action under the relevant anti-discrimination regimes in the States and Territories.
In short, we must cease the increasingly aggressive agenda being advanced by so-called 'human rights commissions' and instead place the burden back on the plaintiff—as it should, under the rule of law—to establish their case before a court. It is always open to the government of the day to address the question of how the rights described in state, territory and federal legislation are resourced as a consequence of the repeal of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 or the government could propose consequential amendments to provide for applications by aggrieved plaintiffs to be lodged directly in the Federal Court.
I have to observe that the rationale for creating commissions such as these might have at least had some logical basis for the political left in the historical context of when they began. However, these regimes fail to look at the state of civil society and the advance of technology. It may once have been considered necessary to give the imprimatur of a taxpayer-funded commission to remedy power imbalances. Technology now places recording and broadcasting devices in the hands of every Australian. Speech or conduct that is deemed offensive can be the subject of near automatic broadcast. A person offended—rightly or wrongly—by speech or behaviour can pull out their phone and not just record but also broadcast live, if they wish, what they are unhappy about. The court of public opinion immediately weighs in on the matter. Technology has overtaken the rationale for having powerful commissions to take 'affirmative action'. Everyone has a voice now. The days of big government should be numbered.
However, ideology prevents the political activist acting upon the evidence and accepting reality. Their political marketing model relies on two things.
Firstly, if emancipation of a minority is achieved, the brief celebration ends and these same advocates shift to advocacy for another group that allegedly needs emancipation. It is a continuous cycle of complaint and deconstruction of our culture, institutions and civil society.
Secondly, if emancipation of a minority is not achieved—and it could be argued the so-called solutions are so ill-conceived as to ensure it is not achieved—then the next tranche of solutions are increasingly radical, aggressive and destructive. This, too, breaks down civil society as advocates' frustration leads to increasing radicalisation.
In the context of radicalisation, it is apt to turn to a self-confessed radical who occupied the highest position in the Commission I am seeking to abolish.
There has been no clearer illustration of the misguided agenda of the Commission than its time under the tenure of controversial president Gillian Triggs, whose 5 year term concluded last year.
In one of her final interviews, former Attorney-General Roxon's appointee Ms Triggs told the ABC "dealing with human beings" made her "radicalised" in the job, adding, "I don't see myself as a warrior, I'm not a warrior at all. But as you meet the people … (and she lists some) … frankly, one becomes radicalised."
The most egregious examples of the radical agenda of the former Commissioner were the cases of the late and great Bill Leak and the QUT student cases. Both turned on the problematic question of the methods aimed to advance the status of indigenous Australians.
Both cases have been well publicised and would be well-known to most senators.
Mr Leak published a cartoon in The Australian newspaper raising questions about Aboriginal parental responsibility.
The students from Queensland University of Technology (QUT) fell within Ms Triggs' remit when Ms Cindy Prior lodged a complaint against them. One of their number was refused access to what the student did not know was an Aboriginal-only computer lab on campus. Ms Prior informed the student of this exclusivity whilst on duty at the lab. After leaving, he and his associates to take to social media to express their surprise at—as one person put it—affirmative action now seeking to address 'segregation with segregation'. For this alleged thought crime, Ms Triggs deployed the full force of her powers against the students by supporting Ms Prior. Ms Prior claimed she has been so traumatised by this incident that she had suffered personal harm. The case was, ultimately, dismissed by the court—but not before significant cost and distress for the students.
In her final week as Human Rights Commissioner, Ms Triggs claimed the present government was 'ideologically opposed to human rights' and that such rights were 'regressing on almost every front'. It is the type of hyperbole one expects from political activists—which Ms Triggs became—not from an independent commissioner who determines human rights matters.
It is passing strange that I must indeed submit a human rights compliance statement not only on this bill, but every bill I present—as does every other senator—yet Ms Triggs asserts that somehow human rights are going backward.
Ms Triggs cited as evidence for her concerns former Prime Minister Abbott's pre-2013 campaigning to repeal the Commission. This is true, and it is indeed the policy position of Australian Conservatives. I am enacting that policy position today, a position that it would seem has been abandoned by a Coalition government that—as Ms Triggs points out—campaigned to do so.
To say that abolishing the Commission equates to being ideologically opposed to human rights is a false dichotomy. Repealing state apparatus that claims to uphold human rights does not equate to opposing human rights. It equates, in the case of my bill today, to:
I note that this same Gillian Triggs appeared at a fundraising event for the founder of the Australian Greens political party, Mr Bob Brown, during her tenure. Mr Andrew Bolt—another victim of the unbalanced section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act—opined at the time of this event:
"She (Triggs) has turned this taxpayer-funded body into a soapbox for the Left and a witch-hunter to persecute conservatives, while misleading the Senate."
Mr Bolt later recounted that:
Perhaps, indeed, it was applause for accomplishing the mission set by the government and indeed the Attorney-General who appointed her, Ms Nicola Roxon. This is the same Attorney-General who caused a furore in November 2012 with proposals to consolidate federal anti-discrimination laws. In effect, Labor's and Ms Roxon's proposal would have expanded prohibitions of offence, insult or intimidation in the anti-discrimination space. She said, at the time, it was a 'very sensible middle course'—a refrain picked up in other contexts by former senator Xenophon. Yet her proposals triggered some 600 submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee. Ms Roxon sought to consolidate the laws touched by my bill today into one Act, but thankfully civil society spoke up in outrage about the attack on free speech that it was. One wonders whether civil society would speak up—and be heard by a future government on this topic. Thankfully, due to the advocacy of civil society, the government retreated from its proposals.
I move on to consider the actions of another Labor appointee, by former Attorney-General Dreyfus, namely Mr Tim Soutphommasane. The late Mr Leak, in particular, took umbrage to Mr Soutphommasane's approach to his role as Race Discrimination Commissioner. Last July, Mr Soutphommasane criticised those who sought to "re-open ideological culture wars" and derided those who suggest "cultural Marxism (is) taking over public institutions." He wrote not long before his appointment that "today's conservatives frequently endorse a form of destructive radicalism towards public institutions and civil society." One could not—in my view—give a better example of Newspeak than that statement. Conservatives are the ones upholding public institutions and civil society. It is the likes of leftists like Mr Soutphommasane that are doing the very thing he accuses conservatives of doing.
A great many Australians hold conservative views and whilst open to question, when attacked by a supposedly impartial 'race discrimination commissioner', this calls into question—if I may borrow terms from the political left—his own conscious or unconscious bias.
I note that Mr Soutphommasane once said "the arts must … consciously question the status quo." Evidently, the cartoons of the late Mr Leak are not therefore art, as he was questioning the new status quo of political correctness when he was attacked under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Mr Soutphommasane's tenure concludes in August. The Institute of Public Affairs has asserted that Mr Soutphommasane has been the source of 'incessant solicitation' of complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act.
Yet the excesses of these commissions are not limited to the federal bodies. I will focus on two examples to illustrate. Before doing so, I invite colleagues to reflect that the current and future examples of state and territory regimes that I point to are not touched by this bill. They are regimes that are already aggressively pushing affirmative action. The state-federal duplication can be resolved by removing their aggressive federal counterparts, and leaving the virtue-signalling and thought-policing to the state and territory bodies.
The first example is Tasmania. In that jurisdiction, two complaints illustrate the over-reach of anti-discrimination laws there. The cases of Archbishop Porteous and pastors Markham & Gee—both relating to sexuality discrimination complaints—are sobering examples. In both instances, adherents to the Catholic and Protestant expressions of Christianity were publicly expressing their views regarding marriage and sexuality according to their holy texts. Complaints were made against them, one of which I understand is ongoing. In the Porteous case, the complaint was withdrawn but I am very reliably informed, it was withdrawn purely for tactical purposes. The complaint was so ridiculous that it had the potential to undermine the 'Yes' campaign for redefining marriage, so the complainant was encouraged to withdraw. The advocates of these thought-policing regimes that suppress free speech shrug their shoulders and say no harm was done as the complaint was withdrawn. The Archbishop suffered public ridicule and reputational attack, and had to engage legal counsel, to defend a complaint that cost the complainant next to nothing.
The second example is that proposed in the Northern Territory. Among other proposals, the government there suggests that the regime not require an actual complainant for the equivalent commission to initiate a complaint. Nor does the proposed regime require the continuing support of a complainant for the matter to continue. In both instances, the lack of an active complainant or plaintiff is an abuse of the rule of law. It suggests that the real target is not to redress personal damage or harm, but to police thought-crime. It is a frightening prospect.
I have not even mentioned yet the regime in Victoria which is also excessive, but these two examples alone ought to illustrate that there is ample movement in the human rights space—albeit misguided, aggressive 'affirmative action'—to show that there is no need for a federal body for the same purpose.
I urge the senate to end the duplication of these functions, restore the power of states and the moderating role of civil society by supporting this Bill.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 13 February 2018, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released an update on UNHCR observations from their latest mission to Manus Island,
(ii) UNHCR Regional Protection Officer, Mr Rico Salcedo, stated “What stood out the most from this mission at the time we were there, was a pervasive and worsening sense of despair among refugees and asylum seekers”,
(iii) the UNHCR further stated “We cannot emphasize enough that solutions must be found for all, outside of Papua New Guinea, as a matter of urgency. Australia remains ultimately responsible, as the state from which these refugees and asylum seekers have sought international protection, for their welfare and long-term settlement outside of Papua New Guinea”, and
(iv) there have been recent reports of deteriorating conditions on Nauru, and that refugees and people seeking asylum on Nauru are also the responsibility of Australia; and
(b) calls on the Government to end offshore detention, and evacuate to Australia every person who sought asylum in Australia and who is currently in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.
The Senate divided. [11:56]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes the Budget Priorities Statement 2018-19 of the Australian Council of Social Service launched this week in Canberra;
(b) recognises that research, from 2017, shows that single rates of unemployment payments are completely inadequate to cover basic living costs;
(c) acknowledges that our social safety net currently fails to protect those seeking work from falling into poverty;
(d) notes that the Australian Council of Social Service calls for an increase of $75 a week to allowance payments for single people from 1 January 2019; and
(e) urges the Federal Government to increase the single rate of Newstart and related allowances by $75 a week.
Notice of motion altered on 14 February 2018 pursuant to standing order 77.
That the Senate—
(a) welcomes the visit by a delegation of leaders from the Kiribati Climate Action Network and the Kiribati Ministry of Education;
(b) notes the strong bonds that exists between the people of Australia and the people of Kiribati;
(c) notes, with deep concern, the impacts that climate change is already having on Kiribati, including soil erosion and salinity, which is affecting crops and drinking water;
(d) is further concerned at reports from the 23th United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2017, that the Australian delegation pushed back against poorer countries, including Kiribati, who were calling for more funding for loss and damage caused by climate change; and
(e) calls on the Government to:
(i) increase its support to Pacific Island nations, including Kiribati, through climate finance that is separate and additional to our existing official development assistance budget,
(ii) significantly increase our commitments to cut emissions under the Paris Agreement in 2018, and take into account loss and damage caused by climate change, and
(iii) commit to no new coal mines in Australia, and rule out Adani's Carmichael coal mine.
The Senate divided. [12:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Community Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Anning
Economics Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Discharged—Senator Farrell
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senators Anning and Farrell
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Rhiannon for the committee's inquiry into the digital delivery of government services
Participating members: Senators Anning and Rhiannon
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator O'Neill
Appointed—Senator Kitching
Future of Work and Workers—Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Gichuhi
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—
Discharged—Senator Farrell
Appointed—Senator Keneally
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Keneally
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—
Senator Siewert
Senator Steele-John for 7 March 2018
Appointed—
Senator Steele-John until 6 March 2018
Senator Siewert for 7 March 2018
Senator Steele-John from 8 March 2018
Publications—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Keneally
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Keneally
Participating member: Senator Anning
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Keneally
Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) 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 Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017 will amend the tax law to replace the former Exploration Development Incentive with the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive.
The Government is focused on promoting investment and driving economic activity. Ongoing exploration and the discovery of new mineral resources are vital to the longer term future of the resources sector. This tax incentive will encourage junior explorers to take risks and to have a go at discovering the next large-scale mineral deposit. We want to back small businesses.
This Government is working to get the economic fundamentals right to build a strong prosperous Australia, improve the business climate and unleash our economic potential. We are creating a stable platform for investor confidence and growth.
This new incentive entitles Australian resident investors in small minerals exploration companies to a refundable tax offset (or where the investor is a corporate tax entity, additional franking credits) if the company in which they have invested issues them an exploration credit.
The ability of an exploration company to give up their tax losses to distribute credits to investors as a tax offset will make investing in a junior explorer more attractive.
Despite good prospects, Australia has not had a world-class minerals discovery in more than 20 years. Expenditure on greenfields exploration has declined by almost 70 per cent over the past five years to 2015-16. This incentive will make it more financially attractive for our mineral explorers to find resources in untapped regions, continuing discovery of quality resources. It builds on the EDI which ceased in 2016‑17, and aims to improve on the timeliness of the offset and target new investors that participate in new capital raisings. This will help maximise the incentive for additional investment in minerals exploration.
Not only does the extraction and sale of minerals resources make a significant contribution to the Australian economy, it also creates jobs and supports local businesses in regional communities across Australia.
Greenfield minerals exploration is essential to ensuring an investment pipeline to support the future strength of the Australian resources sector. However, these exploration companies can find it difficult to raise the capital they need to explore. A $100 million tax incentive over four years, starting in 2017-18, will make this easier.
Companies can obtain an allocation of credits by applying electronically to the Commissioner of Taxation. Credits will be allocated on a first come, first served basis, until the annual cap is reached, with any unallocated credits carried forward to the next year of the scheme.
The new process will be faster than the EDI as small exploration companies will know with certainty upfront how many credits they have been allocated before they undertake their capital raising to fund their exploration activities.
To ensure that the benefits of the incentive are widely distributed, there is a cap on the amount of credits that may be allocated to an entity of 5 per cent of the total amount available for each year.
As part of introducing the new incentive, the excess exploration credit tax will apply to ensure minerals explorers seek to create and issue exploration credits only in circumstances in which they are entitled to.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017
The VET sector should never be in a position where the best it can do to ensure sustainable funding for apprentices, going forward is to encourage increased skilled migrant employment.
… the levels of funding provided should first and foremost be driven not by the amount of money raised by migration charges but by the level required to train and educate Australians that maximises their contribution to Australia’s economic success, future productivity and growth.
The budget of the fund needs to be guaranteed—
The budget of the fund needs to be guaranteed, consistent and decoupled from how much money is actually brought in by the levy. There needs to be a guarantee of funding to ensure there is adequate training and, obviously, the levy can be used to defray. We should not have a system where there is funding for training of Australian workers contingent upon the importation of temporary workers
It is our opinion that the VET funding model outlined in this proposal fundamentally fails to address the real weaknesses in our current VET system.
In respect of the specific commitments on temporary entry in this Chapter, unless otherwise specified in Annex 10-A, neither Party shall:
(a) impose or maintain any limitations on the total number of visas to be granted to natural persons of the other Party; or
(b) require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effect as a condition for temporary entry.
In respect of the specific commitments on temporary entry in this Chapter, unless otherwise specified in Annex 10-A, neither Party shall:
(a) impose or maintain any limitations on the total number of visas to be granted to natural persons of the other Party; or
(b) require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effect as a condition for temporary entry.
… a specialist, who is a natural person with advanced trade, technical or professional skills and experience who must be assessed as having the necessary qualifications, or alternative credentials accepted as meeting Australia's standards, for that occupation, and who must have been employed by the employer for not less than two years immediately preceding the date of the application for temporary entry.
Entry and temporary stay shall be granted to contractual service suppliers of China for a period of up to four years, with the possibility of further stay.
Entry and temporary stay shall be granted to installers and servicers of China for a period of up to three months.
(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 14, insert:
14A At the end of subsection 140GBA(4)
Add "The period must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.".
(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (after line 24), after subsection 140GBA(6), insert:
(6AA) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection(5) unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:
(a) will be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and
(b) will set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position.
(6AB) A duration determined for the purposes of paragraph (6) (d) must be at least 4 weeks.
… quite frankly, given the government's history on labour market testing, why would you trust this government to implement a serious regime of labour market testing? We just don't.
The committee divided. [13:51]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 6), at the end of section 140ZM, add:
Exemption for small businesses
(3) However, a person is not liable to pay nomination training contribution charge to the Commonwealth in relation to:
(a) a nomination by the person under section 140GB; or
(b) an application for approval of a nomination of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a visa;
if both of the following apply:
(c) the person carries on a business that in the financial year before the financial year in which the application or nomination is made had a turnover of less than $5 million;
(d) the application or nomination is made for the purposes of employing a person in connection with that business.
… the report is entirely false.
… what do you do with the next [coalmine], and the next one, and the one after that?
I see no reason for Labor to toughen its position. Why win Batman and lose in central Queensland?
The environment groups have worked themselves up into a passion about it. I don’t know why. Adani is just another project and it should be judged on its merits.
One count was the Prime Minister suggesting that somehow I did not support clean coal technology—
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the breaching of the standards required of ministers by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Ministers … must not seek or encourage any form of gift in their personal capacity.
Ministers' close relatives and partners are not to be appointed to positions in their ministerial or electorate offices, and must not be employed in the offices of other members of the executive government without the Prime Minister's express approval.
Ministers … must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety … and … conduct themselves in a manner that will ensure public confidence in them and in the government.
Suggestion for Barnaby. Announce today: "Because of circumstances ,I have asked the Prime Minister to have Foreign Minister Bishop stand in for him when he goes to Washington next week".
The Senate divided. [15:37]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate calls on the Deputy Prime Minister to resign from his position of Deputy Prime Minister of Australia for clearly breaching the standards required of Ministers; and if he does not resign, calls on the National Party to sack him as leader.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Marshall today relating to payday lenders.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) to a question without notice asked by Senator Rice today relating to toll roads.
That Senator Keneally be appointed to committees as set out in the document circulated in the chamber:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Economics Legislation Committee
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees
Participating member: Senator Keneally
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Report—Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 [Provisions] and Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 [Provisions]
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Report—Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Environment and Communications References Committee—Report—Shark mitigation and deterrent measures
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Archives Act 1983 , the Senate elect Senator Moore to be a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives for a period of 3 years, on and from today.
Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015
… some metropolitan community palliative care services are struggling to cope with demand …
The purpose of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 is fourfold.
First, it reduces the extent of Commonwealth interference with the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
Second, it will encourage competitive federalism—the process whereby each state enacts laws in competition with the others—thereby refining and improving law-making.
Third, it recognises the right of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to legislate for assisted suicide in their respective jurisdictions.
Fourth, it ensures that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (NT) is not automatically revivified, allowing the Parliament of the Northern Territory to revisit the issue in a time and manner of its choosing.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that the $210 million funding cut to South Australian schools and $68 million in Tasmanian schools, in 2018 and 2019, means that schools will face significant cuts; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to immediately reinstate the funding previously committed to South Australian and Tasmanian schools.
The National Catholic Education Commission has warned Coalition MPs they will be targeted if the government doesn't use the 2018 budget to reverse a '$1.1 billion …
Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) 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 Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017 will make amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002to further enhance the proceeds of crime regime.
The amendments in the bill will allow proceeds authorities, such as the Australian Federal Police, to restrain and forfeit property where illicit funds are used to make payments on that property. The bill does this by amending key terms in the act, including 'lawfully acquired', 'proceeds', 'instruments', 'improvements' and 'derived from an offence'.
These amendments are necessary as developments in case law have indicated that a person's interest in property is fixed at the moment of initial acquisition, and that any subsequent payments on the property are irrelevant to determining if the property is lawfully acquired or derived from crime.
This loophole could allow organised crime groups to use a web of financial arrangements and asset protection structures to avoid forfeiture of property. For example: criminals may be able to avoid the current proceeds regime by funneling money into ongoing property maintenance and restoration costs, mortgage repayments and improvements.
The existence of this loophole is contrary to the central purpose of the act, which is to undermine the profitability of criminal enterprises.
The amendments in the bill support this central purpose by allowing proceeds authorities to restrain and forfeit property where illicitly obtained money is used to service repayments on loans taken out on the property or fund improvements to the property.
The amendments are designed to function alongside existing provisions in the act which protect individuals who unknowingly acquire proceeds of crime or do so lawfully. These individuals can continue to draw on robust protections which allow them to: exclude their property from forfeiture or restraint, transfer forfeited property back to themselves or obtain compensation for the proportion of the value of the property they obtained lawfully.
This bill demonstrates the government remains committed to making our communities safer by taking effective steps to combat the parasitic effect of serious and organised crime, which is estimated to cost Australia $36 billion every year.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
That the Senate take note of the document.
The committee recommends that the Australian Government immediately replace the current CDP compliance and penalty regime with obligations that are no more onerous than those of other income support recipients. CDP participants must have the same legal rights and other responsibilities as other income support participants, taking into account special circumstances such as remote locations and cultural obligations.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… they are geographically and ethnically diverse and are representative of the issues people with disabilities, particularly Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people with disabilities, face in the criminal justice system across Australia.
… the disability is often undetected in childhood, and even when it is, support services are difficult to access, putting them on a path where they are more likely to be incarcerated than get a university degree.
In all 14 prisons visited, Human Rights Watch found that prisoners with disabilities are viewed as easy targets and as a result are at serious risk of violence and abuse …
One woman with a disability told Human Rights Watch: "The officers [use] intimidation tactics. Especially for us girls, that just reminds us of our domestic violence back home, it scares us. If you want to get through to us, they should be nice to us."
I'm an easy target because of mental illness. If we get caught fighting, they will tell the officer, 'She hit first because the voices told her.'
… can find it extremely challenging to understand prison rules and follow instructions. As a result, they are at higher risk of violating the rules and of facing violence from other prisoners and staff.
Prisoners with a psychosocial or cognitive disability can spend weeks or months locked in solitary confinement in detention, or crisis or safety units, for 22 hours or more a day.
Conduct a national inquiry into the use of solitary confinement of prisoners with disabilities.